HMRC appears to have concluded that significant numbers of businesses have yet to align their transfer pricing policies with the transfer pricing outcomes of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project. HMRC has accordingly introduced a new Profit Diversion Compliance Facility (PDCF) to encourage multinational enterprises (MNEs) to make voluntary disclosures about any transfer pricing arrangements that fall within the scope of the Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) legislation.
MNEs are encouraged to review their transfer pricing policies, change them if appropriate, and submit a report with a proposal to settle any tax, interest and penalties due. Reports made by MNEs that are not already subject to an investigation by HMRC will be treated as unprompted disclosures, and will thereby attract lower minimum penalties. In certain circumstances penalties will be reduced to nil as long as accurate disclosure is made by 31 December 2019. HMRC also states that tax-related criminal investigations will be highly unlikely if a full and accurate disclosure is made.
HMRC has stated that it will contact businesses it has identified, through its ongoing data analysis, as having a combination of features associated with profit diversion. Using the PDCF may be beneficial if you are contacted by HMRC, or if you feel you may be at risk of a DPT investigation.
Is this relevant to you?
The PDCF guidance provides useful insight into HMRC’s views on what situations give rise to profit diversion risk, how a transfer analysis should be carried out, and what evidence is required to support intragroup transfer pricing policies.
HMRC’s indicators of Profit Diversion Risk include situations where:
How JHA can help
Given HMRC’s approach, you may wish to seek a second, independent view on whether your current transfer pricing filing position is robust. If you do, we can offer unique expertise in assessing whether you may be at risk of a transfer pricing related tax charge and, if so, how best to present your case to HMRC under the PDCF.
JHA’s tax disputes team has vast experience of dealing with HMRC enquiries and investigations in transfer pricing disputes, having advised on some of the highest profile and value disputes in recent years. Uniquely, we are top ranked in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 for tax disputes generally. We bring together in one firm specialist tax QCs, experienced tax disputes solicitors, and forensic accountants. We are independent of, but have good relations with, the Big 4 and other leading accounting firms. We consider that we are exceptionally well placed to help guide you through any report you wish to make under the PDCF, whether with your internal team or working in conjunction with your other tax advisors.
Law firms look set to expand their legal teams in the first half of 2019, with a particular focus on their disputes practices. Yet new research, recently shared in the Global Legal Post, suggests that there is a lack of skilled lawyers, legal secretaries and paralegals available in the market to meet this expanding demand. The research notes that large international firms are likely to struggle most with the increasing trend for leading individuals at all levels to move to smaller, often specialist, firms.
The draws of small firms for talented lawyers and business services employees include opportunities for greater work-life balance, diversity and flexible working. Smaller firms can also provide a stronger sense of community, creating an environment that lends itself to greater empathy and acceptance of individual circumstances and challenges. This friendlier and more open culture can also result in greater diversity across the workforce.
For trainees, associates and paralegals there are further benefits to choosing smaller firms. It is likely that they will perform more substantive legal tasks than those at their larger counterparts. This can result in a faster-paced learning environment. Associates may also have greater levels of client contact; at large law firms this is often the reserve of more senior lawyers.
Smaller outfits can also more easily promote accelerated career progression, as there are fewer layers of management and bureaucracy. It can also be easier to demonstrate worth and gain recognition; lawyers can more easily build an individual practice and move towards partnership. With all this in mind, it is unsurprising that many talented junior lawyers are opting to join smaller firms.
For partners there is the opportunity for increased influence over firm management, strategy and development. There is more tolerance and understanding of individual ways of working, and greater scope in the development of practices, in terms of direction, variation and growth, due to both the flexibility and the lack of client conflicts found at smaller firms.
Although this new research does not herald a step change in today’s global legal market, it indicates that many of those working in private practice are rightly thinking beyond firm size, profile and global footprint when choosing where to work.
This month, the UK Government has announced new measures to increase further transparency and tackle corruption. These are aimed at stopping the abuse of limited partnerships (LPs) and Scottish liability partnerships (SLPs) for money laundering purposes, an issue which has again come to the fore since the latest revelations regarding what is commonly known as the Danske Bank Affair.
The Danske Bank Affair concerned allegations that up to €200 billion was laundered through the Estonian branch of Denmark’s largest bank between 2007 and 2015. The European Commission has called it the “biggest scandal in Europe”, and it has prompted action from regulators worldwide causing impacts that have reached far beyond those directly involved. Although now closed, the case has triggered investigations in the UK due to the alleged use of limited liability partnerships (LLPs), LPs and SLPs for money laundering purposes.
The UK’s National Crime Agency has openly recognised the “threat posed by the use of UK company structures as a route for money laundering” and is investigating the use of these companies and professional enablers in connection with the widening scandal. One entity linked to the affair is already officially under criminal investigation.
Danske whistleblower Howard Wilkinson, who led the bank’s Baltics trading unit from 2007 to 2014, told a Danish parliamentary hearing last month that “The role of the United Kingdom is an absolute disgrace. Limited liability partnerships and Scottish liability partnerships have been abused for absolutely years”. In September, an inquiry by a Danish law firm into the affair stated that LLPs and SLPs made up the second biggest proportion of their Estonian branch’s non-resident customers – second only to those based in Russia.
Although UK regulators may have been aware of the misuse of these corporate vehicles for some time, this is the first time the Government has officially announced it will be introducing new measures to bring greater transparency and more stringent checks to LPs and SLPs.
The requirements will include that those registering LPs and/or SLPs must demonstrate that they are registered with an official anti-money laundering supervised agent, such as an accountant or a lawyer, or an overseas equivalent. The LP must demonstrate an ongoing link to the UK, for example by keeping its principal place of business in the UK. All LPs must submit a confirmation statement at least every 12 months to Companies House to ensure their information is accurate and up to date, and that Companies House will be given powers to strike off dissolved LPs and SLPs that are not carrying on business.
UK Business Minister Kelly Tolhurst said “The UK is taking strong action in the international fight against money laundering and today’s proposals will increase best practice amongst businesses.” The proposals come ahead of broader reforms which aim to ensure that Companies House is fit for the future and continues to contribute to the UK’s business environment through tackling corruption.
This most recent development in the UK shows the extent of the Danske Bank Affair’s impact. Although discussion around the need for changes to LP requirements dates back to well before revelations of the scandal, it has been a catalyst in bringing about significant changes to this area of UK corporate law. It will affect all UK-registered LPs and could make the UK a less attractive proposition for some investors due to the new demands. It is part of a continuing drive by the UK Government to ensure the country has world-leading corporate standards.
Read the press release from the UK Government on the proposed changes here.
“If men will have multiple injuries, actions must be multiplied too; for every man that is injured ought to have his recompense” (Chief Justice Holt, 1704)
The predictions of flood gates opening and US class actions coming to the English courts following the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have been exaggerated; there has not yet been one.
The GDPR was expected to empower the individual and demand greater transparency from data controllers. Following the availability of group remedies with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the rise in litigation funding there appeared to be a receptive environment for potential group actions. However, UK representative actions are subject to restrictions under the Rules of Court, which means that they cannot develop into anything resembling the nature and scale of US class actions.
In the US the class action is a social institution. It regulates conduct, it is a deterrent, it rewards lawyers who act as gate keepers, and it compensates the public. Culturally the UK has not shown acceptance of US Court practices, particularly the class action. “Compensation culture” has not been viewed with universal approbation in the UK, by the public or the courts. The popular reaction to PPI exemplifies this; huge efforts by claims management companies have only resulted in 12 million claims being brought even though regulators estimate there are some 64 million miss-sold policies. The British public is reluctant to pursue compensation.
The UK government’s decision not to adopt the opt-out option in the GDPR Article 80(2) reflects the lack of enthusiasm. Opting-in requires any qualifying representative body to collect signatories with all parties choosing to opt-in. The criteria to qualify as a representative body include that they must be not-for-profit, have “statutory objectives which are in the public interest” and be “active in the field of the protection of data subjects’ rights and freedoms”. In the US a single claimant can represent an entire group, resulting in a large class action as claimants have to opt-out.
English common law requires that damages should be limited to compensation for an actual loss. The US operates a punitive damages regime; juries hear the case and set the damages, which can then be trebled if the judge considers the defendant should be punished. None of this applies in the UK.
There is a commercial barrier in the UK, as small amounts historically awarded in this jurisdiction for data breaches are insufficient to support a group action. The prospect of scant financial reward means there is little incentive for claimants to opt-in to a group action. Even if sufficient claimants can be identified, their reticence means that trial lawyers would not have a critical mass of claimants to represent.
There are no successful test cases and no financial incentives to make such costly and time consuming cases appealing for claimant firms or litigation funders. There is little to entice lawyers to build a case. Also, ironically, the unsolicited direct communications that the GDPR seeks to limit actually hinder the ability of claimant lawyers to find signatories for group actions and the chances of one happening.
In the RBS Rights Issue Litigation last year, the court ordered the funder to pay £7.5 million security on account of soaring costs. This shows a court can take into account the fact that a party is funding litigation on a commercial basis and seeking to profit from it. The costs order caused the funder to re-evaluate the risks of continuing the litigation, which had an influence on the final settlement reached in June 2017.
The structure of group actions and the funding mean that proceeds go into the pockets of litigation funders and claimant lawyers, not to the claimants themselves. Lloyd v Google case was the first time a data misuse representative action was brought in the UK. The cause of action was for misuse of confidential information and damages under section 13(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. It concerned a “cookie” attached to the Safari app used in Apple iPhones, which, without the user’s knowledge or consent tracked “visits by the device to any website displaying an advertisement from [Google’s] vast advertising network, and to collect considerable amounts of information.” In the US, there had been a substantial regulatory penalty and payments in consumer based claims brought by the Attorney-Generals of 37 States. In England there had not even been a regulatory penalty.
The claim for damages was negotiated, based on what would be a reasonable price for a license to use the data. Mr Justice Warby (Warby J) held that this was not available under English Law for the collecting and misuse of data.
Warby J stated that the claimant was seeking to represent individuals who “have not authorised the pursuit of the claim, nor indicated any concern about the matters to be litigated”. Even though Google’s actions were potentially a breach of duty, “the main beneficiaries of any award by the end of this litigation would be the funders and the lawyers by a considerable margin” and that the case would consume a “considerable amount of court time”. The claimant claimed to be a “representative claimant” under CPR 19.6 alleging a group with a shared grievance. However, loss would have to be assessed on an individual basis and there was not a “shared interest” between the individuals, a requirement for a representative action. The judge did not allow the case to proceed.
There is no track record for data abuse group claims being successful in the UK, no financial inducements for lawyers or funders, and nothing to whet the appetite for individual claimants to become involved. When the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was introduced with its opt-out clause relating to damages actions, there were similar predictions that there would be a wave of US-style class actions. Collective proceeding orders under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 (which allows opt-out proceedings) were not granted by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on the facts in Dorothy Gibson v Pride Mobility Products Limited (mobility scooters) and Walter Hugh Merricks v MasterCard Incorporated (Credit Card charges). The GDPR does not provide as much scope as section 47B, as in the UK it is opt-in only.
The Morrisons data breach case might indicate that there could be certain group actions. Mr Justice Langstaffe held that although the supermarket was not the data controller and had no personal liability for a data leak affecting some 100,000 employees, it was vicariously liable for the data controller. The case provided employees with the opportunity to claim compensation against their employer for distress: Various Claimants v Wm Morrisons Supermarket Plc [2018] 3 W.L.R. 691. There is a strong policy argument for protecting employees and giving them an effective remedy against their employer for data leakage. Employees should receive compensation when the data controller, a person given that role and funded by the employer, is liable for data leakage.
Culturally, economically and legally the UK is not yet receptive to group actions on the scale of US class actions. Regulatory bodies can impose fines. The EU directive offered member states the opportunity to provide redress to individuals damaged through data abuse, on an opt out basis. That opportunity has not been taken, at least until 2020 when there is the opportunity for the UK Government to review implementation of Article 80. Roman law set the bar with its principle of ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ (where there is a right there is a remedy). This is a fundamental principle of the English common law; Chief Justice Holt said in 1704, “…It is no objection to say that it will occasion multiplicity of actions; for if men will have multiple injuries, actions must be multiplied too; for every man that is injured ought to have his recompense.” Data misuse is an area where the rights of the ordinary member of the public are yet to be protected with an effective remedy.
Companies are facing greater inconvenience and expense as the duration of HMRC investigations continues to grow. The average time large businesses can now expect inquiries to last is 39 months. The 2016-17 typical time was 34 months, up from 31 months in the previous financial year.
There are a number of possible explanations for this increase. Many businesses and private practice lawyers point to the more aggressive approach being taken by HMRC, including an unwillingness to settle cases and a real lack of resources to manage concurrent large-scale investigations. Some also suggest that having resolved simpler cases and dealt with the “low hanging fruit”, HMRC has now turned its attention to more complex multi-jurisdictional business entities, which necessarily entail longer investigations.
Whatever the cause, the consequences for large businesses remain the same: disruption to financial planning and budgeting and increases in cost, time and resources directed towards cooperating with HMRC. There is also greater risk of potential reputational damage caused by such enquiries, which unless carefully handled, can become public and have a knock-on effect on share price for listed companies.
HMRC’s Large Business Directorate leads investigations into the tax affairs of the UK’s biggest businesses. Its investigations enabled it to secure more than £8bn in additional tax revenue in 2017. It states that “at any one time, we will be actively investigating more than half of the UK’s 2,100 largest businesses.”
More companies are looking to specialist investigations and dispute resolution firms that have strong relations with HMRC to ensure such matters are managed as efficiently as possible and with minimum effect on their business.
JHA’s investigations team is made up of specialist and highly experienced solicitors and barristers, forensic accountants, former regulators and data scientists, uniquely sitting under one roof. JHA is also a leading firm in contentious tax, having achieved Band One rankings in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for the fifth consecutive year.
Data in this article was originally published by the Financial Times.
In recognition of November being World Vegan Month.
Increasingly, companies are growing to understand and engage with the multiple benefits that a healthy diet such as veganism can bring to their businesses. Big names endorsing the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products include IBM, Qualcomm, PwC, Caterpillar, General Electric, Volkswagen, Google, Facebook and Dropbox, all of whom have embraced employee-led vegan initiatives in their workplaces with positive results.
Companies report that the greatest benefit is the improved health and wellbeing of their employees. Veganism has been linked to lower BMI, blood pressure and cholesterol, all of which reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and Type Two Diabetes among other damaging or potentially fatal diseases.
The practice has also been shown to have a positive impact on mental health through improved mood and reduced anxiety because of the absence of arachidonic acid in a meat-free diet. Arachidonic acid is an inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid found in animal products.
The improved physical and mental health of employees has wide-ranging benefits for businesses. These include a reduced number of sick days, increased productivity and lower insurance and health care expenses, all of which cut company costs and increase profitability.
The focus on wellbeing goes beyond the bottom line; increasingly potential employees and clients are attracted to businesses that follow inclusive, environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Veganism not only promotes animal welfare, it can also diminish an individual’s carbon footprint by up to 73%. This means a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which decreases air pollution, a significant contributor to climate change. A reduction in the amount of land used for agricultural purposes would decrease the threat to endangered species of wildlife.
Forward looking firms are those supporting and encouraging these kinds of employee-led initiatives, as they are concurrently helping their employees, their businesses, and the environment.
At JHA we are committed to supporting the wellness of our employees by supporting and encouraging positive diet and lifestyle choices.
Data in this article comes from articles published in the Independent and Forbes.
The Treasury has announced plans to introduce a Digital Services Tax (“DST”) from April 2020, which it anticipates will raise £1.5 billion over four years.
The introduction of the DST reflects the UK’s discontent with the taxation outcome of certain highly digitalised businesses under the current international tax framework. The view is that the DST will act as a short term solution to the tax challenges of digitalisation while a global consensus-based solution is designed and implemented within the EU, G20 and OECD. Due to its interim nature, the DST will be subject to formal review in 2025.
The DST will apply a 2% tax on the revenues of three specific in-scope digital business models: the provision of a search engine, social media platforms, and online marketplaces. The tax has a broad nexus rule focusing on the location of the user, not the business. This means that the DST will apply to the revenues of both resident and non-resident enterprises, irrespective of their level of physical presence in the UK, whenever they are linked to UK users. However, the DST is intended to target large tech companies only. As a result, only large businesses which generate at least £500m from in-scope business models will be subject to the DST.
The stated intention is for the DST to operate outside the scope of tax treaties. This hints at the view that the DST will not (either as matter of form or substance) be designed as a tax on income or any element of income covered by Article 2 (Taxes Covered) of the OECD Model Tax Convention. By operating outside tax treaties, major non-resident tech companies will be unable to credit the DST charge against income tax imposed by their country of residence.
Compliance with EU law will be required if the transition period proposed in the draft Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is agreed upon. In particular, the DST must be compliant with the fundamental freedoms set out in the TFEU and the prohibition on State aid. It should be noted that the CJEU currently has two requests for a preliminary ruling concerning the application of Hungary’s advertisement tax to Google (C-482/18) and Vodafone (C-75/18). Hungary’s advertisement tax is also a unilateral measure aimed at addressing the tax challenges of certain digitalised businesses (online advertising services) and, like the DST, the scope of Hungary’s advertisement tax is also ultimately dependant on the location of the targeted public.
Ongoing controversy continues to surround the “Beautiful Game” as some 70 million documents (3.4 terabytes of data), remain the subject of investigation by journalists from members of European Investigative Collaborations (EIC).
The current report of the investigation relates to possible financial fraud in relation to the Financial Fair Play rule of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). This rule, approved in 2010, aims to prevent professional football clubs from spending more than they earn in the pursuit of success. The aim is to prevent clubs from doing this and then getting into financial difficulties that could endanger their long-term survival.
In December 2016 findings from the first files disclosed how some of football’s most prominent figures, including Cristiano Ronaldo and José Mourinho, avoided tax on some earnings through their use of offshore accounts. Since then, both European and national regulators have been questioning representatives of European football bodies about their tax structures.
The latest information released concentrates on the activities of Middle Eastern individuals and organisations who have become increasingly influential in football. So far they have focused on Manchester City, owned by Sheikh Mansour, deputy-prime minister of the UAE, and Paris St Germain, which belongs to Qatar Sports Investments.
The documents raise questions about the arrangements between these clubs and the football authorities regarding sponsorship deals and Financial Fair Play. They suggest the authorities may have dealt unevenly with the application of the sport’s rules, making it difficult for club owners to navigate these already complex regulations.
The investigators say that they will also be turning the spotlight on tax avoidance arrangements entered into by clubs and players.
JHA is a leading authority in contentious tax and commercial litigation, having achieved Band One rankings in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for the fifth consecutive year. A significant part of its practice is devoted to football-related tax disputes involving clubs, players and agents.
Reports on the investigation can be found in DER SPIEGEL and Reuters.
Article originally published in Civil Justice Quarterly, Volume 37 Issue 4 2018
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) permit proceedings against unnamed defendants. This is available where wrongdoers conceal their identities, such as on the internet, or hit and run drivers. Under the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive, compulsory insurance is on the vehicle. The insurers’ responsibility is in respect of civil liabilities of any driver whosoever, including when there is no right of indemnity under the policy. In Cameron v Hussain, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the victim has the number plate, and there is insurance of that vehicle by identified insurers. The case in the Court of Appeal overlooked art.18 of the Directive, which requires a direct right of action for the victim against insurers. The dissenting judgment agreeing with the court below: (1) misinterprets the Directive, the CPR and s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, (2) disregards the legislative public policy underlying them, (3) is founded on considerations which are mistaken, and (4) reaches a deeply unsatisfactory result. There should be, and is, a general principle under the CPR that courts will do what they can to allow substantive rights to be determined and enforced. This underlies the established procedures in internet cases and for injunctions. It engages the overriding objective, enabling the courts to do good justice.
Sloane Street is lined with the outlets of retail brands. They own trade marks. They face competition from cheap imitations sold on the internet through web sites with addresses which change. No-one knows who the sellers are, or where they are. Their identity is concealed. No effective injunction can be obtained against them. The imitated brands obtained internet blocking injunctions against BT and other service providers requiring them to block access to identified web sites and addresses to which they migrate. At first instance and in the Court of Appeal the internet service providers resisted the injunctions because they committed no wrong and were entirely innocent. The case went to the Supreme Court on who should pay the expenses of implementing the injunctions.
Injunctions are granted for a purpose. The injunction jurisdiction rests on current policy. The Mareva injunction is a consequence of use of off shore companies, banks accounts and trust structures. The decisions in the time of Queen Victoria which denied Mareva jurisdiction were founded on policy which became out dated and unjust.
The internet blocking injunction is granted against the third parties to protect a copyright or trade mark right, and to promote the due administration of justice when no effective order can be made against the wrongdoer. The expenses of implementing them must be borne by the claimant and not imposed on the innocent party.
The same principles apply to cases, whether about Intellectual Property or not. Injunctions cannot and do not depend on case law on the limits to the jurisdiction exercised by the old High Court of Chancery over disclosure of documents in the time of Charles Dickens. That jurisdiction was not available against the innocent bystander, a mere witness. In Victorian England there was no internet. Times have changed.
The jurisdiction to grant injunctions against innocent bystanders is considered in The Jurisdiction to Grant Injunctions against Innocent Third Parties, published in The European Intellectual Property Review Volume 40 Issue 9 2018 , p 571, Steven Gee QC.
