Oh dear someone's in trouble..

[northernladuk]

The law tries to pretend that the people are generally adults (except when they're children...). It assumes that if the meaning of something is clear then people should take that meaning, and not try to find a misplaced word to say it doesn't apply. Loopholes will always exist - where there is a problem with laws it is mostly where the intent is not made clear and is left open to interpretation - in those cases you can only go by the letter of the law..

True enough then a whole argument starts about whether or not it is reasonable to then close that loop and retrospectively apply it. Those that created it will see it as fair, those that exploited it won't. You knew you were going against the spirit and playing a hole, we closed that hole, it now fits the initial purpose of the law so pay up. Cue the argument... as is already the case.

[Zero Liability]

You can't create laws and then complain when people do things to the letter but against the spirit of the law. That's not how laws work.

If people are finding loopholes then the law should have been written better in the first place.

However, in is instance it does sound like the law has already made a provision for artificially creating companies just to take advantage of the employers allowance so it seems to me that this "scheme" falls foul of the letter of the law, not just the spirit.

Absolutely. Not to mention the selective vagueness/fuzziness so they and their mates in parliament can get away with paying less tax, in spite of their purely tax-funded incomes in their capacity as such. I think a simpler tax system coupled with much lower, more transparent tax rates and commensurately reduced spending would be ideal. Though I can understand why in this case, from a prudential POV, this is just silly, provocative and bound to unravel before a court.