5. EMI and other approved schemes - any problems
John Harrison asked about the number of schemes. Nick Tant stated that, up to December, SV had dealt with 285 EMI schemes and 13 AESP schemes and that numbers were staying high.
Mark Collard asked whether SV took the view that the difference between the old £30,000 limit and new £100,000 limit for EMI schemes meant that SV now thought it was entitled to more information than before. He had an instance where the Board of his client had to minute that a float was not planned, despite the valuation being in respect of a 0.15% holding. He accepted that the Board had a float in mind in around nine months but felt that that information would not be available to a minority purchaser.
Nick Tant replied that nothing is definite regarding information standards and that it is what is felt is reasonably required, a view echoed by Paul Fisher. Tim Jameson and David Perrin felt that SV was using its bargaining power on options in a way that it could not on other valuations and that training taught that SV held the whip hand and that matters could be delayed so as to wait and see what actually happened. Nick Tant denied that this was so and stated that our results indicated that these cases were dealt with swiftly. Fred Cook asked if Mark Collard could let him have the specifics of that case. John Cooper said that he was largely happy with SV's approach and suggested that SV should accept a value and, if a float occurs, merely withdraw approval.
Colin Gibson reported that targets were being met, despite having 10% of the staff in training, this follows a large exodus to elsewhere in the Revenue on promotion The average settlement time is now 7.5 months, down from 9 months last year. The number of old cases was falling; cases over three years were now down to 381 from 554 a year ago and the oldest case, 14 years old, was closed recently. Our post response times were 83% in 15 working days (had been 84% in 28 days last year) and 98% in 40 working days (had been 96% in 56 days last year)
7. The Revenue as an enabling organisation. What do you want?
Colin Gibson talked about the effort to modernise the Civil Service. It is the Revenue's aim to help the taxpayer understand the tax system and pay the right amount of tax, with the emphasis moving to assisting them meet their obligations rather than letting them get it wrong and then landing on them. This, though, should not be taken as the Revenue being soft on those who have no intention of fulfilling their obligations. SV would welcome constructive comment on how it can improve its service.
John Cooper re-iterated his wish that some of SV's information store would be available to practitioners and wondered whether SV could make more use of the internet.
John Harrison brought up his concern that there is a increasing perception that SV is seeking to "max the tax" rather than arrive at a fair value and that this perception is fuelled by SV's internal records of figures such as capital change. Colin Gibson replied that he viewed the capital change statistic as fairly meaningless and would never tolerate valuers arguing solely to improve statistics. The Revenue was there to collect the right amount of tax at the right time, not to maximise yield. He felt that statistics that merely focussed on the tax gained could distort people's aims. Mike Fowler queried the origin of John Harrison's concerns; he replied that the perception was not personal and that he was re-assured by Colin Gibson's comments.
Fred Cook commented that the perception may stem from increased risk assessment, SV would not waste time on cases where matters could be accepted. SV would pursue worthwhile cases but that should not confused with targeting tax take. SV is objective, the relevance of the tax position is one strand of risk assessment.
Colin Gibson re-iterated that SV would focus on cases where negotiation was justified with the benefit that more cases would be settled sooner. If agents felt that a case was being kept open only to maximise the tax yield, they were welcome to contact him or one of the Assistant Directors. SV need to keep statistics for management information and for external use.
Frank Govan asked whether it would be possible to have binding advance rulings which would mean earlier work for SV. Colin Gibson said that SV should be doing that if it facilitated business but there were wider problems with pre-transaction rulings, not least the Revenue being tested with alternatives until one was accepted. John Cooper queried the practicalities in terms of whether SV would charge for their services and how SV's resources would be affected.
8. The future of the forum/next meeting
Colin Gibson expressed his view that the forum was useful but that he would not want it viewed as a clique. It should be seen as open with others able to attend if they wished. It was suggested that the minutes could be published on the internet; David Perrin offered the Chartered Institute of Taxation's web-site in the short term, if SV's could not host them. Mark Collard suggested advertising in Taxation. It was agreed that the Forum must not be perceived as a closed shop.
Every six months was felt to be about right, though it was suggested that there should be scope for flexibility if, for example, the budget were to throw up anything interesting. Notwithstanding that event, the next meeting was fixed for 24 July 2001 at the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
| Home | ||||
