Ramsay defeated

[MicrosoftBob]

Unless it's classed as aggressive and suddenly it is much more unclear.

There is no legal definition of aggressive tax avoidance that is just FUD by HMRC and Gideon for anything that is legal but they don't like

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There is no legal definition of aggressive tax avoidance that is just FUD by HMRC and Gideon for anything that is legal but they don't like

Trouble is when you do something Government/HMRC don't like it can bring a shed load of grief.

[fullyautomatix]

It's a companies legal duty to pay as little tax as possible, avoiding tax is a legal way of doing that, just because Hector tries to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion in the court of public opinion does not make it a fact

Tax avoidance is legal, you do it if you ever cycle...you are avoiding paying duty on petrol, if you don't smoke you are avoiding paying tax, if you use your personal allowance you are intentionally avoiding tax

In short you can't breath without avoiding tax, and tax avoidance is legal

Your argument is flawed. What a crappy argument that if you dont smoke you are avoiding tax. Really ? You are an idiot. Its a bit like saying, if you dont work and dont earn you are avoiding income tax. Some imaginary income tax.

If you want to debate properly, if you do smoke, but go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

[vern19]

go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

That sounds like tax evasion to me

[MicrosoftBob]

Your argument is flawed. What a crappy argument that if you dont smoke you are avoiding tax. Really ? You are an idiot. Its a bit like saying, if you dont work and dont earn you are avoiding income tax. Some imaginary income tax.

If you want to debate properly, if you do smoke, but go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

You can bring back as many ciggies as you like for personal use, it's only reselling them withour paying duty that is tax evasion

Also please read up on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion

HTH

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That sounds like tax evasion to me

Not as long as it's for personal consumption. HMRC have set guidelines on the amount you can bring back but in reality there are no legal limits if it's from another EU country. If you bring more than this amount in you can expect a ton of hassle (confiscation etc) but you're not breaking the law.

[fullyautomatix]

You can bring back as many ciggies as you like for personal use, it's only reselling them withour paying duty that is tax evasion

Also please read up on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion

HTH

How is not smoking avoiding tax ? What tax is being avoided ?

[squirrel]

Unless it's classed as aggressive and suddenly it is much more unclear.

And therein lies the problem (apologies for the trolling insinuation earlier in the thread). Regardless of the aggressiveness of it, it is still Avoidance not Evasion. The spirit of the law should be an irrelevance. Are you breaking the law or not. If not you should not be subsequently penalised.

[northernladuk]

And therein lies the problem (apologies for the trolling insinuation earlier in the thread). Regardless of the aggressiveness of it, it is still Avoidance not Evasion. The spirit of the law should be an irrelevance. Are you breaking the law or not. If not you should not be subsequently penalised.

True but I just don't believe that the spirit should be irrelevant. People go out of their way to pick a loophole that only exists because the law wasn't robust enough. It's almost impossible to get the wording right but the reasoning should be clear. I just don't think this, in many cases, is right at all. Obviously there is no way to fix it and it's a constant battle to prove in court but the reasons the law is in place (but not robust enough) is clear...

Let's remember that this loophole finding can have some terrible fall out. There was a case on moneybox about a company called arc coming up with a scheme to allow people to take a portion of their pension out and class as some sort of loan.. Are your warning bells ringing?.. anyway.. They've ****ed it up and HMRC have proved the loophole they went for wasn't really there and 400+ people now not only have to pay this loan off but also 55% tax on top!!

Not all loophole exploitation is harmless.

Anyway.. Am going on about the morals of it which unfortunately doesn't stand up in court and will never be fixed.

[squirrel]

We'll just have to agree to disagree...

There was a case on moneybox about a company called arc coming up with a scheme to allow people to take a portion of their pension out and class as some sort of loan.. Are your warning bells ringing?.. anyway.. They've ****ed it up and HMRC have proved the loophole they went for wasn't really there and 400+ people now not only have to pay this loan off but also 55% tax on top!!

HMRC proved the loophole didn't exist. In my case HMRC have proved nothing but that doesn't seem to bother them with their ridiculous settlement opportunities, APNs, Follower Notices, threats of raiding bank accounts etc.

For me there is absolutely no moral issue either.

Having paid approx £500k in tax during my 25 year working career (on salaries and contracts ranging between £7k pa and £80k pa so we're not talking ridiculous money) and never once having claimed a single penny back, anyone that even vaguely suggested I haven't paid my fair share to date would be put straight in no uncertain terms (that's not directed at you northernladuk, you have said nothing of the sort, just making a general point ). And yet here I am, having spent just under two years in a Scheme some 8 years ago because I was somewhat annoyed after a few years of IR35 and paying 54p in the pound. Which apparently was my fault anyway because I deliberately started a LtdCo to avoid paying tax ... Err, no I didn't Ms Primarolo, the government told me I had to have a LtdCo to be a contractor. My accountant then told me to pay myself a small salary and the rest in dividends as it was more tax efficient, so I did - Him Accountant, Me Programmer, what do you expect! Even then I was the sole recipient of the dividends so paying 40% tax on the majority of it anyway, just no company NI - which I shouldn't have paid because I wasn't really a company. I would rather have been self-employed, got my contract income and paid PAYE but I wasn't allowed to. Having said that, even with me paying a small salary and dividends, HMRC were still getting more (approx twice as much) out of me than when I was a permie. So the whole Friday-Monday worker excuse was utter tosh too. But that apparently wasn't enough for HMRC.

So in my eyes having been forced to overpay tax for quite some time I had absolutely no moral issue with joining a Scheme then. I have absolutely no problem with tax avoidance now, regardless of how aggressive, as it is within the law. Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with MPs claiming lots of expenses if it was legal for them to do so and I don't mind Bankers getting big bonuses and I haven't tried to reclaim any PPI because it was me that decided to take it out. If it wasn't suitable for me I should have read the gumpf more carefully. That's the extent of my twisted logic!

I certainly take your point about the danger of people joining Schemes in good faith only to find out that it's all fallen down around them but that is a different issue to the original post in this thread that you had replied to regarding HMRC losing a case. HMRC lost, Scheme won, Scheme vindicated, Where's the problem? The Judge's passing shot is irrelevant, he has applied the law as he should.

If HMRC take the Scheme I was in to court and prove using the actual, true, real and proper LAW, NOT the jumped up fictitious make it up as you go along to suit your circumstances spirit of the law, that I am in the wrong then I will be devastated. I will have to find some way to pay (contrary to what HMRC would have The Lords, Parliament and Joe Public believe, I do not have £50k tucked away anywhere, not even in a house) and that will, as I say, Learn Me. Either HMRC didn't tell the Scheme I joined all those years ago that it was operating within the law and therefore the Scheme lied to me or HMRC did tell them but are now trying to do a u-turn.

Until all that happens, however, no-one can tell me I have done anything wrong, either legally or morally so HMRC can stick their APN up their hoo hah and all the pathetic vitriol and moral indignation about tax avoidance from Parliament, HMRC and Joe Public can fk right off.

Them's my thoughts on the matter anyway