{"id":9389,"date":"2023-03-13T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-13T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=9389"},"modified":"2023-03-13T09:40:04","modified_gmt":"2023-03-13T09:40:04","slug":"abolishstamp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2023\/03\/13\/abolishstamp\/","title":{"rendered":"The stupidest tax: complicated, costs businesses \u00a3m, and raises zero money. Let’s abolish stamp duty."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Stamp duty was one of the triggers for the American Revolution. Somehow, 250 years later, we still have it. That makes no sense – it raises no money, is pointlessly complex,<\/em><\/strong> and creates cost and uncertainty for business. The Government should abolish it<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 250 years ago, stamp duty made perfect sense. The State had limited power and resources, and collecting tax from people was hard. So some unknown genius had a brilliant idea. Impose a special duty on documents. No need to have an army of tax inspectors. But if you wanted the document to be used for any kind of official purpose, you’d have to pay to get it stamped. No official would accept an unstamped document, for fear of being thrown into jail. Beautiful simplicity – a tax that doesn’t need an enforcement agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stamp duty once applied to basically everything. Even tea1<\/a><\/sup>Technically this was the Townshend Act not the Stamp Act, but facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good engraving<\/span> \u2013 which helped spark the American Revolution. Over time, it’s shrunk and shrunk, and today it’s basically irrelevant. But still there, and still costing business millions in legal fees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At this point I should clarify that I’m talking about old-style stamp duty, the one that actually involves things being stamped2<\/a><\/sup>Post-pandemic, it’s an electronic stamping rather than physical stamping<\/a> – HMRC retired their beautiful<\/a> old stamping machines.<\/span>. I’m not talking about the two modern taxes that emerged from stamp duty, but work in a sensible modern way:3<\/a><\/sup>By which I mean that, whilst not great<\/a> taxes<\/a> from a policy standpoint, they technically\/practically work just fine. They were created because stamp duty just became too old, creaking, and easily avoided. They are “normal” taxes in that if you don’t pay them, you go to jail (maybe<\/a>).<\/span> stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT – which applies to shares), and stamp duty land tax (SDLT). Both are often referred to as “stamp duty”, but they are separate taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n Given SDRT applies to securities, and SDLT applies to land, what does stamp duty do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answering that question is surprisingly hard, and requires a level of nerdy detail not really suitable for a blog post or twitter thread. But it demonstrates the insanity of the tax, so I’ll do it anyway: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The expression \u201cstock\u201d includes any share in any stocks or funds transferable by the Registrar of Government Stock, any strip (within the meaning of section 47 of the Finance Act 1942) of any such stocks or funds, and any share in the stocks or funds of any foreign or colonial state or government, or in the capital stock or funded debt of any county council, corporation, company, or society in the United Kingdom, or of any foreign or colonial corporation, company, or society.<\/em><\/p>\n The expression \u201cmarketable security\u201d means a security of such a description as to be capable of being sold in any stock market in the United Kingdom<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n I should emphasise – this unholy mess just tells us what the tax applies to. How it’s calculated, how the timing works, the scope of the exemptions – they make the above look simple and rational, but are a subject for another day<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n There are two ways in which stamp duty is actually relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, whenever shares in an unlisted UK company are bought\/sold. People actually pay this, and get their documents stamped – because if they don’t, the transfer couldn’t be registered. But if stamp duty was abolished tomorrow, SDRT would apply instead. So in this scenario, stamp duty is payable but pointless.8<\/a><\/sup>The interaction between stamp duty and SDRT is another deeply fascinating<\/a> area<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, there’s a whole universe of cases where stamp duty might apply if you were really unlucky, but in practice never does. Some examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have never once seen stamp duty actually paid on any of this second class of transactions. But I’ve seen huge amount of time\/money spent analysing the issues. Why? Because if a document is stampable but the duty isn’t paid, then it’s unenforceable. On a large commercial transaction that’s an unacceptable risk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So there we have it. Stamp duty applies to some transactions pointlessly, and applies to other transactions not at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But all this complexity is an expensive business. During my 25 year career as a tax lawyer, I’m pretty confident I charged at least \u00a32m in fees for stamp duty advice9<\/a><\/sup>I am thinking something like – an average of at least \u00a3100k\/year x 25 years. Obviously, it’s not money I personally received.<\/span>. I will modestly say it was excellent advice, and my clients were very happy with it – but multiply this across all the tax lawyers in the UK, and that’s a lot of wasted fees on a pointless tax. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Full credit to The Office of Tax Simplification, who made this kind of argument five years ago<\/a> (and were ignored).<\/p>\n\n\n Abolish stamp duty. It’s an easy win: a tax-simplifying, pro-investment, pro-growth policy that costs nothing and has no downside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s not even technically difficult. Expand the SDRT payment\/collection rules so SDRT more easily applies to paper transactions in unlisted UK shares. Tidy up the SDRT rules that rely upon stamp duty.10<\/a><\/sup>There are quite a few – SDRT doesn’t have many exemptions, so “hooks in” to stamp duty exemptions – these would have to be preserved<\/span>. Job done. <\/p>\n\n\n No, I lied. It’s the second stupidest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The very stupidest is bearer instrument duty – a kind of a miniature clone of stamp duty for bearer instruments. In a world where SDRT exists, bearer instrument duty is completely irrelevant and I have never seen any actually paid. For added relevance, real bearer instruments<\/a> basically don’t exist anymore. The tax is in Schedule 15 Finance Act 1999 <\/a>and I have not the slightest clue why it still exists.<\/p>\n\n\n Hard to say. Most bad tax rules exist because someone benefits from them – perhaps HMRC, perhaps a few deserving and\/or loud taxpayers. But in this case there is literally no point to stamp duty. I can only assume the calculation for HMRC is: no downside for us in keeping it in place11<\/a><\/sup>Because whether someone stamps a document or decided by the taxpayer – HMRC has zero compliance cost<\/span>; work for us in repealing it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If so, that’s the wrong calculation. Stamp duty should join the old stamping machines in graceful retirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Engraving of the Boston Tea Party by E. Newbury, 1789, photo by Cornischong<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat does old-style stamp duty actually cover?<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\n
Nicholas Ostrowski for alerting me of this in the comments below.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nSo what does this mean in practice?<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
So what should the Government do?<\/h2>\n\n\n
Is this really the stupidest tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n
Why haven’t both these taxes been abolished?<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Nicholas Ostrowski for alerting me of this in the comments below.<\/div><\/li>