Ross Thompson's Loan Charge Suspension Petition

[Old Greg]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding paying more tax than you need to. Forget "Fair" and "Moral". If you really want to pay more than you legally owe then throw it to a charity.

And now the Loan Charge is defining an amount of tax that people need to pay. Forget "Fair" and "Moral". It's the law.

[BrilloPad]

And now the Loan Charge is defining an amount of tax that people need to pay. Forget "Fair" and "Moral". It's the law.

But it is not defining the amount people need to pay prospectively. It is retrospective.

God you are thick. Its getting to the point where I prefer sasguru to you.

What ever happened to sasguru? I know he had an operation to remove your tongue from his ass - I thought he would be back. I suppose I should be grateful.

[stonehenge]

It is retrospective.

Strictly speaking, it's not. That's the clever/sneaky part about it. And, even if it was retrospective, there's nothing prohibiting that.

Going back 20 years is harsh. If nothing else, it shows how inept/incompetent HMRC are that they need a piece of legislation that extends back two decades to clear up the mess that happened on their watch.

You'd think they ought to learn from this BISDI.

If the Government do bring in the private sector IR35 changes next April, I expect the scheme cowboys will go into overdrive.

[Old Greg]

But it is not defining the amount people need to pay prospectively. It is retrospective.

We all know that, Thicke, this is what we are talking about.

However:

1. The Loan Charge is legal, whether or not some individuals believe it to be moral or fair.
2. The argument the dodgy contractors used was that their arrangements were legal, whether or not some individuals believed them to be moral or fair.
3. Pay up. It's the law.

[AtW]

So, tax avoidance.

It's as much of tax avoidance as buying a product which has got 0% VAT (such as book).

[Old Greg]

Not sure where the false equivalence came from.

See below. False equivalence between offshore loan schemes and ISAs.

So, tax avoidance.

[Zigenare]

It's as much of tax avoidance as buying a product which has got 0% VAT (such as book).

No it isn't

Save in a normal savings account, pay tax on the gross interest.
Save in an ISA, don't pay tax on your interest.

You've made a decision to avoid paying tax.

[AtW]

No it isn't

Save in a normal savings account, pay tax on the gross interest.
Save in an ISA, don't pay tax on your interest.

You've made a decision to avoid paying tax.

I do both.

ISA is essentially equivalent to tax free allowance for income, it’s designed to motivate people to work and save, at 0 rate of tax as intended by the Parliament, there is no tax avoidance here, but I guess subtlety like this is too fine of a detail for a thicko like yourself.

[Old Greg]

No it isn't

Save in a normal savings account, pay tax on the gross interest.
Save in an ISA, don't pay tax on your interest.

You've made a decision to avoid paying tax.

Can a pension or an Isa be considered tax avoidance? - FTAdviser.com

Can a pension or an Isa be considered tax avoidance?
By Richard Bishop

“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)

In principle, tax avoidance is a moral issue. We ought to pay all tax owed and not pursue strategies that provide any individual or company an advantage over other tax-payers. In 18th century context, property owners should have paid tax for their windows, and in the 21st century, people should avoid inventing fictitious overseas companies or use abusive tax avoidance schemes.

The recent disclosure of documents from the Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, has thrown the spotlight once again onto the morality of tax avoidance. Globally, tax avoidance costs $240bn (£169bn) each year – the majority coming from multi-national companies. Costa and Google, who avoided paying UK corporation tax, spurred chancellor George Osborne to introduce the diverted profits tax, known as the “Google tax”, to encourage global multi-nationals to pay their fair share.

So what is avoiding tax? The common explanation that avoidance is legal and evasion is illegal is somewhat erroneous and too simplistic. According to HMRC, using the tax relief available through Isas and pensions is purely saving tax and not considered avoidance. Tax avoidance is attempting to bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage, in a way they were not intended. HMRC takes avoidance seriously and tax inspectors, together with legal and accountancy specialists, seek to challenge individuals and companies who attempt to avoid paying taxes. The primary concern for those involved in tax avoidance (which they perceive to be legal) is it can quickly turn into evasion. Failing to divulge all facts or perjuring oneself can easily lead to a large fine or prison sentence.

Broadly those involved in tax avoidance will collude with advisers to minimise their tax burden. Typically, the individual will be informed the scheme is perfectly legal and proceed to file their tax-returns. If HMRC disagrees, it may result in a tax tribunal. HMRC wins eight out of 10 tax avoidance cases that are contested. The initial drawback is you have to pay all the contested tax to HMRC before commencing a dispute.

Tax avoidance costs around £5bn annually in the UK. Recently, the government has instigated aggressive tax investigations against avoidance schemes, in particular – film partnership funds – initially set up by the government to help the British film industry raise funds and provide the opportunity to save tax for the investors. HMRC has closed thousands of film partnerships, resulting in high-profile celebrities – including Wayne Rooney, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Bob Geldof and David Beckham – repaying millions in avoided tax.

To return to the HMRC definition of tax avoidance, parliament fully intended that the British public could utilise tax-free savings, make use of personal allowances and pay into pension schemes to reduce the tax burden. Arguably, parliament did not intend for UK domiciled individuals to establish bogus overseas companies that are controlled from the UK or to manipulate the tax system to gain an advantage. Making use of tax-allowances is good financial planning and by HMRC’s own definition, is merely saving tax as parliament intended – any alternative strategy is purely avoidance.

[Zigenare]

I do both.

ISA is essentially equivalent to tax free allowance for income, it’s designed to motivate people to work and save, at 0 rate of tax as intended by the Parliament, there is no tax avoidance here, but I guess subtlety like this is too fine of a detail for a thicko like yourself.

You are consciously investing your money in a vehicle that does not tax your interest. However you try and justify it, you are making that decision.

You dirty little tax avoider!