The next step

[AtW]

Incidentally, DR, you're safe from any IP litigation (unlike those who pose under their badge while handing out tax opinions). I believe that as it's in the correct context, your avatar is perfectly acceptable.

IANAL, but usage of trademarked word(s) in a given class (clothing) is likely to infringe (there must be some exceptions for sure though).

Now the big question is who actually get done for infringing:
1) donkey (the animal)
2) whoever made the cloth with trademarked word in it
3) the person who uses photo of it
4) all of the above

Who can tell for sure? Apart from courts that is.

If I were you I'd focus on HMRC (tm) trying to get dodged tax back into coffers, rather than HMRC (tm) trying to assert their rather obvious IP rights.

Good night...

[OnYourBikeGB]

IANAL, but usage of trademarked word(s) in a given class (clothing) is likely to infringe (there must be some exceptions for sure though).

Now the big question is who actually get done for infringing:
1) donkey (the animal)
2) whoever made the cloth with trademarked word in it
3) the person who uses photo of it
4) all of the above

Who can tell for sure? Apart from courts that is.

If I were you I'd focus on HMRC (tm) trying to get dodged tax back into coffers, rather than HMRC (tm) trying to assert their rather obvious IP rights.

Good night...

Nah! You aren't really interested in a rational discussion on the pros and cons of HMRC bypassing the legal system. No point giving you more oxygen.

[AtW]

You say the people involved are dodging tax, I say HMRC are dodging the legal system.

They are not dodging it though, they are winning nicely so far in courts and the main problem is that endless appeals trying to prove Black is White actually stall payouts: interest that they currently charge isn't enough to deter such behavior. Hence anti-stalling legislation to increase cost of such action to beat cynical people who'd prefer to appeal and appeal despite being clearly in the wrong.

You can still challenge them in courts, it's just stalling tactics will cost you more in the future which is (in my view) their proposal is all about. I'd take much harsher approach (long jail sentences) if I was tasked with making sure tax dodgers pay the full whack + a lot more on top to deter others, would not you if you had that job?

btw I think taxes are way too high and I'd prefer to pay a lot less than I have to at the moment - it's just I am for tax rates to be reduced for everyone rather than have some people use loopholes to cut down their tax at the expense of others. It's politicians who decide what tax rates are, not HMRC who are just trying to enforce policy.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Is that going to include IHT planning using trusts ect. if so say goodbye to the UK's stately homes and private art collections the words arse and elbow spring to mind

I think the "HMR&C believe.........." is a fairly telling phrase Geoff Their intention seems to be to close every possible loophole in one foul swoop

[geoff from contracta IOM]

I think the "HMR&C believe.........." is a fairly telling phrase Geoff Their intention seems to be to close every possible loophole in one foul swoop

The whole basis of how trusts came into being was to stop greedy authorities introducing punitive taxes upon someones death that resulted in the state rather than their beneficiares receiving the fruits of their lifes work. It was the sort of actions that we are seeing now that brought about this situation in the first place, clearly they never learn.

[BlasterBates]

It depends on how HMRC interpret a scheme. There is a difference between a trust where the money stays invested and is spent on the upkeep of a Stately Home, and a trust where all the money coming in goes straight out as a loan, that's never repaid.

We'll have to wait and see, but I could well imagine that a trust that is used for the upkeep of a stately home might not be treated as "artificial".

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

More info on the "listing" idea and it seems as though this idea will not just apply to income tax:

The concept of listing a scheme already exists in UK tax law as part of the VAT Disclosure Regime (VDR). Details of the relevant VAT legislation are in Annexe B. The main features of VAT listed schemes are:
 They are in essence descriptions of known VAT avoidance schemes;
Listing is done by Treasury order subject to affirmative resolution, which ensures that the order is debated by Parliament;
The order allocates a number to each scheme listed;
The consequence of listing is that a business (with a turnover of at least £600,000) that uses a listed scheme must report that use to HMRC using the number allocated to the scheme;
There is a penalty for failure to report a listed scheme of 15% of the tax advantage sought.

3.3 The significance of VAT listed schemes for the present consultation is that they demonstrate that:
 Avoidance schemes can be described in legislation in sufficient detail to narrowly target the avoidance;
 Obligations and consequences can be attached to the use of listed schemes; and
 Listing can be an effective means of countering avoidance.


Listing

The taxes to be included
3.4 The proposal is to be able to list a scheme in relation to any tax for which an avoidance disclosure regime already exists. Those taxes are:
 Income Tax;
 Capital Gains Tax (CGT);
 Corporation Tax (CT);
 Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT);
 Inheritance Tax (IHT); and
 VAT

3.5 The ability to list a scheme should also include National Insurance Contributions (NICs). Separate NICs legislation provides a NICs disclosure regime that mirrors the income tax disclosure rules.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Here's a question.

Why bother with all this listing rigmarole when "Huitson -v- HMRC" gives backing for retrospective legislation?

Why risk litigation at all? Who cares whether HMRC believes something doesn't work, just close it down retrospectively.

If the Supreme Court upholds the CoA, then why would the Government not use it to close all of these schemes instead of fannying around?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Here's a question.

Why bother with all this listing rigmarole when "Huitson -v- HMRC" gives backing for retrospective legislation?

Why risk litigation at all? Who cares whether HMRC believes something doesn't work, just close it down retrospectively.

If the Supreme Court upholds the CoA, then why would the Government not use it to close all of these schemes instead of fannying around?

Presumably the listing idea is so that HMR&C can get their 'opinion' on the scheme into law and then take their time pursuing users and purveyors knowing that chances are anyone caught would cough up straight away rather than risk retrospective repayment. I suppose they also think that the list will act as a deterrent.

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Given the demographics of the Commons these days I really couldn't see anything that attacks the use of trusts getting too far , most of them are trust fund babies after all