Brexit: Follow-Up Survey – Please Help Us to Help You

 Here we are, at the end of March and the exercise of Article 50 is imminent. In fact, today the British Government announced it will issue its letter to the EU on 29th March. So now we have given notice that we are going to give notice. Maybe we should have had a bit more notice?

In June last year my firm carried out a survey of our clients to see what the business community made of the Referendum result.  Later in the summer, we carried out a more in-depth survey for our professional association, UK200Group, which resulted in our better understanding the way a wide range of business people were thinking. Now, as we approach the day of reckoning, (or the start of the reckoning in which we reckon we might some day do something) we would like you to help us find out more.

You can have a look at our previous reports, of course, on HHeLLP:

Our new survey has been shortened and focused by the comments we received in the earlier surveys, and made a little more light-hearted in some areas.  We would love to hear what you have to say, so please add your input to our Article 50 Survey, prepared for UK200Group.  We have two versions:

Thank you for helping us, and we hope the result will be that we can help you better navigate your business through the murky Article 50 waters. Or, as Monty Python once suggested, to sail the accountant-sea.

 

UKOverseas

 

 

Thank you for participating. You will be able to see our report in May, when the survey has closed, immediately following the UK200Group Brexit Forum where its result will be presented.

 

The George Giveth, the Phil Taketh Away

Houses of Parliament

“Anti-Entrepreneur” was the first thought that entered my head, as I wondered why the Chancellor seeks to direct his tax-hoover exclusively on those whose industry underpins the greatest wealth in the UK. Then the light-bulb shone: it is politically expedient, playing to the gallery of those who are jealous, while economically, it is safe to attack entrepreneurs because they don’t complain, and cannot go on strike; they just don’t have the time.

There really wasn’t much in the speech, and the detail will emerge as the economists and tax specialists wade through the government press releases.  Our own Ian Abrey will be releasing his more technical analysis shortly, but for most business people the budget involved two sections:

  • There was the bit by which entrepreneurs and small businesses were abused, and,
  • There was another bit by which the Treasury will work out how they can abuse them more.

Entrepreneurs are the low-hanging fruit – they are just too busy working 24 hours a day to complain.  Perhaps this explains the comment that 1% of the population pays 27% of the income tax, since it is clear where the votes lie. But it does not sound like that 1% are under-contributing to me.

Compared to previous Budgets, the Chancellor was witty, for sure, and did not spend the first half-hour congratulating himself. Maybe he had his reasons. Nor did he mention Brexit, peculiarly. Much of the budget revolved around wider government policy, such as education, and I had to smirk when he indicated that after the Polytechnics were sprinkled with holy water and turned into Universities some years ago now, the trend has now gone full circle, along with rebirth of Grammar Schools and Technical Colleges. When will politicians learn to leave education (and all the professions) alone? Those involved in education may be happy to see £216m being made available for 110 new free schools – though that is less than £2m per school.

The Chancellor wants to tackle tax avoidance. How better than to turn his cannon against VAT on roaming charges and moving fixed assets into stock – matters with which no-one will be familiar. He will continue his attack on those who enable tax avoidance, and we wait to hear exactly how he defines his terms. I recall being lectured by a professional body in 2006 that we could be negligent if we failed to offer tax avoidance schemes.  We never did, but it shows how inconsistent governments can be when faced with public opinion.

Apparently the self-employed get too good a deal. He deftly ignored the down-sides of being self-employed (no holiday pay, sick pay or job security). The previous Chancellor helped them by scrapping Class 2 NIC’s. Although the real blows will be released while we are all on holiday in the summer, the taster for now is that NIC’s for self-employed people are going up 2% over 2 years. In one brilliant blow, the Chancellor will upset millions of self-employed people, for a total tax take of £140m.

All UK companies were looking forward to seeing their corporation tax rates fall, and this will not change, it seems.  What will change is that small businesses (usually entrepreneurs), who saw last year the rate of tax on their dividends go up as the tax credit regime was abolished, will now suffer more tax on their dividends. Once again the tax take will be small and the upset caused will be enormous.

Making Tax Digital (“MTD”) is supposed to be tax neutral. How then did the Chancellor conclude that deferring the entry of businesses below the VAT threshold into the MTD regime by 12 months will cost the Exchequer £180m? Do I detect some flying pork pies?

Business rates are the big headlines at present, and a package of reliefs was offered for small businesses to do very little but make it look like government was addressing the situation, especially for everyone’s favourite local pub. As for larger businesses and how to address the virtual business economy: the government will think about it and take soundings.

Other things the government will think about are simplification of Research and Development claims and the burning issue of North Sea Oil Revenues (don’t they belong to Scotland?).

An Initial Conclusion

The achievements so far and the objectives are laudable: we have a fast growing economy with low unemployment and inflation forecast at around 2%. Yet our borrowing is £1.7 trillion. Because governments do not produce balance sheets, only income and expenditure accounts, it’s hard to see what assets are backing that up. However, the Government says it wants to build productivity and infrastructure, delivering fairness.

Yet the reality is that Government is increasing the burden of small and medium sized businesses, imposing higher effective taxes, massively increased administrative burdens through MTD and auto-enrolment, while effectively subsidising larger employers by supplementing salary costs with in-work benefits and credits, and thus distorting the unemployment figures.

Government’s words are all about developing the economy and encouraging growth, but its actions are more about restriction, control and red-tape, welcoming us back to the 1970’s.  How ironic that the squeeze on taxes and increased red-tape reminds me of the decade when we entered what is now called the EU.

There is a saving grace: at least the Chancellor did not do very much at all.