TAX EVASION

The UK Government is expected to bring into force a new tax offence in the Criminal Finances Act 2017. It is likely to become law in September.

What is startling about the new offence is that it will make a business guilty as a result of the criminal conduct of its employees and others who may act on its behalf.

Where an individual facilitates tax evasion the business will be guilty of failing to prevent that facilitation unless it can demonstrate that, at the time of the employee’s conduct, it had appropriate procedures in place to prevent facilitation arising.

This new offence will have an immediate impact for many firms. Implicitly, it also shows the UK Government’s preferred direction of travel for corporate liability, i.e. to criminalise business for the actions of connected persons.

The new tax offence will be of concern to banks, accountants, Independent Financial Advisors, and to anyone providing tax advice. Businesses are now eager to know what they should have in place to make sure that employees and others who act on their behalf are not facilitating tax evasion for clients and customers. They will also want to know how they can show that they have taken every reasonable step to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the first place. An organisation that is criminalised because of the actions of its employees or third parties will have serious implications for its long-term future and health.

There are some easy first steps that businesses can take to strengthen their position. Policies and procedures in place at present should be reviewed, with an emphasis on explaining to people what is and is not acceptable. These should be updated if it is deemed necessary in clarifying the position. Any procedural improvements should be freely communicated to all employees and others providing tax services for the business.

To understand the wider direction of travel for corporate liability we need to understand why there is a need for change. The historic approach to successfully prosecute a company required the identification of a person in the business who possessed a “directing mind and will” and who, specifically, condoned or was aware of the crime. Known as “the identification doctrine” there are a number of difficulties with applying this approach. For example, it may not be difficult to identify the ‘directing mind’ in a family-owned run business where all of the major decisions are taken by a small group of people. It is quite another for a prosecutor to identify the directing mind within a global business that has a complex structure and sophisticated approach to decision-making.

The new offence follows the same methodology and approach as the Bribery Act.

The UK Government has also been consulting on wider reform of corporate crime. One of the options being given serious consideration is a wider roll-out of the “failure to prevent” approach across the spectrum of economic crime. This will place an onus on a business not only to show that it has done no wrong, but also to demonstrate that the organisation is properly policing its employees and others acting on its behalf. Whilst not quite the end of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, any firm who allows their employee or connected person to break the law had better have a very good story to tell.