The list is split into three parts.  The first list contains jurisdictions which are deemed to have “substantially implemented” the agreed tax cooperation standard.  Not surprisingly the largest economies of the G20 group appear on this “white list”, such as the UK, the US, Germany and France.  The list however also includes some offshore and low tax jurisdictions, some of which have been vilified in the past by politicians and the media alike, such as Barbados, Cyprus, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Mauritius, Seychelles, the United Arab Emirates and the US Virgin Islands.

The vast majority of offshore and low tax territories (categorised by the OECD as “tax havens”) appear in the second list, consisting of countries that have committed to but not yet implemented the standard.  Many of these jurisdictions have recently been busily concluding bilateral tax agreements in a bid to stave off the G20 sanctions threatened by Messrs Brown and Obama, although it is not clear what exactly will happen should any sanctions be applied. Notable inclusions in this list are Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland, although they have been termed “other financial centres” and therefore escaped the ignominy of being officially classed as “tax havens.”.

The last list names those jurisdictions which have not committed to the standard and will presumably face sanctions of some sort unless they fall into line.  At the moment only four jurisdictions fall into this category, namely Costa Rica, Labuan, Philippines and Uruguay.

Commenting on the outcome of the G20 meeting and the publication of the OECD blacklist, David Harvey, Chief Executive of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, expressed his concern that historically standards of regulation have been applied selectively and indeed some of the worst offenders were members of the G20 itself.  He said that the IMF had made it clear that large economies often lagged behind well-regulated offshore centres.

To make it easier to set up and run a company there are a number of changes to the company incorporation process. The new system of incorporation will be preceded by a 'clearing period' to process any application made under the Companies Act 1985 that is received before 1st October 2009.

The new incorporation process will require an application to register a company (Form IN01) accompanied by the articles of association and the correct fee.

There will be 4 types of articles: model articles, model articles with amended provisions, bespoke articles and restricted articles. The articles will include the company's liability and assets and the objects. These items were previously in the memorandum, but the memorandum will no longer be required. The model articles are now very comprehensive but are unlikely to cover every situation so it is wise to give careful thought to the company's requirements before incorporation.

Amendments to a company's articles must be notified to CH within 15 days, and failure to comply will be a criminal offence. The Companies Act 2006 introduces a new civil penalty of £200 for failure to comply. But this penalty will only trigger if the company has received a notice from the Registrar requiring the delivery of articles within 28 days, and the company has not complied.

Authorised / nominal share capital will be discontinued on incorporation, which means that there will also no longer be a limit set out in the Memorandum on the number of shares that directors can issue. Currently a special resolution is required to increase the authorised capital if directors wish to issue shares above the limit in the memorandum. However shareholders can seek controls on the issue of shares by Directors in the Articles.

Finally, the need for a solicitor to make a statutory declaration of compliance will be replaced with a statutory statement of compliance from the company – also designed to make the company incorporation process simpler. The statement maybe made in paper or electronic form and need not be witnessed. It will be an offence to make a false statement of compliance.

There was an initial problem with the treatment of VAT on affected transactions but this has now been clarified. For the business purchaser the allowance is treated as a reduction in the cost of the new vehicle rather than the proceeds of the old vehicle so no tax charge arises immediately on the £2,000 it merely reduces future tax relief on the vehicle purchased.

Full details for the scheme are available from participating dealers and from the BERR website at

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/DG_177693