BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Avoidance & Evasion

The problem I have with words like repugnant when directed at tax avoidance is that it leaves nothing to adequately describe those that engage in tax evasion.

Really, they should invent a new word - 'avoision'.

They could define it thusly :

'A transitional concept, the meaning of which is under constant review"

Then everyone won't know where they stand, but at least everyone will know WHY they don't know where they stand.

[Overwhelmed]

Budget discussions

I too have written to my MP (Mark Prisk) and e-mailed the committee.

I have also just e-mailed the Treasury asking for details of discussions around FA 2008 S 58 in the budget planning process, pointing out that with so many letters in the Government's hands the issue must have been raised. The Budget itseldf seems to be silent on the issue.

This can be done simply following the links at

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - HM Treasury

perhaps this is another way of raising the profile of the issue. I urge others to send similar requests.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Really, they should invent a new word - 'avoision'.

They could define it thusly :

'A transitional concept, the meaning of which is under constant review"

Then everyone won't know where they stand, but at least everyone will know WHY they don't know where they stand.

Genuis

[Emigre]

Really, they should invent a new word - 'avoision'.

They could define it thusly :

'A transitional concept, the meaning of which is under constant retrospective review"

Then everyone won't know where they stand, but at least everyone will know WHY they don't know where they stand.

[travellingknob]

top rate of tax

Isn't it a joke that the headline on every paper and the BBC focus on the tope rate of tax being cut to 45p. It the top affects 1% of taxpayers and barely features in the overall tax takings yet our sensationalist press cares about only this. I'm not one of the 1% so I really dont care about it. Why does everyone else ?
Meanwhile it seems anyones planning their tax affairs no matter how they are doing it will be seen as avoidance in future... we all know how HMRC will take this to mean anything they dont like will be challenged as avoidance. I can see them rubbing their hands in glee at all the potential bonuses.
So which of these ways of me invoicing will be acceptable in future: Self Employed, Partnership or Corporate entity ? I'm lost.

[seadog]

I just listened live to the budget, and I winced at "......I find tax avoidance and tax evasion morally repugnant."

I think his exact wording was "agressive" tax avoidance.

This begs the question of the meaning of the word agressive.

As someone pointed out recently from what HMRC said this scheme was abusive and agressive in 2008 then, because the scheme did not change, it must have been abusive and agressive in 2002 when they did TN63.

So the question HMRC must answer is why did they not close it down then?

Was that maladministration on the part of HMRC?

I will leave you answer that one.

[PlaneSailing]

He had been talking about multi-millionaires avoiding tax when he referred to aggressive tax avoidance as "morally abhorrent".

But he also followed that by saying he had stated his intention many times already and that today he was giving a clear signal of Parliaments intent to act and if not heeded would do so without further warning and in needed, retrospectively.

What he was saying was that he has today given a clear signal after many warnings and if you carry on in the future you'd be hit with retrospection. Note he didn't say how far back. Yet the words are that of the Rees-Rules. Retro back to the date of announcement. That is what the Tories argued for in BN66. That is all we expect. His comments are in line with what we want:

Rees-Rules applied
Retro back to date of announcement

But HMRC played the card of announcement was 1987. For the reasons already stated and being presented en-mass to the TSC and others, that is simply not true. So in summary:

Aggressive tax avoidance will be subject to retrospection if needed, and from the date of announcement which is today and therefore adhering to the Rees-Rules.

I see no problem with that message at all. After all if that had been the message in 2008 I would not be typing this. And hey, how many folks watching that on TV have even heard of the Rees-Rules? They'd love what they heard but not have a clue about what it actually does. That's what spending 3 years investigating this does to you. You become an armchair MP or Dr with MP emailing your MP and sending a PM on here to other MP's or DR's.

In a perverse way, this helps as an example of how one might EXPECT retrospection to happen. Not as in our case, were not mentioning retrospection meant that we should have expected it.

[OldITGit]

Baffled

In a perverse way, this helps as an example of how one might EXPECT retrospection to happen. Not as in our case, were not mentioning retrospection meant that we should have expected it.

What I cannot get my head around is that way back HMRC did not advise the planning provider or us that they were closing the scheme with immediate effect, or taken cases to the Tax Courts at the earliest opportunity (2003 as far as I know) rather than sitting on their hands, this strikes me as "abusive entrapment" by inactivity.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

And Again!

What he was saying was that he has today given a clear signal after many warnings and if you carry on in the future you'd be hit with retrospection. Note he didn't say how far back. Yet the words are that of the Rees-Rules. Retro back to the date of announcement. That is what the Tories argued for in BN66. That is all we expect. His comments are in line with what we want:

Rees-Rules applied
Retro back to date of announcement

But HMRC played the card of announcement was 1987. For the reasons already stated and being presented en-mass to the TSC and others, that is simply not true. So in summary:

Aggressive tax avoidance will be subject to retrospection if needed, and from the date of announcement which is today and therefore adhering to the Rees-Rules.

The door is still open!

[smalldog]

I think his exact wording was "agressive" tax avoidance.

This begs the question of the meaning of the word agressive.

As someone pointed out recently from what HMRC said this scheme was abusive and agressive in 2008 then, because the scheme did not change, it must have been abusive and agressive in 2002 when they did TN63.

So the question HMRC must answer is why did they not close it down then?

Was that maladministration on the part of HMRC?

I will leave you answer that one.

Yes and we found IR35 totally repugnant and if that hadnt existed we wouldnt be in this position you t*at!