One minute with John Barnett, Partner at Burges Salmon.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
The multiple changes to inheritance tax introduced by this government. Non-dom reform; APR/BPR and pensions are obviously the three biggest, but there were a further 12 measures in the latest Finance Bill. IHT could definitely do with a wider overhaul, rather than the piecemeal changes we have seen recently.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
I slightly fell into tax as a career, not realising it was something that lawyers did. Fortunately, I was then given the space and time to discover the breadth of the tax world. But I would definitely have benefited from a more systematic overview of how tax fits together and, in particular, how to read tax legislation properly. Although Einstein is reputed to have said that the hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax, I prefer the view that tax is, in fact, relatively easy – there is just a massive amount of rules to get to grips with.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I’m only allowed one? I guess I would love to open up the process of translating government policy into black-letter law to more external input. Undoubtedly, there would be challenges with this, particularly around confidentiality, but they aren’t insurmountable. Too often, at the moment, tax policy seems to flounder at the stage of turning it into legislation. Parliamentary Counsel (whose job I do not envy) are a very limited resource and the drafting process would, I think, definitely benefit from external challenge and iteration – or occasionally going back to ministers to point out why a particular policy is unimplementable.
An example of when it goes well is the Statutory Residence Test which was the product of several years of close engagement between HMRC and external professionals. Although it has its flaws, the SRT does produce a clear-cut answer in the vast majority of cases. Contrast this with changes in the remittance basis since 2008, which have been a constant source of frustration as the rules have been chopped and changed.
Anything in the Finance Bill on which you’d like to comment?
While the latest Finance Bill is largely uneventful, the process leading up to Autumn Budget 2025 was notable for the most kite-flying and leaks of prospective policies that we have ever seen. Hopefully all those in charge have now realised that tax policymaking is definitely not best done in this way. I’m hopeful that the new, supposedly more agile, consultation framework will lead to better engagement – but out of the press and public glare.
Are there any new rules that cause a particular problem?
I wrote in Tax Journal recently (‘Grandfathering’, 9 January 2026) about the anti-forestalling rule for APR/BPR and the suicide-risk that created ahead of 6 April for elderly farmers or business-owners. While the increase in the 100% band to £2.5m will have reduced the numbers affected, the risk still exists.
Separately, the Temporary Repatriation Facility for former remittance basis users does still need some work. The government is hoping to raise at least £10.6bn from the TRF. But, as a ‘voluntary’ tax, it needs to be made attractive. A couple of changes in the Finance Bill – around how to value foreign income/gains and whether one remittance can give rise to two tax charges – unfortunately do the opposite. The latter change also currently has retrospective effect, meaning those who took action shortly after April 2025 in reliance on FA 2025 now potentially face up to 24% rather than 12% tax.
You might not know this about me but...
During Covid, I helped make and edit around 150 recordings of hymns that have been viewed nearly 170,000 times on YouTube (bit.ly/SingingtheFaith) – look out for me singing and playing the piano, organ, tuba and euphonium!
One minute with John Barnett, Partner at Burges Salmon.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
The multiple changes to inheritance tax introduced by this government. Non-dom reform; APR/BPR and pensions are obviously the three biggest, but there were a further 12 measures in the latest Finance Bill. IHT could definitely do with a wider overhaul, rather than the piecemeal changes we have seen recently.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
I slightly fell into tax as a career, not realising it was something that lawyers did. Fortunately, I was then given the space and time to discover the breadth of the tax world. But I would definitely have benefited from a more systematic overview of how tax fits together and, in particular, how to read tax legislation properly. Although Einstein is reputed to have said that the hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax, I prefer the view that tax is, in fact, relatively easy – there is just a massive amount of rules to get to grips with.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I’m only allowed one? I guess I would love to open up the process of translating government policy into black-letter law to more external input. Undoubtedly, there would be challenges with this, particularly around confidentiality, but they aren’t insurmountable. Too often, at the moment, tax policy seems to flounder at the stage of turning it into legislation. Parliamentary Counsel (whose job I do not envy) are a very limited resource and the drafting process would, I think, definitely benefit from external challenge and iteration – or occasionally going back to ministers to point out why a particular policy is unimplementable.
An example of when it goes well is the Statutory Residence Test which was the product of several years of close engagement between HMRC and external professionals. Although it has its flaws, the SRT does produce a clear-cut answer in the vast majority of cases. Contrast this with changes in the remittance basis since 2008, which have been a constant source of frustration as the rules have been chopped and changed.
Anything in the Finance Bill on which you’d like to comment?
While the latest Finance Bill is largely uneventful, the process leading up to Autumn Budget 2025 was notable for the most kite-flying and leaks of prospective policies that we have ever seen. Hopefully all those in charge have now realised that tax policymaking is definitely not best done in this way. I’m hopeful that the new, supposedly more agile, consultation framework will lead to better engagement – but out of the press and public glare.
Are there any new rules that cause a particular problem?
I wrote in Tax Journal recently (‘Grandfathering’, 9 January 2026) about the anti-forestalling rule for APR/BPR and the suicide-risk that created ahead of 6 April for elderly farmers or business-owners. While the increase in the 100% band to £2.5m will have reduced the numbers affected, the risk still exists.
Separately, the Temporary Repatriation Facility for former remittance basis users does still need some work. The government is hoping to raise at least £10.6bn from the TRF. But, as a ‘voluntary’ tax, it needs to be made attractive. A couple of changes in the Finance Bill – around how to value foreign income/gains and whether one remittance can give rise to two tax charges – unfortunately do the opposite. The latter change also currently has retrospective effect, meaning those who took action shortly after April 2025 in reliance on FA 2025 now potentially face up to 24% rather than 12% tax.
You might not know this about me but...
During Covid, I helped make and edit around 150 recordings of hymns that have been viewed nearly 170,000 times on YouTube (bit.ly/SingingtheFaith) – look out for me singing and playing the piano, organ, tuba and euphonium!
