PM FAO AtW

[AtW]

Supporting legality that is morally wrong is not a good trait to my way of thinking.

It's terrible.

But what's worse is to have hippocritical bunch who insist that it's all about legality rather than morality, then (after many years of legal proceedings) losing in court and taking a view that HMRC is immortal entity.

You choose morality and "tax avoiders" lose straight away.

Choose law and it happens many years down the line.

Same result though (usually).

[administrator]

Should have been 100%. It was obvious from the proposition - instead of paying 40% tax they'd pay 0 (and 10% (!) to promoter, which is the pointer in itself to dodgyness).

But at the time they were legal. HMRC knew about them and did nothing. They should have introduced legislation to stop it. And that legislation should not have been retrospective, it should have been brought in as any other law, cutting off the schemes at the point they were brought in - that is the point here.

When police is too late to catch bank robbers when they are exiting bank, does not make it wrong for police to catch them at later stage.

It depends if robbing the bank was legal at the time they did it or not. If it was illegal at the time then they should be pursued, if it was not illegal then no, tough tit.

[administrator]

It's terrible.

But what's worse is to have hippocritical bunch who insist that it's all about legality rather than morality, then (after many years of legal proceedings) losing in court and taking a view that HMRC is immortal entity.

You choose morality and "tax avoiders" lose straight away.

Choose law and it happens many years down the line.

Same result though (usually).

I totally agree on the moral standpoint - but the point is the retrospective nature. HMRC should have acted sooner and not applied the rules retrospectively. When I discipline my kids, I don't let them do something wrong and let them carry on doing it and then the next day ban them from watching the TV for doing it the next day and add another day on for them doing it the day before. If you do that then your kids won't know what to do. Surely this is the same with a governing body, slapping someone several years after you first witnessed their bad behaviour will only lead to mistrust and bad feeling against that body. HMRC seem not to care though, they are beyond reproach and that is not a good thing.

[AtW]

It depends if robbing the bank was legal at the time they did it or not. If it was illegal at the time then they should be pursued, if it was not illegal then no, tough tit.

No, that depends if court says whether it was legal activity - just because robbers insist on legality using some contrived artificial logic does not it legal.

[AtW]

When I discipline my kids, I don't let them do something wrong and let them carry on doing it

And if they did not know it was wrong, would you punish them?

[administrator]

No, that depends if court says whether it was legal activity - just because robbers insist on legality using some contrived artificial logic does not it legal.

No, the law is quite clear on robbing banks, and it is lack of clarity in tax law that lead to this situation. The European convention on human rights stops retrospective legislation being applied in criminal matters - so why should it be allowed in taxation?

[administrator]

And if they did not know it was wrong, would you punish them?

That's the point. If my kids do something that I don't want them to do I tell them why and tell them I don't want them to do it again or their would be a punishment. At the time, the people using the scheme were not doing something wrong. Morally wrong maybe, but not legally wrong. People knew HMRC were aware of the schemes and they had not stepped in to do anything about it. That is the bit I find very hard to stomach.

[AtW]

No, the law is quite clear on robbing banks, and it is lack of clarity in tax law that lead to this situation. The European convention on human rights stops retrospective legislation being applied in criminal matters - so why should it be allowed in taxation?

The law is VERY clear on how much income tax/NICs should be paid on earned income.

[shaunbhoy]

The law is VERY clear on how much income tax/NICs should be paid on earned income.

So you seem to effectively be saying that there is no difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion.
Who are you.....Gordon Brown?

[northernladyuk]

But when you change laws and apply then retrospectively then it has the potential to knock on to other areas of life. I know you have fecked off to another country but does not that make a little sad about what is considered the rule of law?

I believe everyone, HMRC included, should behave honourably - as a lady of the night I am sure even you have your own code of honour. In the case of a governing body like HMRC I feel they should have more honour than most.

You could say Pol Pot behaved legally. Supporting legality that is morally wrong is not a good trait to my way of thinking.

I don't know about lecturing from any mob, I am speaking on a human level. To me the behaviour of HMRC in this matter has been repugnant.

Supporting legality that is morally wrong is not a good trait to my way of thinking.

So why bother with the NTRT mob?

Has their behaviour not been repugnant? They tried to pull a fast one and got snared. Legally. In a democracy. Bringing Pol Pot into it is ridiculous.