1 GENERAL NEWS
1.1 HMRC's work tackling tax evasion
HMRC has issued an update on its work to tackle tax evasion.
1.2 Promoters of tax avoidance schemes and DOTAS
By way of response to the 2013 'Raising the Stakes on Tax Avoidance' consultation, which elicited voices of concern about some of the proposals, HMRC has issued draft legislation expected to take effect from Royal Assent of the Finance Bill 2014 to:
- facilitate the obtaining of further information from promoters of tax avoidance schemes;
- strengthen their powers to deal with responses to information requests that are incomplete; and
- provide a power to name monitored promoters who breach a conduct notice, although there will be a right of appeal against the notice.
Clients of a monitored promoter will be subject to an extended assessing period of 20 years if any tax is lost because they fail to pass on the reference number and a penalty.
The notes to the legislation include the following comments:
Where a disclosure is made the existing information power in section 308A of FA04 is limited to obtaining information or documents related to what should have been included in the disclosure.
The draft legislation amends FA04 Part 7 to enhance the ability of HMRC to obtain information or documents to better understand and analyse the tax effect of a disclosed tax avoidance scheme. It would, for example, enable HMRC to obtain sample copies of the documents used in implementing the scheme and a full analysis of how the scheme achieves the expected tax advantage. It also broadens HMRC's ability to deal with incomplete compliance with a person's disclosure obligations under s309 and s310.
Following consultation the Government has decided that documents and additional information will not have to be provided in every case, but only when HMRC specifically request them.
The legislation also provides for a penalty for failing to comply with the new information power under section 310A of £600 a day, or of up to £1 million if that is considered necessary to deter future failures to comply.
2 PRIVATE CLIENT
2.1 Negligible value claim and whether shares were subscribed for
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has concluded (in contrast to HMRC's view) that Neil McLocklin subscribed for shares for the purposes of ITA 2007 section 131 share loss relief, even though this was done through another party.
Mr McLocklin was going through a divorce at the time of the subscription in November 2005 (with the consequence that his assets were frozen), so he arranged for another party (Mr Winter) to subscribe for the shares. The shareholders agreement referred to the fact that Mr Winter was entitled to sell the shares to Mr McLocklin provided that Mr McLocklin entered into a deed of adhesion (whereby a Shareholder who is not a party to the Shareholders' Agreement agrees to be subject to it and be bound by it). Mr McLocklin entered into the deed of adhesion on 18 July 2006 when the shares in question were transferred to him from Mr Winter on payment of £46,000.
The FTT concluded that Mr Winter effectively acted as a nominee for Mr McLocklin so that for the purposes of share loss relief he could be regarded as having subscribed for the shares and as having reimbursed Mr Winter for the subscription cost.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2014/TC03182.html
2.2 EU to look at discrimination concerning the taxation of cross-border workers
Throughout 2014, the European Commission will carry out a thorough assessment of Member States' tax regimes to determine whether they create disadvantages for mobile EU citizens. If discrimination or breaches of the EU's fundamental freedoms are found, the Commission will flag them to the national authorities and insist that the necessary amendments are made.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-31_en.htm
2.3 Whether ownership of property was subject to a trust
The First-tier Tribunal has found in favour of the taxpayers in the case of Mr and Mrs Wagstaff over whether private residence relief was available on the disposal of a flat previously occupied by Mr Wagstaff's mother.
The property was acquired from Mrs Wagstaff senior in 1996, subject to the terms of an agreement under which she was entitled to continue living at the flat at no cost for the remainder of her life subject to a payment of £5,000.
HMRC argued that Mr and Mrs Wagstaff acquired full legal and beneficial ownership of the property and granted Mrs Wagstaff senior a 'lease for life'.
Mr and Mrs Wagstaff argued that in purchasing the property from Mrs Wagstaff senior and immediately granting her the right to occupy the property for her life or until remarriage for nominal consideration, they had subjected their interest in the Flat to a trust, in respect of which the property was the settled property.
The Tribunal stated:
30. Mr Wagstaff's evidence was to the effect that the Appellants had always accepted that they were not free to dispose of the Flat as they chose and could only act in relation to it with Mrs Barbara Wagstaff's agreement. Having regard to the brevity of the terms of the Agreement it does not seem likely that when it was entered into the parties envisaged that Mrs Barbara Wagstaff should ever be put in the position of having to rely on the Agreement as against a third party purchaser of the Flat from the Appellants. Her position vis-à-vis the Flat was to be secure against any eventuality, something that would not necessarily be guaranteed by a purely contractual relationship in the form of the Agreement but which would be better protected if the Appellants in entering into the arrangement were accepting the obligations ordinarily associated with a trust and the role of trustee. Had it become necessary for Mrs Barbara Wagstaff to seek relief against the Appellants we think that she would have been able to establish that this was the nature of the intended legal relationship in providing that the arrangement was legally binding on the Appellants.
31. The practical expression of the relationship accepted by all concerned can be seen following Mrs Barbara Wagstaff's accident and the recognition that the Flat was no longer suitable accommodation. With her agreement the Appellants acquired new accommodation for her to occupy on the terms of the Agreement and sold the Flat.
32. It therefore seems to us, and we so decide, that in acquiring the Flat on terms that included the Agreement the Appellants were assuming the role of trustees as they have contended so that they did not become at that time absolutely entitled to the Flat, with the exclusive right to direct how the Flat should be dealt with. Their interest in the Flat was therefore "settled property", i.e. property held in trust other than property to which section 60 of the Act applies.
33. In all other respects HMRC did not dispute that the requirements of section 225 of the Act were satisfied and that relief was therefore available to the Appellants on the disposal.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2014/TC03183.html
2.4 Negligible value claims and ownership of shares
The HMRC Helpsheet on negligible value claims says:
"If you own an asset which has become of negligible value, you may make a claim to be treated as though you had sold the asset and immediately reacquired it at the time the claim is made for an amount equal to its value (a negligible value claim), which should be specified in the claim. Please note that you must still own the asset when you make the claim and that the asset must have become of negligible value while you owned it. An asset is of negligible value if it is worth next to nothing.
When you make a negligible value claim you may specify an earlier time, falling in the two previous tax years, at which you should treat the deemed disposal as occurring. You have to meet all the necessary conditions for the claim at that earlier time as well as at the time you make the claim.
If you make a negligible value claim during the tax year 2013–14, any loss resulting from the deemed disposal will arise in that year, unless you claim to be treated as if you had disposed of the asset at a time falling in 2011–12 or 2012–13."
www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/hs286.pdf
The point about still owning the asset at the time of claim is particularly relevant in a case where the asset in question comprises shares in a company which has been dissolved. HMRC state:
"The taxpayer must still own the asset when the negligible value claim is made. If the company has been dissolved, the asset no longer exists and a claim under S24 (2) TCGA 1992 is inappropriate. In that situation the shares are treated as having been disposed of under S.24 (1) TCGA 1992. Similarly, if a taxpayer sells his/her entire shareholding for a negligible sum, this is an actual disposal and the retrospective relief afforded by S24 (2) TCGA 1992 is not in point."
www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/svmanualnew/svm107150.htm
3 PAYE AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS
3.1 Finance Bill 2014 changes for unapproved share schemes
The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has been consulting on improvements to the taxation and reporting for both:
- approved share schemes; and
- non-approved share schemes.
The consultation on the former was completed in 2012 and led to some welcome changes. The consultation on the latter was completed last summer and the review of the comments made has just been published, together with the Government's proposals and draft legislation. In this, the Government has recognised the complexities of the current situation and has sought to address some of these.
Comments are invited on these new proposals by 4 February 2014.
We highlight three of the proposals that, subject to the further consultation, will be included in Finance Bill 2014.
- The introduction of a new rollover relief for certain share exchange arrangements for employment tax purposes (a relief is already available for capital gains tax) with effect for exchanges occurring on or after the date of Royal Assent of Finance Bill 2014. This is potentially a very valuable relief and should, for example, make it easier to exchange restricted shares and obtain a rollover without generating employment tax charges.
- An extension (with effect from the date of Royal Assent) to corporation tax relief for employee share acquisitions following the takeover of a company. Current rules do not allow such a relief where the shares are issued in a company under the control of another company that isn't listed. The proposed relief will allow a 90 day period to acquire shares following a takeover.
- A change (with effect for grants and awards made on or after 1
September 2014) in the basis of taxation of shares and options
granted to internationally mobile employees to make it more
consistent with the taxation of other forms of employment income.
While this should simplify the whole area of taxing such employees
employers should be considering the tax implications of these
imminent changes.
Currently no employment tax is charged in respect of restricted or convertible securities, or options, or post acquisition benefits employment under the related securities legislation where the grant or award was made in a tax year when the recipient was not resident. The change will remove this exclusion and instead calculate tax on the date of the chargeable event and apportion any charges that arise on chargeable events to periods of UK and non-UK working for those to whom the remittance basis applies or who were non-resident for part of the period between award and chargeable event, regardless of the date of grant or award.
The change will have an impact on systems and procedures for accounting for employment tax in respect of awards to the affected individuals, and employers will need to consider the impact of the measures on the effectiveness of future awards. Overall these proposals are welcome and should help simplify and improve the taxation of unapproved share schemes and therefore make them more attractive.
3.2 On-line registration of tax approved share schemes
Following the note included in their December 2013 Employment Related Shares and Securities Bulletin, HMRC has issued a further note concerning self certification of share schemes from 6 April 2014 and on-line filing of all share scheme information returns from April 2015. The changes affect the following schemes:
- Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI);
- Company Share Option Plans (CSOP);
- Save As You Earn option schemes (SAYE);
- Share Incentive Plans (SIP); and
- any non-tax advantaged arrangements.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/ers-admin.htm
4 BUSINESS TAX
4.1 Tax credits on foreign income dividends and time limits for tax claims
The Court of Appeal has agreed with the decisions of the Upper Tribunal concerning the first part of the appeal by the Trustees of BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) on the validity of time limits for claims for tax credits in relation to tax suffered on foreign dividends.
The Upper Tribunal found against BTPS but left the decision on whether there should be an appeal to the CJEU to a higher court. The issues concerned claims by BTPS (and whether they were made out of time) for recovery of tax in respect of:
- tax credits on foreign income dividends (known as the FID claim, totalling £12.5m in respect of dividends received between July 1994 and July 1997) received by BTPS from UK resident companies. The claim was made on 31 January 2003;
- tax credits on cross-border dividends not paid as FIDs (known as the Manninen claim, totalling £123.5m in respect of dividends received between July 1990 and July 1997), which the pension scheme had received from non-UK companies. The claim was made on 1 April 2005.
Until 2006, the trustees of BTPS were a group of individuals. Since 14 December 2006 there has been a sole corporate trustee of BTPS.
The Court of Appeal concluded as follows:
- ICTA 1988 section 231(3) did require a claim for the tax credit (entitlement to the credit was not automatic);
- The claim (made under TMA 19701 section 42) was a claim for relief and not a claim for payment;
- The claims for relief had not already been made through either ICTA 1988 section 591 (approval of exemption from tax by pension schemes) or the annual return.
As a result of the six year time limit in operation for the years up to 1995/96 and the five year time limit from 31 January after the tax year for 1996/97 and 1997/98, the claims by BTPS (by virtue of TMA s43) were out of time except for the 1997/98 FID claim (amounting to £1.6m).
With respect to BTPS's arguments about the compatibility of domestic time limits with community law, these remain live and may need to be referred to the CJEU, pending further consideration by the Court of Appeal.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/23.html
4.2 OTS interim report on partnership tax
The Office of Tax Simplification has published an interim report on its review of partnership taxation. The following points are among those highlighted in the report:
- Around 10% of UK businesses are partnerships and HMRC records indicate that these account for an annual turnover of £150bn.
- The tax system struggles to cope with partnerships as there is no formal partnership tax system. The general look through principle (taxing partners rather than partnerships) works tolerably well but creates problems in practice, especially when partners join and leave and in international situations.
- A 'one size fits all' approach leads to extra burdens and complexities for small partnerships when compared to sole traders with similar sized businesses.
- Some of those the OTS interviewed thought that the £100 penalty per partner for late filing did not amount to a fair system when compared to late filing penalties for other business entities.
- The tax system needs to take a more strategic approach to partnerships. HMRC guidance on partnerships is difficult to find as it is not consolidated in one place. Partnerships cannot file their returns on-line with free software, unlike other businesses.
- There is an impression (supported by OTS interviews) that some areas of HMRC consider that partnerships and LLPs in particular are avoidance vehicles. The OTS recognises the need to strike a balance between tackling avoidance and facilitating the operation of the tax systems for partnerships, but considers that partnerships need to be recognised as legitimate commercial structures.
- Although the partnership legislation is disjointed, stakeholders generally felt it worked well and a consolidated partnerships tax act was not seen as a priority.
- The question of the tax rate on working capital retained in partnerships compared to other business structures is discussed in the report, principally in comparison to the rates of tax applicable to retained profits used for similar purposes in a company (it is recognised this also affects other unincorporated businesses). Indeed there is mention of the possibility of charging all LLPs to corporation tax, or to apply basic rate income tax to retained profits, although it was recognised this would be a significant policy change. The report also recognises that non-corporate partners have not benefited from the reduction in corporation tax rates, but have in fact borne part of the cost to the exchequer of this policy course through reduced capital allowance rates.
- There was recognition of the very real tax avoidance problem HMRC faces with partnerships and LLPs in particular.
- The OTS would like to focus the next stage of their review on what could be done to make the tax system easier for small partnerships.
The OTS did propose some short term fixes as follows:
- BIS to re-publish their model partnership agreement;
- publish a manual of consolidated guidance for partnerships;
- allow interest on income to be entered in gross on the short return;
- change the corporation tax self-assessment return to include a section for income from a partnership;
- HMRC to clarify when partnerships are eligible for entrepreneurs' relief (particularly regarding possible relief on subsidiary companies held by an LLP);
- streamline the process for issuing unique taxpayer references to foreign partners;
- have a form of general remittance basis investment relief for groups of non- domiciled individuals investing in UK investment partnerships;
- HMRC to create free software for the smallest partnerships;
- HMRC guidance should be clearer on stamp duty land tax (SDLT) liabilities following changes in profit sharing ratio;
- review and update the guidance on inheritance tax for partnerships;
- HMRC to clarify their requirements as regards limited partnerships and joint ventures for the purposes of VAT registration, where the present published guidance seems unclear; and
- HMRC to give clear guidance on VAT grouping for LLPs.
4.3 HMRC overview papers on the tax implications of new UK GAAP
HMRC has prepared two overview papers. The purpose of these papers is to assist companies who are thinking of choosing or have already chosen to apply either FRS 101 or FRS 102. They provide HMRC's overview of the key accounting changes and the key tax considerations that arise for those companies that transition from current UK GAAP to the new standards. The key points from the two overview papers are noted below.
- The 'FRS 101 Overview Paper' provides an overview of
the key accounting changes and the key tax considerations that
arise for those companies that transition from current UK GAAP to
FRS 101.
Part A provides a comparison of the ongoing accounting and tax differences that arise between current UK GAAP and FRS 101. It covers the following areas:
- reporting financial performance;
- consolidated accounts and related issues;
- accounting policies, estimates and errors;
- financial instruments;
- inventories/stock;
- investment property;
- property plant & equipment;
- intangible assets including goodwill;
- business combinations;
- leases;
- provisions;
- revenue recognition;
- government grants;
- borrowing costs;
- share based payments;
- employee benefits;
- foreign currency translation;
- liabilities and equity.
- accounting;
- general trading;
- Intangibles;
- financial instruments.
- The 'FRS 102 Overview Paper' provides an overview of
the key accounting changes and the key tax considerations that
arise for those companies that make the transition from current UK
GAAP to FRS 102.
Part A provides a comparison of the ongoing accounting and tax differences that arise between current UK GAAP and FRS 102, covering the same areas as noted above for part A of the FRS101 paper, but also covers the following additional area:
- specialised activities.
- specialised activities.
The papers reflect HMRC's current thinking based on the law as it stood as the date of publication. It is intended that these papers will be updated as further information is available and as new accounting standards and tax law develop.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/accounting-standards/index.htm
www.hmrc.gov.uk/accounting-standards/frs101-overviewpaper.pdf
www.hmrc.gov.uk/accounting-standards/frs102-overviewpaper.pdf
4.4 Business Income Manual updated
HMRC has undertaken a major update to the Business Income Manual to reflect legislative changes, including the Tax Law Rewrite, the Simpler Income Tax rules and accountancy changes.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/index.htm
4.5 Travel expenses of medical professionals
The Upper Tribunal has agreed with the First-tier Tribunal's decision concerning the interpretation of 'wholly and exclusively' allowable expenditure in the context of travel expenses of a medical practitioner.
The FTT had acknowledged that Dr Samadian had a dedicated office in his home that was necessary for his professional activity. However, it did not accept that the home office could be treated as the starting point for calculating private practice business mileage involving habitual journeys.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2014/13.html
4.6 HMRC draft guidance on amendments to the bond fund rules
HMRC has issued draft guidance on the proposed Finance Bill 2014 amendments to the bond fund rules.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/drafts/guidnotes-bondrules.pdf
4.7 Avoidance using total return swaps
HMRC issued a technical note and draft legislation on 5 December 2013 concerning avoidance using total return swaps with legislation taking effect that day.
Concerns were raised about the potentially wide effect of the measure on normal commercial transactions, so revised clauses were published on 23 January 2014. The revised clauses make some changes to the previous version. The effect of the changes is largely to clarify the effect of the clauses rather than to make substantive changes. The changes include:
- The title has been changed from 'Derivative contracts between group companies' to 'Disguised distribution arrangements'.
- Subsection (1)(d) has been changed to refer to a payment of all or a significant part of the profits, instead of to all or part of the profits.
- Subsection (1)(e) is a new subsection, which provides that arrangements are not caught by the legislation if they are arrangements of a kind that companies carrying on the same kind of business as the company would enter into in the ordinary course of that business.
- Sub-section (2) has been changed and a new subsection (3) added so that credits caught by the clause are not brought into account only to the extent that debits have been disallowed in respect of the same arrangements.
- The commencement provisions from subsections (2) to (6) have also been modified and extended so as to clarify them and to allow for the changes mentioned in the fourth bullet above.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/total-return-swaps-rev.pdf
4.8 OECD update on BEPS action plan
The OECD has issued an update on deliverables concerning its BEPS action plan that includes the following points:
The Digital economy:
There will be a second meeting in February 2014, followed by a discussion draft in March 2014. There will then be a public consultation in April 2014 with a report to be finalised by September 2014.
Treaty abuse
There will be full discussions of this area by Working Party 1 in February/March 2014, leading to a discussion draft to be released in March 2014. A public consultation meeting will take place in April or May 2014.
Hybrid mismatch arrangements
Action is required on the development of model treaty provisions and recommendations for domestic rules by September 2014. A discussion draft will be issued for comments in early April 2014 with a public consultation in May.
Transfer pricing aspects of intangibles
Following the November 2013 public consultation, finalisation of this aspect will take place during the Working Party 6 meetings in March and May 2014.
Harmful tax practices
There will be follow up meetings in February and May 2014. A report on the outcome of the Forum's review of member regimes is to be published by September 2014.
Transfer pricing documentation
There will be a release of a discussion draft of Chapter V of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, including a Country-by-Country reporting template in February 2014. This will be followed by public consultation in March 2014 and finalisation of the issue by working party 6 in May 2014.
The multilateral instrument
This work focuses on the feasibility of the use of a multilateral instrument to implement BEPS measures and amend bilateral tax treaties. A report is to be finalised by September 2014.
www.oecd.org/tax/OECD-BEPS-Webcast-23Jan.pdf
4.9 FATCA
STEP has published a note stating that, according to press reports, the US Republican Party will this week approve a motion calling for the repeal of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The article also includes the following comment:
However, even if adopted as party observers expect, the policy will not be binding on a future Republican presidential administration. Instead it will be used as a campaign and fundraising issue against Democrats in the run-up to the congressional mid-term elections this November. It may well persuade Americans living abroad – some of whom are especially inconvenienced by FATCA – to support the party with donations.
Adoption by the Republicans may also reinforce calls for further delays to FATCA's implementation, which has already been put back twice because of technical and legal problems. Its information disclosure provisions are illegal in many jurisdictions and can only be implemented with the cooperation of foreign governments, some of whom – notably Canada – are proving reluctant to comply with the USA's demands.
www.step.org/republican-party-calls-repeal-fatca
5 VAT
5.1 HMRC's application to submit a late appeal in the case of McCarthy & Stone Developments Ltd
The Upper Tribunal (UT) has refused HMRC leave to submit a late appeal (submitted 53 days late) in the case of McCarthy & Stone Developments, which considered single & multiple supplies concerning retirement accommodation. The UT's conclusion was:
Taking all the circumstances of the case into account and bearing in mind the overriding objective of the UT Rules, I consider that the two requirements specifically mentioned in the new CPR 3.9, namely the need for appeals to be conducted efficiently and the need to enforce compliance with the UT Rules, lead ineluctably to the conclusion that HMRC's application to submit a notice of appeal after the time limit has expired should be refused. I have also considered all the factors listed in the old CPR 3.9 although only some of them carry any weight in the circumstances of this case. I have found that they are fairly evenly balanced, tending slightly in favour of HMRC. If I was only considering the factors listed in the old CPR 3.9 then I would, on balance, have granted HMRC's application but the requirements in the new CPR 3.9 carry greater weight. Accordingly, I have concluded that HMRC's application must be refused.
January 2014 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2014/B1.html
5.2 Fixed odds betting machines
Following the Court of Appeal's decision in favour of HMRC concerning the VAT treatment of multi-terminal systems and whether they were gaming machines such that the takings were subject to VAT, HMRC has issued Brief 01/14 concerning their intention to reclaim all amounts of VAT previously repaid to claimants in cases following the same pattern. The Brief also includes the following comment:
Litigation continues with the First -tier Tribunal still to hear the remitted case on the issue of the similarity of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) to other machines. Rank has also petitioned the Supreme Court to be allowed to appeal the Court of Appeal decision.
HMRC will issue further guidance, as appropriate, as these strands of the litigation are concluded.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/vat/brief0114.htm
5.3 Consultation on simplification of Intrastat
HMRC has issued a consultation on EU proposals to reduce the burden on businesses required to submit Intrastat declarations. It seeks evidence of their impact on businesses and the statistical data made available to users. HMRC research indicates that the EU proposals will increase the number of lines of trade to be submitted by dispatching businesses by a factor of at least five, and possibly as much as nine.
While the EU proposal suggests the removal of the need to report arrivals information, HMRC indicates that it would still require this information for audit purposes, so from a UK perspective this obligation is likely to remain, though possibly with some reduced reporting.
The consultation also introduces a workable alternative to the EU proposals that the UK could put forward, and assesses and compares the relative impacts, costs and benefits. The UK proposal is to reduce the coverage for both arrivals and dispatches, increase the Intrastat thresholds, thereby significantly reducing the number of UK businesses required to submit Intrastat declarations. The consultation asks for comment on four alternative ways of achieving this.
Comment is requested by 8 April 2014.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273862/Intrastat_consultation_.pdf
5.4 Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill
This Bill received Royal Assent on 21 January 2014, and will replace the current UK Landfill Tax regime for Scotland on 1 April 2015. The Scottish regime will for the first time, allow for tax to be recovered from landfill sites where waste has been disposed of illegally, acting as a further deterrent to illegal dumping and encouraging the responsible, regulated disposal and treatment of waste.
http://scottishgovernment.presscentre.com/News/Landfill-Tax-Bill-to-tackle-illegal-dumping-77e.aspx
www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/62160.aspx
We have taken care to ensure the accuracy of this publication, which is based on material in the public domain at the time of issue. However, the publication is written in general terms for information purposes only and in no way constitutes specific advice. You are strongly recommended to seek specific advice before taking any action in relation to the matters referred to in this publication. No responsibility can be taken for any errors contained in the publication or for any loss arising from action taken or refrained from on the basis of this publication or its contents. © Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited 2014
