I always knew we were right....

[jamesbrown]

total bollux.

"treading on very thin ice, any questions of legality aside." WTF? The only thing that matters here is legality. Avoidance is legal, evasion illegal.

If HMRC want to counter schemes then they should try simplyfying the tax code.

You refer to schems rather than ordinary tax planning. But it seems that mostly big companies and the rich can pay zero tax while those who are not friends with a MP pay through the nose.

Oh, please. If your main argument is that other people or businesses avoid taxes more aggressively or more successfully, that's nothing more than distraction and diversion (your MP would be proud ). You seem to have completely missed the point of this article. It's perfectly reasonable that HMRC would explain what they consider to be unreasonable avoidance. You can do with that information as you see fit (such as ignore it and join a scheme), but it's valuable information nonetheless, and it's about time they clarified their position.

[meridian]

I partly agree with BrilloPad here, in that the article uses language that appears to deliberately confuse the difference between avoidance and evasion, e.g. "trying to dodge tax", etc.

However, the overriding focus of the article appears to be
- there are no easy short cuts to keeping your tax bill to the correct amount;
- if a scheme is being promoted, do your own research and employ your own independent advisors, and don't just fall for the sales pitch;
- ensure that any advice given fits your specific personal circumstances and is not just a "one size fits all" tax approach.

Which is reasonable advice for any tax reduction method, whether it's childcare vouchers, use of own home, claiming business travel, umbrella expense dispensation, or an Isle of Man roundabout.

[malvolio]

I partly agree with BrilloPad here, in that the article uses language that appears to deliberately confuse the difference between avoidance and evasion, e.g. "trying to dodge tax", etc.

However, the overriding focus of the article appears to be
- there are no easy short cuts to keeping your tax bill to the correct amount;
- if a scheme is being promoted, do your own research and employ your own independent advisors, and don't just fall for the sales pitch;
- ensure that any advice given fits your specific personal circumstances and is not just a "one size fits all" tax approach.

Which is reasonable advice for any tax reduction method, whether it's childcare vouchers, use of own home, claiming business travel, umbrella expense dispensation, or an Isle of Man roundabout.

And I partly disagree with Brillo's view actually: what they are against is using an artificially-constructed scheme with no other business objective than saving taxes. Quite rightly, IMHO, a scheme that puts all the money in the provider's pocket rather than theirs is going to be attacked.

And fixing the tax system isn't that easy, for obvious reasons: there are always going to be exceptions (investment in films, for example) that you can pretend to use to offset some tax liabilities. What they are trying to say is that it's OK if you are a film producer, but not if you fix PCs.

[AtW]

How many times have we said on here "if it looks too good to be true then it very probably is" - confirmed by those nice people at HMRC HM Revenue & Customs: Tempted by Tax Avoidance?

"Using a tax avoidance scheme will mark you out as a high-risk taxpayer. This means that HMRC will subject your entire tax affairs to particularly close scrutiny, not just your participation in the particular tax avoidance scheme."

That alone should be sufficient to stay out of any "scheme".

Pretty nicely written document by HMRC actually - what they need to do is extend by law responsibility for tax advice to those who give it - make them jointly and severally liable for it and require 3rd party insurance fully covering it to prevent bankrupcies used as means of escaping responsibility. This will probably kill the "tax advice" industry as we know it, something that vast majority of taxpayers can happily live with.

[AtW]

They still persist in spreading confusion over the definition of "tax avoidance" which is muddying the waters though.

What they mean by "tax avoidance" is essentially tax evasion that can't be easily or cheaply proven because HMRC was notified of the scheme on one hand and criminal prosecution requires much higher level of evidence.

Even though taxpayer gets shafted in both cases I'd argue that "tax avoidance" is far more dangerous because it is supposedly legal and can lure in a lot more greedy victims than blatant tax evasion.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"tax avoidance" is essentially tax evasion that can't be easily or cheaply proven

[BrilloPad]

And I partly disagree with Brillo's view actually: what they are against is using an artificially-constructed scheme with no other business objective than saving taxes. Quite rightly, IMHO, a scheme that puts all the money in the provider's pocket rather than theirs is going to be attacked.

Like running a limited company. All contractors could use an umbrella and pay the correct amount of tax. All those using limited are tax evaders by your "reasoning".

[BrilloPad]

I partly agree with BrilloPad here, in that the article uses language that appears to deliberately confuse the difference between avoidance and evasion, e.g. "trying to dodge tax", etc.

However, the overriding focus of the article appears to be
- there are no easy short cuts to keeping your tax bill to the correct amount;
- if a scheme is being promoted, do your own research and employ your own independent advisors, and don't just fall for the sales pitch;
- ensure that any advice given fits your specific personal circumstances and is not just a "one size fits all" tax approach.

Which is reasonable advice for any tax reduction method, whether it's childcare vouchers, use of own home, claiming business travel, umbrella expense dispensation, or an Isle of Man roundabout.

The montpelier scheme was like a childcare voucher - it did work and only reasion it did not was retrospectively changing the law. Those that do not support the Montpelier3000 deserve to have their "childcare vouchers, use of own home, claiming business travel, umbrella expense" taken away, and in fact be forced into an umbrella, retrospectively.

[malvolio]

Like running a limited company. All contractors could use an umbrella and pay the correct amount of tax. All those using limited are tax evaders by your "reasoning".

Not at all. There are very valid commercial and legal reasons for my using a UK Limited Company to process my variable gross earnings from my freelance work. There are no commercial reasons for me giving that income to another company for them to use as they see fit, including them passing it on to yet another organisation who then lend some of it back to me for my personal use.

We've had this debate before and you continue to be wrong. Just because something is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean it's right. For example, in this context "legal" means being used for its correct purpose; like optimising the income from a company's pension fund to maximise the net take home for its retired workers is correct use of the EBT route, whereas enriching a worker by artificially reducing their tax to a ludicrous extent isn't. The challenge for HMRC - before you trot out the trite "make it illegal then" argument - is that closing stable doors is very difficult without killing off the legitimate benefit you were originally aiming to create. Stopping abuse of EBTs is easy, all you have to do is explain why you just cut the pensions of a few million retirees...

[BrilloPad]

We've had this debate before and you continue to be wrong. Just because something is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

Its you that are wrong and you know it -

Mod snip: outing of poster.

There has already been one suicide - is that not enough for you? How many suicides until you are happy? Go on - stick the knife in you pathetic vulture.

And if it is legal then it is right. The thing that causes the UK to lose business is introducing retrospective legislation which means no-one wants to do business here. Zimbabwe is a better place to do business where retrospection is illegal.

edit : mods - any chance of moving this thread to general where I can take the gloves off and give this moron the proper kicking his type deserve?