Propose a change

Corporation Tax Act 2009

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

698D Examples of results that may indicate exclusion not applicable

(1) Each of the following is an example of something which might indicate that arrangements whose main purpose, or one of whose main purposes, is to enable a company to obtain a derivative-related tax advantage are not excluded by section 698C(4) from being “relevant avoidance arrangements” for the purposes of section 698B— (a) the elimination or reduction, for purposes of corporation tax, of profits of a company arising from any of its derivative contracts, where for economic purposes profits, or greater profits, arise to the company from that contract; (b) the creation or increase, for purposes of corporation tax, of a loss or expense arising from a derivative contract, where for economic purposes no loss or expense, or a smaller loss or expense, arises from that contract; (c) preventing or delaying the recognition as an item of profit or loss of an amount that would apart from the arrangements be recognised in the company's accounts as an item of profit or loss or be so recognised earlier; (d) ensuring that a derivative contract is treated for accounting purposes in a way in which it would not have been treated in the absence of some other transaction forming part of the arrangements; (e) enabling a company to bring into account a debit in respect of an exchange loss, in circumstances where a corresponding exchange gain would not give rise to a credit or would give rise to a credit of a smaller amount; (f) enabling a company to bring into account a debit in respect of a fair value loss in circumstances where a corresponding fair value gain would not give rise to a credit or would give rise to a credit of a smaller amount. (2) But in each case the result concerned is only capable of indicating that section 698C(4) is not available if it is reasonable to assume that such a result was not the anticipated result when the provisions of this Part that are relevant to the arrangements were enacted (3) In subsection (1)(f) references to a fair value gain or a fair value loss are references respectively to— (a) a profit to be brought into account in relation to a derivative contract where fair value accounting is used for the period in question, or (b) a loss to be brought into account in relation to a derivative contract where fair value accounting is used for the period in question. (4) “Arrangements” and “derivative-related tax advantage” have the same meaning as in section 698C.

Your change, as a redline

698D Examples of results that may indicate exclusion not applicable

(1) Each of the following is an example of something which might indicate that arrangements whose main purpose, or one of whose main purposes, is to enable a company to obtain a derivative-related tax advantage are not excluded by section 698C(4) from being “relevant avoidance arrangements” for the purposes of section 698B— (a) the elimination or reduction, for purposes of corporation tax, of profits of a company arising from any of its derivative contracts, where for economic purposes profits, or greater profits, arise to the company from that contract; (b) the creation or increase, for purposes of corporation tax, of a loss or expense arising from a derivative contract, where for economic purposes no loss or expense, or a smaller loss or expense, arises from that contract; (c) preventing or delaying the recognition as an item of profit or loss of an amount that would apart from the arrangements be recognised in the company's accounts as an item of profit or loss or be so recognised earlier; (d) ensuring that a derivative contract is treated for accounting purposes in a way in which it would not have been treated in the absence of some other transaction forming part of the arrangements; (e) enabling a company to bring into account a debit in respect of an exchange loss, in circumstances where a corresponding exchange gain would not give rise to a credit or would give rise to a credit of a smaller amount; (f) enabling a company to bring into account a debit in respect of a fair value loss in circumstances where a corresponding fair value gain would not give rise to a credit or would give rise to a credit of a smaller amount. (2) But in each case the result concerned is only capable of indicating that section 698C(4) is not available if it is reasonable to assume that such a result was not the anticipated result when the provisions of this Part that are relevant to the arrangements were enacted (3) In subsection (1)(f) references to a fair value gain or a fair value loss are references respectively to— (a) a profit to be brought into account in relation to a derivative contract where fair value accounting is used for the period in question, or (b) a loss to be brought into account in relation to a derivative contract where fair value accounting is used for the period in question. (4) “Arrangements” and “derivative-related tax advantage” have the same meaning as in section 698C.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds