I am grateful to the Minister for spending some time discussing the amendments, although on several occasions he has referred to the debate in Committee on schedule 10 and structural assets. I asked lots of questions in that debate, and did not get many answers. I am therefore grateful for the letter that he sent to me explaining the Government’s views on structural assets, and the issues that the life assurance industry raised about the way in which assets held in funds were treated when sold, and what the appropriate capital gains tax treatment would be. It is important to acknowledge that the Treasury and the industry, by working together, have reached a satisfactory solution, and have made progress towards simplifying the tax regime for life assurance companies.
In the Economic Secretary’s letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) on 21 June, he referred to regulations needing to be made for more complex areas. I would be grateful if he could outline when those will be introduced and what discussion there will be with the industry to ensure that consensus is reached on the right way of treating those more complex issues. Will they be decided on a case-by-case basis, or will general rules be introduced to cover all those complicated matters?
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Hoban
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
462 c274-5 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:10:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405842
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405842
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405842