Ai vs. legacy industry

Artificial intelligence is undoubtedly a growing segment of technology and society, but history shows that technological advances don’t eliminate the need for work, though they can shift its pattern.

This applies to agricultural production. In the UK, more than 20 per cent of the workforce was employed in the agricultural sector at the turn of the 20th century, while today, thanks to mechanisation, less than one percent work in agricultural roles. However, that small group produces vastly more food than their predecessors a century ago, which is a clear benefit to society.

Ai is likely to drive other significant productivity gains too, and that should also feed through into the cost of providing some public services. However it’s difficult to see many inroads being made into the welfare bill, particularly if fewer working hours per capita lead to the introduction of a Universal Income paid by governments to their citizens.

Taxes & a need for change

If income tax receipts should fall as automation rises, there are a number of levers governments can pull to push up tax revenues, while other existing taxes may have to pull more weight.

Consumption taxes like VAT could be hiked, and if people are working less then they may have time to consume more, which would swell coffers from this kind of taxation even without a rise in the headline rate.

Taxes on business or wealth could also enter the equation if governments find the rise of the robots opens up a black hole in their budgets.

Alternatively, new taxes may be introduced which directly tax automated production, or the gains made by owners of that production.

Indeed, the UK is now forging ahead with a digital sales tax which shows some governments are not simply going to give technology a free pass when it comes to contributing to the tax take. However, ti should be noted an alliance of Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany blocked the proposal in Brussels for an EU digital sales tax on 29 November 2018.

Why Ai could spur a change in taxes

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly deliver progress in many important areas, particularly in health care.

The accountancy firm PwC reckons that UK GDP will be around 10 per cent higher in 2030 as a result of the Ai revolution, mainly through its ability to drive consumption by the production of better and more tailored products. In the long term the impact of Ai is likely to be bigger yet, and the tax system will have to adjust accordingly.

It’s too early to call how this will happen – however, one thing we can be relatively sure of is that different models will be adopted across the globe, as political ideologies feed into the equation.

Laith Khalaf

Laith Khalaf is a senior analyst with Hargreaves Lansdown and has worked for the retail investor platform since 2001, after graduating from Cambridge University.

His research encompasses funds, markets and investment trends.

Laith is a well-known commentator and frequently features on television and radio, as well as in the national press.

The post Does the rise of the machines equal more taxes? HL’s Laith Khalaf appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

Mike Smith, the senior director of Companydebt.com and a business insolvency expert, talks to IMS StratNews:

Reverse charge measures, which were first announced in the Autumn Budget of 2017, are set to be implemented by HMRC next year, and could add to the cash-flow woes in the already struggling construction sector.

It’s estimated the changes could affect up to 150,000 construction businesses, with the end customer rather than the supplier being made responsible for certain VAT payments.

There are fears across the sector that the changes, which are an attempt to reduce the huge hole left in the public purse by ‘missing trader fraud’, could force small and medium-sized construction firms out of business and push larger operators into a state of bureaucratic limbo. 

What is missing trader fraud?

Missing trader fraud is a scam that takes place across a range of industries but that has recently taken hold in the supply chains of the construction industry. Fraudsters exploit a loophole in the UK’s complex VAT system which allows them to steal government money.

In a legitimate transaction, a subcontractor charges the contractor for the work they’ve done, plus 20 percent VAT. This VAT is then paid over to the government by the subcontractor on a quarterly basis. As a service or product moves up the supply chain, VAT is added for every new transaction and subcontractors recoup the VAT they have paid their suppliers.

Fraudsters exploit the weaknesses in this process by setting up shell companies that initially appear to operate normally, but quickly disappear without filing tax returns after they have been paid for work. The result is that the VAT owing to the exchequer is never paid over to HMRC.

Although this type of scam is relatively new in the construction industry, it is still believed that fraudsters operating in this area cost the government around £100m a year in lost VAT. That’s a small proportion of the total £13bn lost to missing trader fraud in the UK every year, but it’s still something the government is eager to stamp out.

The new reverse charge taxation system

Although the loss to the exchequer is relatively small, under the new reverse charge system, the whole of the construction industry will have to bear the brunt of the crackdown. Coming into force in October 2019, the reverse charge taxation system will cease the flow of cash between construction businesses. For every transaction that takes place, the VAT will be a paper exercise only and registered as a ‘reverse charge’ on the invoice. That means only the client-facing organisations at the top of the chain will be responsible for paying the VAT.

Understanding whether the new rules apply to a particular construction firm is relatively simple. Any company registered with the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) will have to register a reverse charge for VAT on their invoices.

Any business that’s not CIS-registered will continue to charge VAT when the transaction takes place.

Construction firms that sell directly to domestic customers will continue to charge VAT on their products and services and will not be affected by the changes.

What are the potential implications of the new system for construction firms?

Arguably the most damaging implication for construction firms is the impact the new system will have on cash-flow. Without VAT to rely on, many businesses could struggle to make their own payments and potentially become insolvent as a result.

The new system could also create problems for the large firms at the top of the chain, as the onus will fall on them to pay over large sums of money to HMRC. That could create its own range of financial issues. The construction industry as a whole will also have to get its head around the new accounting system, which will inevitably take time and potentially cause accounting errors that could lead to unsustainable levels of debt.    

Construction firms should start preparing

For larger firms with professional tax advisors, these changes should be relatively simple to implement and absorb, but smaller subcontractors that handle their own tax obligations should start preparing now.

The risk is that subcontractors who do not educate themselves and adapt to the new system could make costly mistakes on their invoices.

If suppliers continue to charge VAT on their invoices then they will have to reverse those invoices out of their accounting system: Although that sounds like a simple process, the VAT that has been raised will automatically be owed to the state.

The consultation on the implementation of the new system concludes in October 2018. After that point, construction firms have a year to prepare before the changes are made.  

The post Reverse charge methods set to hit Construction hard appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

Related Posts

The post Self employed tax requirements’ guide appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

Employer

Deadlines and Filing

Limited Company

Related Posts

The post Freelance & self-employed tax requirements – Coconut’s Elaine Clark appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

In its Global Enforcement Review, complied for the financial services industry, the regulatory advisor presents analysis highlighting that the degree penalty amounts against individuals have dropped to new lows.

The 2018 review, a long-running annual report which is now in its fifth year, states that between 2016–2017, the  fall in UK penalty amounts against individuals can be attributed to global financial regulators switching their focus from imposing large fines against firms to making individuals more accountable; pushing those individuals to improve their ability to detect misconduct earlier through both data and technology.

Takeaways

• UK penalty amounts against individuals dropped from £18.8m to £970,000 from 2016 to 2017, its lowest since the financial crisis.
• U.S., European (excluding UK) and Hong Kong penalty amounts against individuals rose over the same period.
• Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia had a greater proportion of their total penalty amounts against individuals than northern hemisphere markets from 2013-2017.

Regulatory risk insights on global & UK penalty levels

Duff & Phelps’ analysis of large enforcement cases, which has been collated by Corlytics – a global provider of insight analysis into regulatory risk –  shows total penalty amounts globally climbed 30% between 2015 and 2017 to 26.5 bln usd.

However, total penalty amounts globally are forecast to be lower this year (2018), reaching just 8.1 bln usd in the first six months of 2018 compared to 18.35 bln over the same period in 2017.

The data shows this decline is particularly evident in the U.S., UK and Europe.

Of the total global penalties in 2017, the U.S. remains the dominant force, levying penalties accounting for 94% (24.4 bln) of the global total against firms and 99% (621.3 mln) individual penalties: In the U.S., total penalty amounts against firms and individuals rose by 2% and 23% respectively from 2016 to 2017.

UK individual penalties

Total UK individual penalties rose markedly to 866 mln stg in 2017 from 71 mln stg in 2016, though this can be explained in part by two large penalties issued separately by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) totalling 673.3 mln stg, Duff & Phelps’ data shows.

However, UK individual penalties dropped significantly from 18.8 mln stg to £970,000 over the same period; the lowest amount on record since the financial crisis in 2008, the data shows.

In line with the global picture, total penalty amounts in the UK are forecast to be lower this year, having reached just 175 mln stg in the first six months of 2018.

With the introduction of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) for banks in 2016, which is being rolled out to all firms by December 2019, enforcement cases and penalties against individuals can reasonably be expected to rise in the UK over the next few years, according to Duff & Phelps.

Importantly, individuals holding senior management positions within the banking sector should note, the FCA published changes to the SM&CR (effective from 4 July 2018), stating:

‘The most senior people (‘senior managers’) performing key roles (‘senior management functions’) need FCA approval before starting their roles’.

Individual penalties in Europe excluding the UK

In Europe (excluding the UK), total penalty amounts from enforcement action against firms fell significantly, from 527.5 mln eur in 2016 to 109 mln eur in 2017 – however, it should be noted the 2016 total is skewed by three large benchmark cases totalling 485 mln eur.  

According to the data, activity in Europe has been bolstered by more active enforcement from regulators such as the European Commission, Central Bank of Ireland and France’s Autorité des Marchés Financiers.

Penalty amounts against individuals in Europe, whilst still modest, grew from 1.6 mln eur in 2016 to 2.9 mln eur in 2017.

Globally, according to the data, the trend from 2013 to 2017 shows on average a notably larger proportion of total penalty amounts being levied against individuals in southern hemispheres compared to northern hemisphere jurisdictions: Hong Kong (34%), Singapore (62%) and Australia (32%) – all recorded higher proportions than the United States (2%), UK (7%) and Europe (1%).

What the expert says

Managing Director of Regulatory and Compliance Consulting at Duff & Phelps, Nick Bayley, commented for IMS StratNews on the findings:

“Massive fines on firms have lost their power to shock, not just in the industry but also among the public. The declining penalty amounts from previous years in the UK point to the end of the big benchmark manipulation cases – but also potentially suggests a change in regulators’ enforcement approach and their faith in the ability of big fines alone to change culture: Regulators globally are also using a wider range of enforcement tools in an attempt to improve conduct.

Specifically on UK individual penalties …

“The UK regulators have led the way in promoting the importance of individual accountability through the SM(&)CR, something which has been subsequently mirrored in Australia (‘BEAR’), Hong Kong (‘MIC’) and Singapore (‘Individual Accountability and Conduct’).  As a result, we can expect the FCA to increasingly focus on enforcement action against individuals, as it seeks to make the new regime bare its teeth. However, as the majority of UK financial services firms will not be in scope of the SM(&)CR until 2019, combined with the time for regulators to investigate and conclude cases, we expect it could be up to three years before a significant increase in penalties against individuals start[s] to come through.

And his wider view …

“While regulators are revising and updating their priorities, we saw the potential for unforeseen issues such as the LIBOR and FX cases to arise or new market developments and risks [to] emerge, which inevitably will shift regulators’ attention and their resources.

“Regulators globally are investing in their technology capabilities, which in conjunction with more granular regulatory reporting, should enable them to detect misconduct more quickly and [make] greater use of early intervention and disruption techniques,” Nick Bayley concludes.

More about Duff & Phelps

Duff & Phelps is a global advisor that aims to protect, restore and maximise value for clients in the areas of valuation, corporate finance, investigations, disputes; cyber security, compliance and regulatory matters, and other governance-related issues. The firms works with clients across diverse sectors, focused on mitigating risk to assets, operations and people.

Following its acquisition of Kroll, a division of Duff & Phelps since 2018, the firm has has expanded its work force to include nearly 3,500 professionals in 28 countries around the world, it reported. For more information, visit www.duffandphelps.com.

The post UK individual penalties at their lowest since financial crisis – Duff & Phelps appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

Granville Turner, a director at Turner Little – the corporate services  provider – focuses on the tax and residential status implications for such companies; detailing for IMS StratNews just what impact this has on the tax liabilities for those companies and individuals involved.

Here information is presented in the form of a straightforward  guide. It provides clear details for Non-UK resident shareholders and directors just what requirements need to be met to ensure they are complying with UK government company – as well as individual – residential and taxation status rules!

Determining a company’s residential status

The general rule is that a company is a UK resident if either:

• It is incorporated in the UK, or 
• If the central management and control of its business is in the UK.

Therefore, a UK incorporated company will be defined as a UK resident, irrespective of having foreign directors and shareholders, says Turner. 

When special conditions apply to residency and taxation complexities

To find out more about Non-UK resident shareholders and directors taxation complexities see our guide via our ‘Gold Membership’ at https://www.imsstratnews.com/non-uk-resident-…rs-company-taxes/

Related Posts

The post Taxation complexities faced by Non-UK resident shareholders – Turner Little appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

UK limited liability companies with Non-UK resident shareholders and directors have often had to tip-toe through a range of taxation complexities.

Granville Turner, a director at Turner Little – the corporate services  provider – focuses on the tax and residential status implications for such companies; detailing for IMS StratNews just what impact this has on the tax liabilities for those companies and individuals involved.

Here information is presented in the form of a straightforward  guide. It provides clear details for Non-UK resident shareholders and directors just what requirements need to be met to ensure they are complying with UK government company – as well as individual – residential and taxation status rules!

Determining a company’s residential status

The general rule is that a company is a UK resident if either:

• It is incorporated in the UK, or 
• If the central management and control of its business is in the UK.

Therefore, a UK incorporated company will be defined as a UK resident, irrespective of having foreign directors and shareholders, says Turner. 

When special conditions apply to residency 

However, this resident status can be affected by a double tax treaty. 

A typical treaty provision provides that, for treaty purposes, a company can be treated as a tax resident dependent on where its effective management and control is located.

Turner directs attention to official commentary relating to the OECD model tax treaty (which will apply in most cases, and the Revenue and Courts will follow), which defines the place of effective management and control as:

‘The place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business are in substance made. The place of effective management will ordinarily be the place where the most senior person or group of persons (for example a board of directors) makes its decisions; the place where the actions to be taken by the entity as a whole are determined; however, no definitive rule can be given and all relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can only have one place of effective management at any one time’.

What exactly does this mean?

• The treaty provision in relation to residency is determined by where all key operational decisions are made by the company’s executives and management: ‘The place of effective management’.
•  This location needs to be where senior figures in the company – primarily the Board of Directors – make those decisions.
• This location also needs to be where company operations mainly take place.
• A caveat or condition exists that states all of the above must be fully investigated before a company qualifies for this treaty provision, despite the overarching rules within the treaty provision.
• Ultimately therefore, if, under this test, a UK resident company is managed from overseas it may be classed as treaty non resident.

In addition:

• Significantly, business may be managed from more than one location, but a company can only have one ‘place of effective management’.

and,

• Importantly, UK tax legislation states that, where this applies, the company is treated as not resident in the UK: Note that this is a special rule – so it means that all `treaty non-resident’ companies are not UK resident for all taxation purposes

The Takeaway

Non-UK resident shareholders and directors: income tax & dividends

Related Posts

The post Non-UK resident shareholders & company taxes appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.

SMEs: New Legislation

The UK Government has decided to introduce laws that will support small businesses (SMEs) in their efforts to retrieve money from unpaid invoices.

Previous unfair contracts prevented small suppliers from accessing invoice finance; unbalanced contracts with larger companies prevented many SMEs from securing invoice finance from providers such as banks and other investors.

The new regulations were put to Parliament on 10 September, 2018, and are set to facilitate a £1 billion long-term boost to the economy, says the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

How it works

The laws form part of the Government’s modern Industrial Strategy, and are designed to build an environment where small businesses are better able to thrive. They will ensure that any contractual restrictions entered into after 31 December 2018, (with certain exceptions), can be disregarded by small businesses and finance providers, effectively preventing larger businesses from abusing their market position.

The exceptions relate to contracts for financial services; those agreed with consumers or those connected to the sale of a business.

The value of invoice finance is obvious: it allows a business to raise funds by assigning their right to be paid ‘receivables’ to a finance provider in exchange for funds – which is typically around 80 per cent of the value of the invoices.

The ‘advance’ is obtained within days, as opposed to weeks, allowing a small company to manage turnover without tipping into the red. The remaining 20 per cent (minus fees and charges) is then paid when the customer settles the invoice.

It’s important to note that Invoice finance is not borrowing; the supplier receives what is effectively an advance against a future payment.

This legislation addresses anomalies relating to purchase contracts that include terms preventing access to invoice finance. This is mainly due to suppliers’ lack of foresight, where they have negotiated poorly, ultimately leaving them in a weak contractual position.

The new laws will address these detrimental contract terms. 

Expert views

Small Business Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, says: “These new laws will give small businesses more access to the finance they need to succeed and will help ensure they have a level playing field from which to set fair contracts with the businesses they supply.

“The proposed laws come as a number of larger businesses stop their suppliers from assigning ‘receivables’ – the right to receive the proceeds from an invoice. This assignment is essential for invoice finance to operate.”

She states that restrictive contract terms are too often used by larger businesses to maintain a hold over their suppliers. Small suppliers then find themselves unable to negotiate changes to a proposed contract because of their lack of power in the marketplace, Tolhurst argues.

The minister views the UK’s 5.7 million small businesses as the backbone of the UK’s economy, “and central to our modern Industrial Strategy”, with more than 1,000 starting up every day.

CEO of the innovation tax specialist GovGrant, Luke Hamm, which has a spotlight interest on research and development, says he welcomes the revised regulations.

Hamm states, “We hear regularly from smaller suppliers who are tied into restrictive contracts with larger players, for example in the supermarket sector, and it is extremely difficult for them to negotiate changes in contractual terms.

The CEO has urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, to prioritise small business in November’s forthcoming Budget, citing innovation and R&D as a policy areas that seriously require a boost.

Hamm says, “We need to prioritise innovation and industrial strategy … As the announcement on invoice finance shows, the government’s industrial strategy has its heart in the right place, but it’s still unambitious, and needs more imagination and drive.

“Aiming for 2.4 per cent of GDP invested in R&D by 2027 is mediocre; that’s where Germany is today.

“We’d also like to see more help for the smallest companies, where they are scaling up but opt not to draw market salaries. The scheme doesn’t allow for that.”

Hamm also highlights the importance of the forthcoming annual HMRC report on R&D tax credit statistics, which he argues will provide an important snapshot of just how widely the UK’s innovative companies, including SMEs, are making use of the government’s tax credit system.

by Ingrid Smith

The post SMEs IN UK GET LONG AWAITED INVOICE FINANCE BOOST appeared first on IMS StratNews | Financial Services.