Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[meanttobeworking]

Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

[BrilloPad]

Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

Personally I welcome SB's opinion even though I disagree. I would rather here it here rather than from HMRC later.

You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

And again I welcome FA's opinion for same reason.

[meanttobeworking]

Ah my mistake, I thought you might have welcomed a supportive voice when it seemed like you were being attacked.

I'll leave you to your battle

[BrilloPad]

Ah my mistake, I thought you might have welcomed a supportive voice when it seemed like you were being attacked.

I'll leave you to your battle

Cheers. As per the post below we seem to be all agreed that this thread is too controversial. And I didn't really feel under attack - we should be able to justify ourselves. I would loved to have posted more - but quite alot of facts still have to be kept under our hat. No point in alerting HMRC. Though I hope one day the Brannigan might come here and post.

When general collides with professional.

Can we get back to Katie Perry, the state of traps in clientco, norks and winding each other up over things that don't really matter.

[meanttobeworking]

As an unaffected but interested party, I was just intrigued to hear SB's motivation for debating the issue - I think that's an important piece of information in any debate, and it seemed to me to be odd that someone would expend so much time and effort without good reason. The only one I could think of is that he/she enjoys it, which to me is just as morally repugnant as offshore scheme users are to SB, which is why I spoke up.

Maybe they do have a better reason for doing it, but I'm beginning to wish I'd never taken an interest

[SupremeSpod]

Cheers. As per the post below we seem to be all agreed that this thread is too controversial. And I didn't really feel under attack - we should be able to justify ourselves. I would loved to have posted more - but quite alot of facts still have to be kept under our hat. No point in alerting HMRC. Though I hope one day the Brannigan might come here and post.

Brannigan? Retiring with a fat civil service pension from the taxes we don't pay

[lilelvis2000]

I'm doing nearly everything in cash these days. Will i declare it? Oh yes!

The government make these loopholes to help out their cronies..and when others take advantage they throw fits. Maybe its time the small businessman became a bit smarter?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I have no opinion on Katy Perry (sorry) but I do think that it is absolutely ridiculous to accuse businesses of 'immorality' when they are working within the confines of the UK tax law; if you extend the popular argument of 'fairness' (the word as used by modern day politicians as opposed to the OED) the only end result will be all businesses registering as charities.

With regard to retrospection in tax cases - the comment was made, by HMR&C, that tax payers should have known what their position would be had they (HMR&C) applied their minds to the issue in question at the time. This attitude has now been given credibility by the allowing of the retrospective element of the legislation and can therefore be used again at any time, in theory, leaving many people in a position whereby they could receive an additional tax bill at some time in the future merely because they didn't have a crystal ball. Most people on here know my views on tax avoidance but retrospection following a change in law is unacceptable.

[lilelvis2000]

...
With regard to retrospection in tax cases - the comment was made, by HMR&C, that tax payers should have known what their position would be had they (HMR&C) applied their minds to the issue in question at the time. This attitude has now been given credibility by the allowing of the retrospective element of the legislation and can therefore be used again at any time, in theory, leaving many people in a position whereby they could receive an additional tax bill at some time in the future merely because they didn't have a crystal ball. Most people on here know my views on tax avoidance but retrospection following a change in law is unacceptable.

My wife has this issue in Immigration Law. A change in law after a client has put his application and the HO decided to use the new laws!

Of course HMRC had been under-taxing some people and then went and sent them all bills. If I tried that with my clients I'd get my bollocks cut off.

This country is going down the tube. The government is lucky the population are sheep.

[d000hg]

I do think that it is absolutely ridiculous to accuse businesses of 'immorality' when they are working within the confines of the UK tax law

I don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.