I always knew we were right....

[NotAllThere]

.... Stopping abuse of EBTs is easy, all you have to do is explain why you just cut the pensions of a few million retirees...

Or follow Atw's suggestion and make the promoters of avoidance schemes (who've got a scheme number) jointly and separably liable for any tax due.

[BrilloPad]

Or follow Atw's suggestion and make the promoters of avoidance schemes (who've got a scheme number) jointly and separably liable for any tax due.

Good idea! Can we make it retrospective please?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Or follow Atw's suggestion and make the promoters of avoidance schemes (who've got a scheme number) jointly and separably liable for any tax due.

well it's funny you should say that 'Cowboy advisers' set for £1m fines under HMRC tax avoidance plans | News | Fundweb

[BrilloPad]

well it's funny you should say that 'Cowboy advisers' set for £1m fines under HMRC tax avoidance plans | News | Fundweb

Article is clearly nonsense. Look at this bit :-

"He says there is a disconnect between the Treasury’s aims of attracting firms to the UK by reducing corporate tax rates and the House of Commons public accounts committee’s attempt to “determine what the fair share of tax is” for large companies."

Basically they want to negotiate a tax deal with each company to attract them to the UK - while the masses get stuffed.

Also this :-

"HM Revenue & Customs plans to fine “cowboy advisers” up to £1m for recommending aggressive tax avoidance schemes to their wealthy clients."

Well avoidance is legal so they have no case.

I repeat

AVOIDANCE IS LEGAL

[cojak]

This thread will not be moved into General so I suggest that if you want it kept open you keep it civil.

[BrilloPad]

This thread will not be moved into General so I suggest that if you want it kept open you keep it civil.

I would prefer it closed. How uncivil do I have to be or can you just take it as read that I am a nutter and close it anyway?

Sorry, but we are talking here about bankruptcy and suicides. There has already been 1 suicide.

No point in debate here anyway - no-one seems to undertstand that

AVOIDANCE IS LEGAL

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Tax avoidance is legal - you are right Brillo - but that means any scheme is open to legal challenge by HMRC. Tax legislation is spectacularly complicated, full of loopholes and open to interpretation in some cases but what HMRC seem to be targeting are those schemes which have been devised for no purpose other than to avoid tax. For instance, loan schemes - you raise an invoice for your work done - it's paid but you choose not to take this as income but pass it on to the scheme provider - they then put you in touch with a loan company who 'loan' you exactly the same amount that you decided you didn't need. The process complies with the tax laws that surround deferred income and loans but the reality is that there is no real deferment and there is no real loan - in reality you are just getting the money you earned less teeny tiny tax contributions and even teenier NI contributions based on a minimum wage paid to a sole trader. A good tax barrister may persuade a judge that the law as it is written is the only consideration and not the intentions of the parties concerned (as has happened in the past) but a good tax barrister working for HMRC could equally as well persuade the judge that the tax law in question has been exploited so that it gives advantages to the tax payer that HMRC never intended (which has also happened|).

This is the risk you take using tax avoidance schemes. However, retrospective tax legislation is another thing entirely - IMHO any retrospective legislation is wrong.

[jamesbrown]

Mal is bang on with his assessment IMHO.

BP, ultimately your argument about the misery caused by these schemes falls flat. I totally sympathize with the people that were sucked into them. They're hardly blameless, but they are now in an impossible situation. However, those unwary or unwilling to do their own research will continue to be vulnerable to the nonsense spewed by scheme operators. It's important that HMRC counter this nonsense well in advance of specific schemes being prosecuted. I'm also not a fan of retrospection, but it's important that HMRC clarify their position on schemes and make it widely known to others that might be considering them.

[jamesbrown]

Tax avoidance is legal - you are right Brillo - but that means any scheme is open to legal challenge by HMRC. Tax legislation is spectacularly complicated, full of loopholes and open to interpretation in some cases but what HMRC seem to be targeting are those schemes which have been devised for no purpose other than to avoid tax. For instance, loan schemes - you raise an invoice for your work done - it's paid but you choose not to take this as income but pass it on to the scheme provider - they then put you in touch with a loan company who 'loan' you exactly the same amount that you decided you didn't need. The process complies with the tax laws that surround deferred income and loans but the reality is that there is no real deferment and there is no real loan - in reality you are just getting the money you earned less teeny tiny tax contributions and even teenier NI contributions based on a minimum wage paid to a sole trader. A good tax barrister may persuade a judge that the law as it is written is the only consideration and not the intentions of the parties concerned (as has happened in the past) but a good tax barrister working for HMRC could equally as well persuade the judge that the tax law in question has been exploited so that it gives advantages to the tax payer that HMRC never intended (which has also happened|).

This is the risk you take using tax avoidance schemes. However, retrospective tax legislation is another thing entirely - IMHO any retrospective legislation is wrong.

Good post.

[Martin at NixonWilliams]

It is clear that although the providers often sell the schemes as 'legal' tax avoidance, they are not always viewed the same way by HMRC.

Aggresive tax avoidance, typically a scheme which uses an offshore company/trust and bank accounts, could well be open to legal interpetation from the providers point of view but is likely to be challenged.

From reading the HMRC scheme enquiries section of this forum and my own experience of clients that have joined us having used such schemes, it is clear that HMRC are successfully tackling them - though collecting the tax is proving to be more difficult.