No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[Fireship]

However, if the case is/was weak/non-existent - and it can be shown the prosecution was done for malicious purposes (which is was I think BP is suggesting), then yes, absolutely. It's a clear abuse of power.

An abuse of power it may well be but if you think there will be any penalty for such actions then I fear you are mistaken as it seems HMRC can do what they like without fear of reprisal.

Let’s not forget HMRC’s illegal search of MontP’s IOM offices resulting in reputational damage, loss of business, and staff losing their jobs as a result.

Then there was WG’s arrest in September 2010 on the day of a client’s trial, instigated by HMRC and on the day he was supposed to be in court defending a case against HMRC worth £27m. As a result HMRC gained sight of legally privileged and confidential material held by WG relevant to the hearing. In addition the tribunal hearing was alerted to the arrest and detention causing a postponement and embarrassing the appellants and "oppressively" placing pressure on them. WG was released the same day without charge and no charges have been brought against him since – what an amazing coincidence that HMRC chose to act the way they did, when they did, especially when it turns out there was no case to answer. Big shock, NOT!

Do you think that there was any reprisal against HMRC given the circumstances of either example above?? A clear example of harassment by a government department which is allowed to go unchecked!

Personally I’d be surprised if WG is found guilty as he follows the rules by the book, more likely it's dirty tricks by an opponent with form.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion

Complete nonsense. If that was true then nearly every major corporation in the world would be walking a very thin line. Governments may not like tax avoidance, except of course when they are promoting it for their own benefit and they may blur the lines for the sake of getting Joe Public's support for dodgy legislation, but everyone accepts that the difference is that avoidance is supported by an arguable interpretation of the law, evasion is not. Try not to swallow the propaganda.

[honeyridges]

To be clear, there is no such thing as 'aggressive tax avoidance' . HMRC have made this phrase up to justify their actions.

I have not avoided any tax. I have paid exactly what was due under the law and detailed this on my tax returns.

Fair comment - I find myself guilty of falling for the very spin I was trying to warn against. The use of the word 'aggressive' is emotive and is used to get people's backs up in support of HMRC's arguments. Once we accept it's aggressive we're already on the back foot having to defend it.

There is, or at least ought to be, only legal and illegal. And perhaps within legal, effective and ineffective.

[smalldog]

Gauke and Osborne have done a fantastic job here, they have convinced the common person that there is actually something legitimately called:

Quote Originally Posted by centurian;
Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion

Its a totally meaningless word in our context, no different to using natural or fresh. And of course they couldnt use the term "unusual", oh no had to be a word suggesting violence to really stir people up.

[jeanvaljean]

Spin / Semantics

There's also the phrase 'wholly artificial' to contend with.

Good soundbite but in reality it follows there must be 'partially artificial' schemes and possibly even 'straightforward artificial' schemes but which are neither wholly nor partially artificial.

[Morlock]

Gauke and Osborne have done a fantastic job here, they have convinced the common person that there is actually something legitimately called:

Quote Originally Posted by centurian;
Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion

Its a totally meaningless word in our context, no different to using natural or fresh. And of course they couldnt use the term "unusual", oh no had to be a word suggesting violence to really stir people up.

Perhaps we should start using a similar term of our own: "aggressive taxation"...?

[Rob79]

The current situation on tax avoidance (legal) is the result of a carefully orchestrated campaign devised by HMRC. IN this campaign politicians have been complicit and should be forced to become accountable for the outcome, which will be damaged lives.

Politicians have found it easier to manipulate and direct public opinion via newspaper headlines and celebrity bashing than actually doing the job they are meant to do, i.e. ensure that our society operates within laws that are just and which importantly have had the benefit of detailed scrutiny from people who care about the results.

Politicians of all colours don't understand the tax system, don't want to understand it, don't want to spend any time ensuring it is fair (whatever that means) and don't want to be held accountable when something is found not to work as HMRC think it should.

Instead the politicians simply want more and more money through the door to spend on projects that those of us who pay may not agree with.

HMRC exploited this by promising more revenue so long as they are allowed to change the rules as they see fit. Challenging HMRC's view in the Court is expensive and takes ages. HMRC is very adept at delaying marginal cases and advancing egregious ones (which is why their success rate is so high) and blaming the taxpayer for this!

Unfortunately people like Margaret Hodge who force HMRC into abiding by the letter of the law in reaching agreement on tax due, are actually adding to the problem of reaching a fair position. I suspect that many of you would pay some of the tax now being demanded with menaces, without much of a protest. If however the stance is that it's all the tax or nothing, why would you not fight?

If HMRC had some discretion I guarantee that the majority of tax disputes would be settled with 12 months.

Sadly, for as long as the politicians remain addicted to the limelight of public opinion, that is not going to happen.

Thanks for your patience, rant over (it's not been a great morning).

[honeyridges]

Perhaps we should start using a similar term of our own: "aggressive taxation"...?

I like it - and actually pretty accurate when describing for example IR35.

"I was simply attempting to mitigate against the Government's latest round of aggressive taxation".

[Rob79]

I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum.

William Weld

[honeyridges]

Politicians have found it easier to manipulate and direct public opinion via newspaper headlines and celebrity bashing than actually doing the job they are meant to do, i.e. ensure that our society operates within laws that are just and which importantly have had the benefit of detailed scrutiny from people who care about the results.

Completely agree with your analysis here.

Unfortunately people like Margaret Hodge who force HMRC into abiding by the letter of the law in reaching agreement on tax due, are actually adding to the problem of reaching a fair position. I suspect that many of you would pay some of the tax now being demanded with menaces, without much of a protest. If however the stance is that it's all the tax or nothing, why would you not fight?

Sorry, I can never resist an opportunity to "out" the hypocrite Hodge.

Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK - Telegraph

Hodge the Dodge: Named and Shamed - Guy Fawkes' blog