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.
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.
Comment