Lambert Chapman LLP’s Chris Harman reviews the Pre Budget Report

I am having difficulty working out where Mr Darling thinks we are and where I think we are.  I had expected a tough PBR with swingeing cuts in public sector spending, cuts in benefits and hard but short and sharp increases in taxes.  I feel the nation would have winced, maybe squealed, but would have probably kept a stiff upper lip, taken the medicine and worked through.  It seems to me that the levels of borrowing are such that a few £billion here or there do not make a difference anymore.  Indeed, we were told that the decisions are being made from a position of strength.  I shudder to think what a position of weakness would be.

I am wondering what affect the windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses will have?  Will it start to drive banks from our shores or will they threaten to move, but stay, because the people with the skills they need are here and the costs and upheaval of moving is not worth it?  I also wonder how the economics of the windfall tax will work because I see it that we, the nation, are shareholders in many banks, so is it us helping to pay a tax that will be paid back to us?

I note the “drive” to encourage people to go “green” with electrically driven cars.  The emission level tax bands are being moved so there will be increased tax charges for many company car drivers.  This is likely to encourage some company car drivers to give up their company car, take a cash salary adjustment and buy their own vehicle.  Maybe, it will be an electrically driven one, in which case I can see that when there are enough such cars, there will be a tax imposed on them because our Government will have worked out that to generate electricity you have to use other sources of fuel. 

I await the Spring Budget to see if it addresses our nation’s problems as I thought that the PBR would. 

Lambert Chapman LLP make Pre-Budget Report predictions

On our main site we produced an article making predictions on the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report. Our material came from a number of Lambert Chapman personnel and the full text of their thoughts is included below. We would be delighted if you wished to add your own comments underneath.

Chris Harman 

Colin Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently said ‘It is right that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax.  However, there are a minority who continue to seek ways to avoid paying their share.  This is unacceptable.  It is unfair on the majority of taxpayers, undermines fiscal sustainability, and reduces funding for public services.  This Government will not tolerate tax avoidance schemes or tax evasion in any form, and will act promptly to tackle both of these’.

 From that statement which includes tax avoidance I must put as one of my top predictions that:

• HMRC will take the view that many things that are tax planning will, in HMRC view, be considered as tax avoidance and therefore many simple and standard tax planning actions will be disallowed. 

Other predictions:

• Corporation Tax : Small Companies rate to stay at 21%.  Main rate to stay at 28%.
• Income Tax : A 60% rate to be introduced for income above £250,000.  Environmental issue ; People who commute to work in their car and who are provided with free parking by their employer will have a taxable benefit on the provision of the parking space unless they also transport a passenger to their workplace.
• Capital Gains Tax : The rate to increase to at least 25%.  The Exemption to elect for a second home to be a Principle Private Residence (PPR) to be abolished.  PPR to be exempt only up to a fixed level of gain and any PPR gain over that level to be taxed at a rate that is less than the full CGT rate. 
• IHT : The £nil rate band to increase to £750,000.  A 50% band on Estates over £5,000,000.  Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief to be capped.
• NIC : No changes.
• Stamp Duty : The £175,000 starting level for residential houses to be extended to £200,000 w.e.f 1/12/2009.
• VAT : The 15% rate will continue until 30th June 2010 from when it will be 20%.  The reduced rate of 5% for domestic heating will be increased to 10% w.e.f 1st January 2010 (I must get my next lot of oil ordered!)
• Wealth Tax : A new tax which will be 0.25% on assets, anywhere in the world, owned by a U.K. domiciled resident where their Open Market Value at 31st December each year exceeds £5,000,000.  The rate will be increased or the excess level will be reduced in the tax year during which people emigrate.
• The proposed alignment of our fiscal year to be moved to a calendar year and therefore inline with much of the world.
• Beer and spirit duties : The duties will remain the same but steps will be put in place to set minimum selling prices so that supermarkets can’t sell cheap alcohol.
• Road Fund Licence : Increases on ’unfriendly vehicles’.  The lowering of the emission bands for ‘friendly vehicles’.
• Funding for the building of more Universities to start in 2013.  This will be because more people will have to have a ‘degree’ before they can undertake their chosen work* and will also be seen as giving the Construction Industry a boost following on from the Olympics building work.  Measures will be brought in so that ‘one man band’ and ‘labour only’ construction workers will have to be employees and not self employed if they are to work on any such projects.
• The ‘remittance basis’ for U.K. residents who are not U.K. domiciled will apply to those who have been U.K. resident for five of the last seven years (instead of 7 of the last 9 years).
• Long term unemployed without any qualifications will be offered a cash inducement to travel to interviews and jobs (for the first year of work). Those who have studied and worked will have to get on with it without any help). 

I heard on the radio this morning that all new nurses will, by 2013 (funny that is after the Olympics!) have to have a degree before they can become a nurse.  I know that they have to undergo learning and need a degree or a diploma to be a nurse (they can start nurse training with no qualifications), but, the radio report only mentioned a degree so is a diploma out of the window?  Isn’t nursing a vocation?  I can foresee other trades will be pushed towards having to have qualifications i.e a butcher needing something in the field of chemistry combined with biology!

Gill Philpott and the Tax Team

Capital gains tax rate to rise to 25% to cut the differential between income tax and capital gains tax which has in the last year led to tax payers seeking to tax events as capital rather than income

To assist the property market the retention of the £175,000 Stamp Duty Land Tax exemption

Introduction of anti avoidance legislation aimed at removing tax advantages of employee benefit arrangements

Another deferral on the introduction of the income shifting rules due to difficulties in drafting the legislation

A measure to penalise ‘fat cat’ city bonuses – perhaps in the form of a punative National Insurance Rate,

and of course the perenial favourites years measures to promote green issues and measures to penalise the drinkers and smokers and drivers of fuel guzzling cars

Something we would like to see but don’t think will be introduced profit averaging for all businesses and not just farmers and artists to help businesses even out profits, tax and therefore cashflow between the good and bad years.

Mike Carabine

Mike Carabine

The standard VAT rate is due to go back up to 17.5% from 1 January 2010. However I predict the increase will be delayed 1 or 2 months but will rise to 18% (possibly even as far as 20%).

Potentially reducing the range of supplies qualifying for VAT zero-rating, blaming EC legislation whilst increasing the amount coming into Treasury coffers.

More attacks on tax avoidance schemes.

Corporation Tax for small companies to rise to 22% as was meant to happen from 1 April 2009. Rates for large companies to continue to fall.

Nigel Whittle 

Increase the Capital Gains Tax rate to 30%

Lisa Potter 

I believe that Government will be playing their cards close to their chest.  With an election around the corner they would be suicidal to make any radical announcements beyond those already in place without further risking their chances of being re-elected.    

 The one announcement to keep an eye out for will be the VAT rate from 1st January, I believe that this may be announced at a higher rate than the 17.5% previously in place.   Regardless of what the rate is, businesses will once again suffer from the inconvenience of the administration burden as a result of the change and many will remain confused as to what income falls under what VAT regime.

 I believe that the 50% higher rate will be fully implemented for forthcoming tax periods.   As for corporation tax I would like to see some changes to the rate for smaller companies, larger company’s have benefited from decrease in rates whilst the smaller company rate has increased.  In light of the current climate this should be addressed to assist those businesses that are in more need of the assistance.      

Overall I think it will be a non-eventful Pre-Budget report based more on the protection of their re-election chances than changes to legislation that will lose them votes.

Richard Thomson

With the next election looming, I think they will be looking for increasing support from voters whilst trying to increase revenue, by delayed measures and targeting higher earners.

Therefore unlikely to increase VAT, Corp tax etc in short term.

Likely to have notional ‘feel good’ announcements:

• Gift to pensioners – extra winter payments,   tax benefits etc.
• Revision of tax credits with increase to lower incomes.
• Further adjustment to ISA’s and encouragement of savings.

And will also have:

Increasing tax on wealthy – perhaps reducing the £150K 50% band.

Increasing NIC on high earners – increasing rate, upper band.

Focusing on Green issues and tax incentives, with additional tax charges for those not being green.

Increase to CGT rate of 18%, which is relatively low.

Revision to IHT to assist middle England – which as house prices have fallen, won’t be as dramatic as many claim.

and of course:

preventing Income shifting, introducing NIC on close company divi’s, increasing tax avoidance schemes etc.

The Car Scrappage Scheme – is it for you?

The car scrappage scheme was introduced at the last budget until 31 March 2010 in an effort to provide £300 million support to the car industry. It follows on from schemes that have been operating successfully in some European Countries. Essentially you can get £2,000 for trading in a 10 year old car that you have owned for at least a year for a new vehicle. £1,000 comes from the government and the balance from the vehicle manufacturer. With cars always being a touchy topic we asked Nick and Chris to put forward points in favour or against the scheme.

For: I’m no car enthusiast so for me the vehicle is designed to get one from A to B in the maximum of comfort. I am hopeful that the scheme produces increased orders and allows employment to be maintained within the car industry in the United Kingdom.

Safety is an important point. Whilst I look back warmly to travelling around the country in a Ford Cortina or a Hillman Hunter it does not mean I need to repeat the experience. Whilst classic cars look lovely I have to confess I don’t feel comfortable in them and even with the safest of drivers I am not convinced we will get round the next corner.  A 10 year old car might not necessarily present such a problem but we do forget that a previous car does not have the brakes that our current model has!

Comfort comes a strong second to safety in my book. If we spend time in our car surely we want to be as comfortable as possible. I am sure that the current model for the majority of cars is more comfortable and therefore preferable to the one being scrapped!

The green issue is also an important consideration. In the small car market I am sure that huge strides have been made in the last 10 years to make the engines more efficient and with car taxation being changed over from the old CC method to the new CO2’s continued efforts are being made to reduce the emissions that are harmful to the environment. What gets overlooked is the miles travelled to bring vehicles into the Country but this is a political hot potato, along with food miles, that will be debated more and more as time passes.

The majority of people want to drive the newest vehicle that they can. When I started driving you aspired to a new vehicle but knew it was a distant dream. Long journeys were planned with spare parts in mind or not even contemplated and starting the vehicle on cold winter mornings a lottery to say the least! Youngsters have never experienced these problems and there is no reason to suggest that they would want to start. Affording the vehicle and insuring it are the current problems but that’s another issue altogether!

Against: I look at the car scrappage scheme as a classic car enthusiast, someone who is concerned for our environment and as a Tax Partner of Lambert Chapman LLP. The three don’t mix. I recollect we were told the car scrappage scheme was to boost the UK car industry and take older vehicles off the road in favour of newer, safer and potentially greener cars.

Let me break down this sentence into the following:

“UK Car Industry”

I consider that the UK doesn’t have a car industry anymore, at least, not of the importance it once was. We used to be a world leader in the car industry but by a mixture of complacency, poor management and over enthusiastic union power, it was destroyed. The car scrappage scheme certainly brings newer cars onto the road and a lot of them are the small lower end market vehicles which, by the very nature of their manufacturers, means a lot of our money is leaving these shores. I recently saw a newspaper report that a certain Japanese manufacturer was having to get its work force to work overtime so they could build enough cars to ship to Britain in time for the new batch of UK registrations.

“Newer Cars”

Why do we have to love “newer cars”? Why don’t we look to having well built cars that last? We are preoccupied with fads and fashion.

“Safer Cars”

 I agree that if cars are poorly maintained they become unsafe so why not channel some of the money into resources to make sure the authorities can finance more rigid checking of more vehicles to ensure they are safe? A modern car is easier to drive than an old car but if the driver adapts their style an old car, driven correctly, is safe (maybe a purge on unsafe drivers is needed?)

“Greener Cars”

I am not convinced on this. I said I was a car enthusiast and my classic car is a 1972 Rover V8. People may say that it is a gas guzzler and not very green but I counter that argument by pointing out I am driving 37 year old metal. There hasn’t been the cost of using fossil fuels to destroy the old vehicle and refine metal to make a new vehicle (never mind the transport costs, etc of new vehicles). Our Government introduced, in April 2002, a 100% capital allowance relief on cars with low emissions. The 100% only applies to new cars so a second hand car doesn’t qualify for the enhanced relief. That is not green as it does not encourage recycling!

I don’t see the car scrappage scheme as really being the answer. I feel that the money could have been better spent in supporting industries that generate wealth for our country. There is also the impact on small businesses who rely upon making parts for old cars. Many of those businesses are in Britain and close to the old car manufacturing establishments. As at August 2009 it was reported that there has been over 35,000 new cars ordered because of the Government scrappage scheme. I am surprised at the number which means 35,000 less opportunities. If the green issue is to be addressed then why is there not a heavy charge on new luxury motor cars or why did they not use the car scrappage money as an incentive on new green vehicles that really are green and are being produced in the normal course of replacing cars?

Recently there was a report that some manufacturers have increased their car prices because of the car scrappage scheme so that they end up being in the same position. That is disappointing but from an economic point of view, who can really blame them?

On a final note, I know of a number of good classic cars that have gone into the scrappage scheme. The scheme means they must be destroyed so it is likely there have been some good, running and reliable old cars that provided transport to a family and the vehicle isn’t going to depreciate any more and could possibly be appreciating. Will the replacement cars depreciate? I suppose one way of looking at it is that the owners of similar models of cars that are in turn classics will find the value of their classic has increased. I could be one of them.

So there you have it – but what do you think?  If you wish to add your own comment at the foot of this article.