Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #taxnerdery
Most recents (3)
So it’s Sunday morning, I’ve had a cup of tea and it’s time for a little #taxnerdery on the hot topic of #NadhimZahawi
1/n (fairly short 🧵 )
1/n (fairly short 🧵 )
For the full story, all credit goes to @DanNeidle . See his timeline, his website or the article in today’s Sunday Times.
I am going to focus on the penalty Mr Zahawi has apparently paid, reported to be 30%
2/n
I am going to focus on the penalty Mr Zahawi has apparently paid, reported to be 30%
2/n
And for more technical detail on penalties, see @rbeccabeneworth comments over the last couple of days, in print and broadcast media.
In particular, this clip on Newsnight on Friday evening (from about 11:58)
3/n
In particular, this clip on Newsnight on Friday evening (from about 11:58)
3/n
Fun #taxnerdery here. It’s the US Embassy that says the congestion charge is a tax - because embassies are immune from taxes. TfL’s position is that it’s a charge for services, so there’s no immunity.
See Article 23 and 34 of the Vienna Convention, enacted into UK law under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. 
Who’s right? It’s far from clear, but IMO the Americans. Being permitted to drive in the congestion zone is not really a “service”.
My tweet below was unfair to Boris Johnson. It turns out the abolition of industrial buildings allowance *was* driven by EU law considerations, although this wasn't widely known at the time (and I only found out yesterday).
The background is interesting #taxnerdery
The background is interesting #taxnerdery
Because IBAs favoured a particular sector (industry), it was believed they constituted State aid. But because IBAs were introduced before 1973, they were grandfathered and so exempt from the rules.
In the 90s and 2000s, bad people started using IBAs to drive tax avoidance schemes (think - like the film partnerships but using industrial buildings). So HMT/HMRC needed to change the law. But that would lose the 1973 grandfathering.
