Changing the narrative Paul Wilson, Chairman of IFA Magazine and EIS Magazine, believes the time is right for a new way of thinking about EIS, BPR and VCT schemes. Or rather, a very old one
There was a time, not so long ago, when the message being broadcast to financial advisers about taxefficient investment vehicles like EIS, VCT and BPR schemes was primarily – well - that they were tax-efficient. And that, in return for providing much-needed risk capital for start-up and fledgling companies which could probably come from no-one else but wealthier investors, these vehicles could offer hardpressed taxpayers a range of tax concessions which could hardly be rivalled anywhere else. You’ll have noticed that a few things have changed over the last few years. The Treasury has been reining in the scope for some forms of EIS investments, while redefining the boundaries for others. HMRC has been making headlines of a less benevolentsounding kind with regard to certain forms of EIS schemes – at one point, more than 800 were being investigated for potential rule breaches. And all the time, the media was being fed lurid stories about what Jimmy Carr and others were being encouraged to do in the name of tax optimisation. From the Budget speeches to the humble income tax forms, the flow of negative news about tax efficient investments has been unstoppable.
A New Initiative EIS Magazine thinks this is all taking an unfortunate direction. More to the point, however, it’s showing up just how very far away we’ve moved from the original reasons for investing in EIS and VCT funds – and for their 1980s predecessors, the Business Expansion Schemes. When you get down to it, today’s alternative investment vehicles
6
EIS Magazine · March 2016
are still about fostering small and up-coming businesses. And to this end, EIS Magazine is now co-ordinating an industrywide campaign to reboot the popular assumptions about alternative investments. And, in the process, to impress upon our political masters the need to stop giving EIS, VCT and the rest such a hard time.
Why the Old Way Has to Go You can understand why the Jimmy Carr stories hit such a popular vein and why they became such a headache, both for alternative fund advisers and for the advisers who work with them. At a recessionary time when the public’s income was under daily pressure, stories like these about a devious minority were always likely to sell newspapers. But, seen as a wider process, it forms part of a bigger agenda around blurring the traditional boundary markers that have demarcated the
There is a tremendous societal benefit when small companies break through the fledgling barrier and grow.
frontier between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). The emergence of what the Treasury now calls aggressive tax avoidance is like a dirty bomb which taints everyone who is perceived to be standing anywhere
near it. Every selfassessment income tax form now requires the up-front declaration of any tax avoidance scheme (and even potential avoidance schemes) that will flag up in advance the fact that the client is being competently advised in the spirit of the old Duke of Westminster v Inland Revenue decision from 1936. We’re sure you’ll remember that High Court ruling. It was the one that said that “every man is entitled to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate act is less than it otherwise would be.” And it’s been a dead duck since 2013, when the General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) was published – pledging, in the Treasury’s words, to target “only avoidance schemes that are clearly abusive. By ‘abusive schemes’, we mean schemes that can be seen from the outset to be simply highly contrived and artificial arrangements designed to enable people to get around the tax law and avoid paying tax.” This is loose and deliberately imprecise talk, and it is in no way