![]() ![]() It explains the affront caused to the rule of law and it concludes that the appropriate course of action is for the Government to withdraw the retrospective aspect of the provisions as the Finance Bill goes through Parliament. It questions the lawfulness of the Government’s proposals and it doubts their wisdom: the Chancellor was badly advised by his officials. ![]() This article provides a critique of the retrospectivity of the anti-forestalling provisions of the change to the Entrepreneurs Relief lifetime limit. ![]() But no-one seriously expected the next 2 1/2 pages of the draft legislation to be taken up with retrospective so-called “anti-forestalling” provisions (designed to defeat pre-Budget planning by those wishing to take advantage of the £10m lifetime limit whilst it still remained in force, in advance of the announcement of its reduction). It takes only 5 lines in the published draft legislation to reduce the Entrepreneurs Relief cap to £1m. So the decision to cap the relief at a lifetime limit of £1m (down from £10m) was expected. As the Prime Minister recently commented, “…there are some people who are staggeringly rich who are using that relief to make themselves even more staggeringly rich.” It was widely predicted that the Chancellor would take steps in the Budget to reform Entrepreneurs Relief, which has been widely criticised for years for failing to meet its intended policy objective of encouraging entrepreneurship whilst at the same time being very expensive for the Exchequer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |