Memorandum by the Commissioners of Customs
Climate Change Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous
Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/7)
1. This Explanatory Memorandum is provided by the
Commissioners of Customs and Excise (the "Commissioners")
in reply to the request communicated to them in the letter dated
30 January 2001 from the Commons Clerk of the Select Committee
on Statutory Instruments.
The meaning of the expression
"eligible to act as [or to be] a tax representative"
in regulations 17(4)(a), 18(1)(e) and 19(5).
2. In all three cases, this merely refers back to
whether the person in question is a 'person resident in the United
3. The specific legislation applicable to climate
change levy tax representatives is self-contained in paragraphs
114 and 115 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 (c. 17) (the
"Act") and in the labelled group forming regulations
14 to 19 of the Climate Change Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/7) (the "Regulations").
4. The relevant part of the primary legislation,
for present purposes, is paragraph 114(1) which reads as follows
"(1) The Commissioners
may by regulations make provision for securing that every non-resident
taxpayer has a person resident in the United Kingdom to
act as his tax representative for the purposes of the levy".
5. Accordingly the regulations may only make provision
for a person resident in the United Kingdom to act as a tax representative.
6. This formulation is therefore repeated in regulation
14(4) (the first regulation of the relevant group).
"(4) The Commissioners
(a) require or permit
such a taxpayer to appoint some person resident in the United
Kingdom to act as his tax representative ...".
7. The formulation is not therefore repeated in regulations
17(4)(a), 18(1)(e) and 19(5).
Given that regulation 20 imposes
a liability to a penalty for failure to comply with regulations
2(5), 3(5) and 19(2), why does it not impose such a liability
for failure to comply with regulation 4(3)?
8. Regulation 4(3) differs from the others in that
it is not an independent regulatory requirement.
9. Regulation 4(3) applies in relation to a notification
requirement directly imposed by paragraph 57(1) of the Act and
referred to accordingly in regulation 4(1). Paragraph 57(2) of
the Act prescribes a £250 penalty for breach of that requirement.
However the Act does not provide a time limit for compliance.
10. Regulation 4(3) merely supplies the time limit.
A separate penalty is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate.
11. Paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Note refers to
the possibility of a penalty arising under the Act instead of
under the Regulations.
12. The Commissioners hope that this Explanatory
Memorandum answers the questions posed but are happy to assist
further if the Committee so requires.
5 February 2001