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

[stonehenge]

but everyone accepts that the difference is that avoidance is supported by an arguable interpretation of the law, evasion is not.

Everyone here maybe but I wouldn't bank on the general public (or a jury) grasping the distinction.

[bigdug]

WG - victim or aggressor

Depends on how strong the evidence is/was. If it just fell a few inches short of the bar for criminal conviction, then the prosecution have little cause to explain themselves - they have to prosecute if the evidence is there.

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.

Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that he has stepped over that line. Likewise, I can also believe the claim that this is/was a speculative prosecution designed to simply shake the trees.

The following gives a good summary from both viewpoints
Gittins v Central Criminal Court [2011] EWHC 131 (Admin) (14 January 2011)

[OnYourBikeGB]

Everyone here maybe but I wouldn't bank on the general public (or a jury) grasping the distinction.

Point taken. I was referring to us, the courts, the Government and even HMRC who aren't applying penalties, and have even acknowledged that what we had done was a 'very literal interpretation of the law'. I have heard a number of debates on the radio recently that indicate that not all the general public accept the headlines though, they may disapprove, but they do understand the difference and don't believe that avoiders should be treated as evaders. Many others have their own agenda, don't want to acknowledge the difference, are genuinely ignorant of the difference or are just angry individuals who feel empowered by their own self-righteousness.

However, we are not fraudsters, we are not criminals and we are not tax evaders. People can think what they like, but we did nothing illegal.

[screwthis]

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.

Exactly! The schemes we participated in were less 'aggressive' than an ISA. (~3% > 0%)

[jeanvaljean]

Groupthink:

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".

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

[BrilloPad]

Liverpool Crown Court Listings, hearings, cases & details

It says witness evidence concluded - but not for which side. grrrrrrrr

[centurian]

Complete nonsense. If that was true then nearly every major corporation in the world would be walking a very thin line.

Well I think they are, but the authorities are too scared to take them on, but that's a different debate.

For most avoidance schemes, in order to make them work, it usually involves exaggerating a key fact (i.e. a "loan", film "investment" etc.). Tax avoidance is legal - but making a false statement in order to claim a tax avoidance relief is fraud - and it can be a very fine line between exaggeration and falsehood. Proving it to a criminal standard is incredibly tough.

However, that was not the case with BN66 - as I understand it, it was a purely down to legal interpretation - something to do with the difference between a creator of an offshore trust vs member of a trust. There was no exaggeration involved with BN66 schemes - it was just simple exploitation of very badly worded law. Hence this is the wrong thread to debate this, so I'll move on.

[BolshieBastard]

Liverpool Crown Court Listings, hearings, cases & details

It says witness evidence concluded - but not for which side. grrrrrrrr

In UK Court Cases, I understand the Prosecution presents their case first followed by the Defence's rebuttal. So witness evidence should have been the Prosecution's.

[BrilloPad]

In UK Court Cases, I understand the Prosecution presents their case first followed by the Defence's rebuttal. So witness evidence should have been the Prosecution's.

Agreed. But surely the defence calls witnesses too?

Anyway - worth watching next week.

[BolshieBastard]

Agreed. But surely the defence calls witnesses too?

Anyway - worth watching next week.

Yes. But prosecution witnesses are 'hostile' to the Defence. The Defence can call its own witnesses when it presents its case.