Finance Bill — New Clause 7 — Review of Anti-Tax Avoidance General Anti-Abuse Rule — 17 Apr 2013 at 21:57
John Baron MP, Basildon and Billericay voted not to require a post-implementation review of the general anti-abuse rule aimed at tackling tax avoidance.
The majority of MPs voted not to require a post-implementation review of the general anti-abuse rule aimed at tackling tax avoidance.
- (4) The Chancellor shall provide a report to Parliament within two years of the passing of this Act, as part of a wider post-implementation review, into the scope of GAAR, the application of the double reasonableness test and its deterrent effect.
HMRC guidance on the "double reasonableness test" states:
- This requires HMRC to show that the arrangements “cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”. This recognises that there are some arrangements which some people would regard as a reasonable course of action while others would not.
- The ‘double reasonableness’ test sets a high threshold by asking whether it would be reasonable to hold the view that the arrangement was a reasonable course of action. The arrangement falls to be treated as abusive only if it would not be reasonable to hold such a view.
This would have added the above clause to the end of clause 203 (which appears on p118 of the Bill), titled "General anti-abuse rule".
-  Parliament's webpage on the Finance Bill (now the Finance Act 2013)
-  Finance Bill as introduced 28 March 2013
-  HMRC Guidance on the general anti-abuse rule (GARR) (See p10)
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||237 (+1 tell)||0||0||78.0%|
|Lab||0||210 (+2 tell)||0||82.5%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||0||0||70.2%|