Our Insights

Step UK Annual Tax Conference 2017

Keeping up with tax changes always presents a challenge and this election year has thrown up particular difficulties. Above all in the new regime for non-domiciliaries and offshore trusts. The residential nil rate band is now up and running whilst the pension revolution continues to perplex. Recent years have seen a whole battery of provisions aimed at UK residential property and change may be on the horizon in the area of BPR and APR. Meanwhile CGT continues to create difficulties. Add to this the professional conduct issues that arise for practitioners when giving tax planning advice and this year’s course is a must attend event.

Register online at www.step.org/tax17

Emma Chamberlain OBE TEP, private client barrister at Pump Court Tax Chambers and partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP will be lecturing on Foreign doms – the new regime in Newcastle, Manchester and London, covering the following topics:
Packed with quality content, this conference provides essential guidance on the current and future developments in tax.

• Becoming deemed domiciled – the new IHT, CGT and income tax rules; avoiding deemed domicile
• Rebasing and cleansing – some problem areas
• Key check points for trustees settlor and beneficiaries
• Tainting of trusts and trust protections
• IHT changes to residential property and enveloping
• New two year rule
• Loans to purchase property
• Problem areas

View full programme

14 September, Newcastle
21 September, Manchester
29 September, London
12 October, Belfast
18 October, Bristol

Please click here to download this press release.

Please click here to download this press release (in Russian).

You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.

The Swiss Federal Council’s decision of 20 December 2017 to extend for one year its “freeze on the assets” of President Yanukovych and his “entourage”, and the media release published on this occasion referring to the “freezes on … Ukrainian assets (CHF 70 million)”, does not assert that President Yanukovych had or has any assets in Switzerland.

On the contrary, the Swiss Federal Council’s similar decision and announcement made last year, on 9 December 2016, was later clarified by a letter dated 1 March 2017 from the Swiss authorities confirming that:
We draw attention again to our earlier Press Release dated 3 March 2017 dealing with the 2016 Decision and announcement. Nothing has changed.

• there are no bank accounts or other assets in Switzerland held in the name of President Yanukovych that they have frozen (as President Yanukovych himself has always contended); and
• the asset freezes imposed by Switzerland concern other persons (i.e. not President Yanukovych) listed in the Appendix to the Ordinance on the Freezing of Assets in Connection with Ukraine.

The Swiss federal Council still do not clearly state who the “CHF 70 million” referred to in their announcements belongs to, but, that said, the Swiss Federal Council have officially acknowledged that it does not belong to President Yanukovych.

Indeed, the Swiss Federal Council, in its 20 December 2017 announcement, observes that is has not yet even been determined “whether or not the origins of the frozen assets are illicit”.

ENDS

Notes to editors

Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London representing President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych:

www.jha.com

Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888

You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.

Reference is made to our earlier Press Releases dated 7 September 2017 and 11 September 2017 to the effect that:

Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, which imposed the European Union’s sanctions on President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, EU Member States and others were required to inform the European Commission immediately of all and any information that they had regarding funds and economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen in accordance with the Regulation.

Despite the passage of three and a half years since the sanctions were imposed, and the reporting requirement just referred to, the European Commission has now formally confirmed that it has not received under that Article any information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych or Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions.

In a statement on 12 September 2017, the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Yevgeny Yenin, sought to explain that, despite the European Commission’s express confirmation, there was or might be such information in the hands of the European Commission or EU Member States that was not being disclosed. He sought to explain this in essentially two ways (1) “that in most EU Countries access to this information is restricted and cannot be given to third parties who are not related to the criminal proceedings” and (2) that “the response of the European Commission is worded accordingly”.

Joe Hage, a partner in Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, the law firm acting for President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, said:

“The Deputy Prosecutor General’s explanation is wrong for at least three reasons.

First, if any of the EU Member States had information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych or Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions, they were legally obliged to provide it to the European Commission.

Second, the express wording of the European Commission’s confirmation statement was that: “Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No. 208/2014 the Commission has not received any information on frozen funds or economic resources” relating to President Yanukovych or Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych.

The European Commission has never asserted that access to information could not be provided to us or our clients because such access was restricted.

Third, the request was made by my firm to the European Commission and not to individual EU Member States. Therefore, whether or not access to this information is restricted in most or any EU Member States is irrelevant: the information, if it existed, would be with the European Commission.

It is very noticeable that the authorities in Ukraine have not stated what specific assets or economic resources of President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych are said to have been frozen by the EU sanctions.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London representing President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych:

www.jha.com

Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888

The European Commission and the EU Member States have not identified any funds or economic resources belonging to Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych frozen by EU Sanctions.

Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, which imposed the European Union’s sanctions on Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, EU Member States and others were required to inform the European Commission immediately of all and any information that they had regarding funds and economic resources owned or controlled by him which were frozen in accordance with the Regulation.

Despite the passage of three and a half years since the sanctions were imposed, and the reporting requirement just referred to, the European Commission has now formally confirmed that it has not received under that Article any information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions.

Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych has always contended that he does not own personal accounts, funds or other economic resources in the EU, with the sole exception of his interest in MAKO Holding B.V. and Artvin Holding B.V. in the Netherlands.

As reported in our press release of 6 March 2017, the Swiss authorities confirmed on 1 March 2017 that there are no frozen personal bank accounts or other assets in Switzerland held in the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, apart from Mako Trading SA and its assets.

Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888

You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.

On Friday 30 November 2018 it was reported on the “Ukrainian News” website that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had issued a statement asserting that President Viktor Yanukovych “is wanted and at the moment he is in the international search for Interpol”.

As we previously stated in our press release of 3 May 2017, a decision was taken by INTERPOL at its session of 27 February to 3 March 2017 to delete the Red Notice issued in July 2015 in respect of President Yanukovych and any other data held about him in its databases.

The decision to delete the data followed an application in 2015 to INTERPOL by Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP seeking the removal of President Yanukovych’s name from INTERPOL’s list of wanted persons on the basis that the allegations against him were politically motivated, lacked an evidentiary basis, and lacked due process. The decision confirmed that the retention of the data held in respect of President Yanukovych was contrary to, and that all international police cooperation via INTERPOL’s channels in this case would not be in conformity with, INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules.

President Yanukovych is not listed as a “wanted person” on INTERPOL’s website (http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted) and there is no basis whatsoever for the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s statement of 30 November 2018.

ENDS

Notes to editors

Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London:

www.jha.com

Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888

Originally published on CCH Daily on 13 June 2017.

Ray McCann, partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson, and CIOT vice president, comments on plans for Making Tax Digital.

Plans to start quarterly reporting under Making Tax Digital could come up against stiff opposition under the new Conservative minority government, as the reshuffle sees top jobs at the Treasury changing hands and a hollowing out of expertise on the intricacies of HMRC’s tax digitisation plans, reports Sara White, Editor, Accountancy and CCH Daily.

There are also serious reservations about the rushed timetable for the introduction of Making Tax Digital – unincorporated businesses, landlords and the self-employed registered for VAT will have to start reporting quarterly from 1 April 2018.

The timing issue is one of the biggest worries for business and advisers, while any uncertainty brought about by the minority government will only make the situation more uncertain.

Ray McCann CTA, said:

‘I think that the direction of Making Tax Digital will not itself be affected but I would not be surprised if the timing goes out of the window.

‘There is significant cost and the proposed revenue savings are likely to be looked on with some extra scepticism as to whether in the end Making Tax Digital is self-financing, which I do not think it will be.

‘David Gauke’s departure together with Jane Ellison losing her seat mean almost a complete change, both were generally seen as bringing a positive approach to their relationship with the profession.’

Continue reading on CCH Daily.

To view the news article, please click here. (The article is in Russian)

A recent Treasury Committee report contained its recommendations on both the anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions regime. This almost year-long enquiry, the first part of a two part review of economic crime in the UK, proposes that the Government should undertake a far-reaching overhaul of the legislation and systems currently in place.

This is not unexpected; the UK is due to be leaving the EU imminently and there is a high-level of business uncertainty. Additionally, there is mounting international criticism of limited partnerships (LPs) and Scottish liability partnerships (SLPs) as vehicles of fraud worldwide, and the reputation of British Oversees Territories and Crown Dependencies as offshore havens used by corrupt individuals continues. Taken together, this means there is increasing pressure on the UK Government to safeguard the country’s reputation as an attractive place to do business, particularly in the post-Brexit world.

The Committee’s recommendations aim to keep London as a dominant financial centre by ensuring that it remains at the vanguard of the fight against economic crime. Its recommendations are the most fundamental yet regarding changes to current regulation and processes and the overall message is clear: the government must do more in the fight against economic crime. In particular the report:

• Comments that the Government’s proposals on reforming the law on corporate liability around economic crime have stalled. This is largely attributed to Brexit, but the Committee states that domestic priorities must not be forestalled any longer. The report recommends that the Government set out a timetable and bring forward the enactment of legislations to improve the enforcement of corporate liability and strengthen the hand of law enforcement in the fight against economic crime.

• Identifies company formation as the major risk area for money laundering and a weakness in the UK’s system for preventing economic crime. The current Companies House system is heavily criticised for having weak controls, notably that it is not subject to any AML checks and can only refuse a company formation request if there is non-compliance with the registration requirements. The report states that Companies House should be reformed and be given the duties and powers necessary to ensure it plays no role in those undertaking economic crime in the UK or abroad. It asks that the Government publish details of this reform by this summer.

• States that banks and financial institutions should come under greater Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) scrutiny and appropriate enforcement action should be taken against them as necessary, such as larger fines similar to the large fines imposed by US regulators for money laundering and sanctions breaches. The report suggests that there has been focus on those who operate on the edges of the financial system rather than at the core.

• Is supportive of the Office of Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS), saying it should be given its own distinct identity protected under primary legislation. OPBAS enables external supervision and a single organisation that looks at the UK AML system as a whole to identify weaknesses. The report suggests AML supervisors may also need a coordinating body, and also asks that the Treasury publish within six months a report on how it would respond to AML recommendations notably in relation to removing an AML supervisor.

• Raises concerns about HMRC as an AML supervisor, including from the CEO of HMRC who said he was considering if HMRC should keep this role. If it is to keep this position it should include within its departmental objectives a single stand-alone objective related to its AML supervisory work; and keep a clear reporting line between its AML supervisory work and its work investigating tax crime and associated money laundering offences. HMRC should have a separate strategy for its AML supervisory work which would include key performance indicators on which it can report.

• Recommends that the Government create a centralised database of PEPs, potentially offering greater certainty to institutions grappling to apply the definition of a PEP in practice.

• Acknowledges that something must be done to address Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and delayed payments and recommends that ‘thought should be given, in a world of faster payments, to how NCA [National Crime Agency] requested delays to payments can be better handled’; a sentiment many financial institutions and banks will support. The report also calls for an increase in volume of SARs reports by those outside the core of the financial system.

• Identifies the Government’s ‘achingly slow’ progress regarding tackling de-risking and asks that it publish a report on how to address de-risking strategies within six months.

• Urges the Government to ensure it is ready to introduce any new sanctions powers it believes are necessary as soon as any further flexibility following the UK’s departure from the EU has become available. It also calls on the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) to provide public examples of enforcement if is to be recognised as an effective deterrent.

• Reveals that the Economic Secretary has suggested that there should be a power for the Government to block a listing on National Security grounds. The report asks the Government to set out very clearly when such a power would be used, what effect it might have on UK listings and financial services, and, most importantly, why it would be needed, especially when sanctions would be fully under the control of the UK post-Brexit.

• Indicates that Companies must brace themselves for imminent new and demanding legislation regarding corporate liability and regarding the new trade relationships that will be negotiated post-Brexit, which are highlighted as potentially creating opportunities for those undertaking economic crime.

While the report is a lengthy document, some questions are not addressed, such as the risks of parallel enforcement regimes given existing regulatory requirements imposed on the financial sector aimed at preventing financial crimes like money-laundering. Given Brexit continues to dominate the political agenda, it may prove challenging for the Government to implement the recommendations in the timeframes envisaged, but the message from the Committee is nevertheless clear: the fight against economic crime and the evolution of the UK’s AML regime must remain a priority.

Friday 8 March is International Women’s Day, which celebrates women’s achievements around the world. This year the theme is #BalanceForBetter in recognition of the on-going global push for professional and social equality. Described as a ‘business issue’, the aim of the theme is to encourage gender balance in boardrooms and the media as a way for economies to benefit. At JHA more than one third of our lawyers are female and gender equality and inclusion are core firm values. We took this opportunity to hear two women in different positions within our firm on their experience of the legal workforce and their thoughts on future progression.