Finance Bill 2002
Amendment 212 Page 438 Line 19
Amendment 212 Page 438 Line 3
Amendment 214 Page 442 Line 26
Mr Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)
Schedule 29, page 438, line 19, leave out ?group relief? and insert ?relief
against total profits?.
Schedule 29, page 439, line 3, at end insert?
?existing asset paragraph 118(3)?.
Schedule 30, page 442, line 26, leave out ?royalties in respect of?.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
SUMMARY
1. These amendments correct minor drafting errors in the Schedules concerned with the proposed tax rules for intangible assets.
DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENTS
2. The first and third of these amendments correct two minor drafting slips. Both relate to the description of provisions elsewhere in Schedule 29 used in paragraphs which refer to those provisions.
3. The need for the first amendment arises as follows. In identifying functions under paragraph 140(1) of Schedule 29 which are to be those of the Board of Inland Revenue, there is a reference to paragraph 35(2). This provision is described as being concerned with the power to extend the time limit for claiming group relief. But paragraph 35(2) is actually about the time limit for claims to set losses under the Schedule against the total profits of the company concerned. The amendment corrects the description.
4. The third of these amendments amendment concerns the new section 338B of the Taxes Act proposed in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 30. Sub-section 5(b) of the new section provides that an annuity or other annual payment is not a charge on income if it is a royalty to which Schedule 29 applies (because relief will be available under Schedule 29 itself). The sub-section describes Schedule 29 as being concerned with royalties in respect of intangible fixed assets. But Schedule 29 is about the corporation tax treatment of such assets generally and is not confined to royalties. Again the amendment corrects the description.
5. The second amendment is to remedy an omission in the index of defined expressions in paragraph 142 of Schedule 29. The expression ?existing asset?, defined in paragraph 118(3), was inadvertently omitted from the list. The amendment inserts it in the appropriate place.