CommitteeReports


Training Committee The work of the Training Committee continues to focus on the Joint Review of Legal Education and Training being run by the SRA, the Bar Standards Board and ILEX Professional Standards (the LETR).


The Research Team which is running the LETR places extensive information on their website (www.letr.org.uk) and members of the CLLS are encouraged to visit that site to keep up to date with progress.


The first piece of work the Committee has done in response to a request for information from the Research Team has been to give comments on the issues identified in the first major Paper to come out of the Review – their “Discussion Paper 01/2012 – Key Issues (1): Call for Evidence” (the “Discussion Paper”). That Paper is available on the LETR website – see the link below:


http://letr.org.uk/publications/briefing- and-discussion-papers/


The Committee’s response is


available on the CLLS website (http:// www.citysolicitors.org.uk/FileServer. aspx?oID=1175&lID=0) as well as on the LETR’s website.


The second piece of work has been to contribute to the CLLS’s response to the LETR’s “Discussion Paper 02/2011


Equality, diversity and social mobility” (available


via the ink above), the


deadline for which is 2 July 2012. The CLLS response is on the CLLS website (http://www.citysolicitors.org. uk/FileServer.aspx?oID=1217&lID=0).


The next key stage in the LETR process will be the publication (due in mid-July with a deadline for responses of mid-September) of the Research Team’s “Discussion Paper 02/2012 : Key Issues II – Developing the Detail” (see http://letr.org.uk/ publications/) That Paper will set out the Review Team’s initial proposals for the outcome of the Review and is an important opportunity for the CLLS to influence (to the extent possible) the direction of the Research Team’s thinking insofar as it affects the interests of the CLLS membership.


The Committee will the in any event


continue to keep the CLLS members informed of progress with the Review. However,


importance of the


Discussion Paper to be issued in July is such that the Committee may hold a second Open Meeting for CLLS members to discuss the Research Team’s detailed proposals. If that is arranged, details will be circulated.


Interested parties are able to register their contact details through the LETR website, allowing them to comment on


documents and other items


posted. Alternatively, anyone wishing to email the Research Team rather than use the website can contact them at org.uk.


letrbox@letr.


If any CLLS member does send comments direct


website, the Training Committee


are to share their


interested to know the views expressed. If members


please send them by e-mail to the Chair of the Training Committee, Tony King at tony.king@ cliffordchance.com


Tony King, Chairman, Clifford Chance LLP


4 • City Solicitor • Issue 78


to the Review’s would


be


willing views,


Revenue Law Committee


The Revenue Law Committee continues to focus on commenting on tax matters relevant to the work and clients of City firms, in particular, responding to HMRC and HM Treasury consultations.


Following the Government’s decision at the end of February to introduce retrospective legislation to, inter alia, tax Barclays in relation to their debt- back transaction, the Committee wrote to David Gauke MP, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to express concerns over the use of retrospective tax legislation. In summary, the letter made the following points:


• We said that this is not a situation where we thought retrospective legislation is justified.


• Our main concern is the irreparable damage that may be done to the UK’s standing as a place to do business. We said that we believe this act will undo much of the work done in recent years to improve the UK’s competitiveness.


• Our second main concern is that retrospective legislation is particularly dangerous in this area given that buybacks, as well as being used opportunistically by solvent companies, are often part of restructurings of insolvent companies as a means of eliminating unsustainable debt.


• We also expressed doubts as to whether the retrospective element of these changes would survive a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998.


•


Finally, we said that we think the Government is wrong to justify retrospective tax legislation on the grounds of an alleged breach of the Banking Code of Practice. At no time was it ever announced that an alleged breach would lead to retrospective legislation – the stated sanctions at the time were raising the alleged breach with the Board of the bank and/or a report to a professional body.


In May, the Committee responded to the Consultation Document on possible changes to the income tax rules on interest. In summary, we made the following comments:


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16