My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the danger to which new clause 5 could give rise, with the difference that building something or progressing with a development is, in principle, good and laudable, whereas avoiding tax is not. There is therefore an even stronger reason not to follow that route.
New clause 5 states that HMRC will have a "reasonable" amount of time to comply with the clearance request. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Fareham. What constitutes "reasonable" in that context? It can take a considerable time before HMRC is in a position to make such a judgment and it could easily be impossible to do that in a timeframe that might be considered reasonable by the taxpayer. I therefore question the usefulness of that sort of clearance to those who are genuinely trying to pay the right amount of tax at the right time, and I strongly argue against adopting the new clause because it would help those whose purpose is purely and clearly to avoid tax. As I said earlier, however, that is not to say that I want to close the door on tightening the disclosure arrangements. Indeed, there may be opportunities for us to do that.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Stephen Timms
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c856-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:41:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575364
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575364
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_575364