Finance Bill — 16 Jul 1997

I beg to move amendment No. 16, page 12, line 42, at end insert--

'(4) Section 468Q of the Taxes Act 1988 (dividend distributions to corporate unit holder) shall be amended as follows--

(a) In subsection (1) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted--

"or is a pension fund as defined in section 231A(4)"

(b) In subsection (2) the words "or income tax" shall be inserted after the words "corporation tax".'.

I should at the outset declare an interest, in that I am a chartered accountant, a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and I write a six-weekly article for Accountancy Age .

The amendment seeks to deal with an anomaly created by clause 19, which has been caused, like so much else in the Finance Bill, by the rushed and ill considered way in which the new Labour Government are proceeding. As such, and in the spirit of ensuring that the House produces well drafted legislation, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

The anomaly in question concerns the position of pension funds that invest through unit trusts. Clause 19 prevents pension funds from reclaiming the tax credits on dividend income--an outrageous change to the previous position, which all parties had accepted, that pension funds should be allowed to accumulate assets from income tax-free, thus encouraging the build-up of pension fund assets. As far as we know, it is not the

Government's intention to tax other income within a pension fund, such as interest income and income from property. At the moment, all the Government intend to do is tax dividend income received by pension funds.

The problem arises when a pension fund invests in a unit trust that itself invests in bonds or property. Unit trusts themselves are taxable, but pension funds could effectively reclaim the tax by receiving the tax credits attached to the dividend paid by the unit trust. Now that pension funds are no longer able to reclaim that credit, investing in a balanced unit trust becomes unviable for them, because that would now be taxable. However, if the pension fund itself received the income, it would be non-taxable.

If the Government accepted the amendment, it would apply existing provisions in section 468 of the Taxes Act 1988 to stream income paid by a unit trust to reflect the nature of the income it receives, and enable the recipient to claim back only the tax on the income that, had it received such income directly, would not have been taxable. Applying those provisions to pension funds would deal with the problem.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:--

The Committee divided: Ayes 334, Noes 182.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con0 137 (+2 tell)085.8%
Lab334 (+2 tell) 0080.6%
LDem0 38082.6%
PC0 1025.0%
SNP0 3050.0%
UUP0 3030.0%
Total:334 182080.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive