MP who used loan scheme accused of hypocrisy over tax avoidance

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Perhaps he should join Big Group.

SNP MP accused of hypocrisy over tax avoidance - Telegraph

[chubacabra]

“Mr Boswell told the Mail on Sunday the arrangement was common practice in his previous industry, adding: “As clearly disclosed in my register of interests,under the conditions of my contract, and entirely at the discretion of my employer, I was entitled to this discretionary interest-free loan.

After finding myself previously employed in such a contract, I decided to utilise my knowledge and experience in my new role as an MP to highlight treasury management issues.”

Ah ok then... Thank god you had that prior experience and put it to good use...

You know what Phil, the loans I had were discretionary and interest free, AND I was entitled to them - Any chance you could have a word with HMRC for me? Might be better coming from you

[DonkeyRhubarb]

He makes it sound like the loans were foisted upon him.

As opposed to the reality, which is he consciously joined a tax avoidance scheme.

He'll make a good MP though because he's obviously mastered the art of being economical with the truth.

[BrilloPad]

Sorry but I don't think he did anything wrong :-

In August this year, he said the practice cost the economy nearly four times as much as benefit fraud and called on the Treasury to explain how it planned to tackle tax avoidance schemes.

It is my opinion that HMRC should close avoidance schemes prospectively. Especially against large companies.

What I object to is retrospection, classifying avoidance as evasion, APNs and taking payments from bank accounts.

[jonnieboy]

Sorry but I don't think he did anything wrong :-

In August this year, he said the practice cost the economy nearly four times as much as benefit fraud and called on the Treasury to explain how it planned to tackle tax avoidance schemes.

It is my opinion that HMRC should close avoidance schemes prospectively. Especially against large companies.

What I object to is retrospection, classifying avoidance as evasion, APNs and taking payments from bank accounts.

Well "wrong" is subjective. But perhaps making use of a "tax avoidance" scheme, and not disclosing that you have whilst vocally castigating others who do after your election could be seen to be hypocritical (and I think that being hypocritical is wrong)

[centurian]

The SNP spin machine is portraying this that he was metaphorically forced at gunpoint to go into the scheme, thought it was pushing the boundaries, but concludes it was legal - and is therefore calling on HMRC to tighten up the rules and close down such schemes prospectively, so that others are not "forced" into schemes like he was, potentially with all difficulties of being investigated.

Utter tosh, but the fanbois will buy it hook line and sinker.

[BrilloPad]

Well "wrong" is subjective. But perhaps making use of a "tax avoidance" scheme, and not disclosing that you have whilst vocally castigating others who do after your election could be seen to be hypocritical (and I think that being hypocritical is wrong)

All politicians are hypocritical. George Osborne and Margaret Hodge are well known tax avoidance users.

Then look at public schools. NHS. The list goes on.

But I have to agree, wrong is subjective. Like "fair share".

[ASB]

But I have to agree, wrong is subjective. Like "fair share".

Quite agree. In my view there is no moral case to be made.

If TPTB believe something to wrong then they should legislate accordingly. Everything gets made emotive.

The problem is it gets more difficult with civil rather than criminal action.

Certainly an avoidance scheme is subjective as to whether it is appropriate; but whether it is effective or not is - or should be - simply a matter of applying the rules (preferably those from the time, not amended later) to the details. That comes out with one of two answers. "well it works but we'd rather it didn't" isn't one of those.

Our legislature has a duty to write laws that are clear, unambiguous, and reasonably easy to understand.

APN's etc hinder that. A lot. They remove any necessity to get it right and we simply get rules which become "something like this", and then later down the line "well what we meant was". It's a ridiculous state of affairs. But all the signs are it is going to get worse.

Find abuse (of whatever), legislate against it going forwards. It has to be more cost effective. How much public money has been spent on going backwards and introducing this current climate. It surely has to be more than can ever hope to be recovered from their victims.

[/rant]

[webberg]

Our legislature has a duty to write laws that are clear, unambiguous, and reasonably easy to understand.

[/rant]

I would TOTALLY agree with this statement.

Unfortunately we have a broken system.

Politicians fail to consider the long term impact of their tax policies preferring instead to think only of the short term position and whether whatever they propose will get them votes. As such they give the draughtsmen only the vaguest of direction and hope that HMRC can fill in the gaps.

HMRC cannot do that no matter what resources and early warning systems for avoidance they employ. Instead they constantly play catch up.

The result is a mess. Inadequate law driven by vague policy. The Judges do their best to stitch together a coherent picture but frankly there are some things you cannot polish.

The scheme at the heart of this one day wonder for the Daily Fail, is perhaps one of the weaker ones in the pack (in my opinion), and I suspect that MP or not, as and when HMRC get to Hyrax, an enquiry letter will be sent.

Unfortunately there is no way of using FoI or similar to check as the tax affairs of individuals, MP's or not, are confidential.

[cliffordthedog]

Webberg

They may be confidential, but could an FOI request ask how many registered MP's have an open enquiry for tax avoidance.
Just a thought.