• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

New Penalties for Enablers of Offshore Tax Evasion

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    There is perhaps a distinction to be made between motives for entering tax planning.

    Where a scheme has been studied by a financially astute person, willing to risk a bonus or funds that are not used for daily living expenses, knowing that there are a number of risks and where perhaps he/she is advised by a crew of experienced and expensive lawyers etc, and this fails, I can see a good argument for advisers and users to be tagged and bagged.

    Where a mass marketed scheme has been used by those whose skills are outside finance and tax and who are entitled to believe the advertising included in the materials and draw some comfort that many of their colleagues have used the arrangement and HMRC has been silent, I can see a less good argument.

    In reality the above represent two ends of a line and suffer from being hopelessly optimistic and simple. There are many shades between them.

    Unfortunately HMRC use the first to justify draconian, 20 year retrospective law for the second.

    That is not only damaging to the trust that investors could have when thinking about investing in the UK but also deeply unfair. I suggest that such cavalier disregard of their own charter and purpose will damage the integrity of HMRC for generations. That lack of trust in an organisation we should regard as setting the highest principles of integrity will poison not only those caught in the mess now, but their children and beyond.

    And for what?

    HMRC claim that 40,000 people are impacted by the 2019 charge. The value they think these people owe them, varies according to whom HMRC is speaking. Let's be generous and say £2bn. That's £50,000 each.

    Our analysis (backed by a research exercise from an independent firm) says that HMRC would be fortunate if they collected 50% of that for a variety of reasons. So we're at £25,000 each.

    I wonder if HMRC offered everybody here a chance to pay 50% of their preposterous demands base on flawed logic, and walk away, if they would actually collect something from say 75% of the population?

    Instead HMRC insist on dragging everybody through and expensive and ultimately pointless exercise. Moreover an exercise that has effects way beyond money. How many people here have health issues that can be traced to the stress and anxiety? How many have made job choices based on that flawed logic? How many have had their futures ruined?

    I agree that some advisers have profited enormously from some truly awful schemes. Why then not make the law here retrospective?

    I disagree that individuals should not be entitled to rely upon expert opinion.

    This is sadly though another example of HMRC actually catching up with real life a decade late and blaming everybody else.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

    Comment


      #12
      The objective for HMRC is to deal with mass market schemes - they need very strong deterrence effect for decades to come, bankrupting 40000 people is a no brainer for them, who is going to feel sorry for tax avoiders who entered schemes with full knowledge that tax will be reduced?

      Now if they were missold stuff and were under impression that tax was paid, but inreality it was pocketed by organisers, then it would be different matter, at least from public support point of view.

      The amount is almost irrelevant - 2 bln or 1 bln or even 0 bln - they fight to the death now to prevent future tax from being eroded.

      Comment


        #13
        Which creates the question about whether HMRC should be applying the resources and retrospective law to the likes of the multinationals who pick a tax figure that they think their shareholders will accept and pay that.
        Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

        (No, me neither).

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by webberg View Post
          Which creates the question about whether HMRC should be applying the resources and retrospective law to the likes of the multinationals who pick a tax figure that they think their shareholders will accept and pay that.
          They should, but they won't

          Comment

          Working...
          X