New Penalties for Enablers of Offshore Tax Evasion

[eazy]

New penalties for enablers of offshore tax evasion

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...re-tax-evasion

HMRC has introduced new sanctions from the 1 January 2017 against accountants, tax advisers and lawyers who enable offshore tax evasion. The new penalties, first announced in last year, allows HMRC to charge civil penalties on the facilitators of the tax evasion who provide planning, advice or other professional services or physically move funds offshore.

Announcing the new penalties, Jane Ellison, the financial secretary, said: “The raft of measures we have introduced to tackle avoidance and evasion will create a level playing field for the vast majority of people and businesses who play fair and pay what is due.

[Whysoserious]

Tax evasion is criminal.
Tax avoidance is legal.

This legislation won't be able to do anything to the tax avoidance promoters and accountants.
If someone was promoting and committing tax evasion they would be sent to jail.

HMRC are actively trying to blur the lines between avoidance and evasion.
The law however will always distinguish between the two and therefore this legislation is toothless.

[LondonManc]

Good. Tax evasion is far more important than tax avoidance (which you could also call tax minimalisation by legal means). Anything that involves offshore vehicles (at all levels of society, including Mr Branson and co) should be investigated as a priority. We need to keep as much money as possible that is earned in the UK within the UK.

[NotAllThere]

Tax evasion is criminal.
Tax avoidance is legal.

This legislation won't be able to do anything to the tax avoidance promoters and accountants.
If someone was promoting and committing tax evasion they would be sent to jail...

Next step. Penalties for enablers of failed tax-avoidance schemes. Retrospectively, natch. With ability to peer through the corporate veil.

[QCApproved]

Agreed it would be equitable for their to be a retrospective element in keeping with that meted out to the taxpayer.
Perhaps because a lot of them were HMRC inspectors they have a privileged status

[AtW]

Draft "consultation" was for failed tax avoidance schemes, they probably decided to play it safe for now and use it for "evasion" since nobody could possibly object that.

In fact I reckon this is ground work to roll "aggressive tax avoidance" into evasion category.

[webberg]

What is worrying here is that the penalty is said to apply to any planning that is deemed to have "failed".

Apparently failed can include reaching a settlement!

Unbelievable.

[QCApproved]

What is worrying here is that the penalty is said to apply to any planning that is deemed to have "failed".

Apparently failed can include reaching a settlement!

Unbelievable.

It did seem to me that this was case on the wording I think I raised it on here. It causes a conflict of interest and adds to the muddle.

[AtW]

What is worrying here is that the penalty is said to apply to any planning that is deemed to have "failed".

Apparently failed can include reaching a settlement!

Unbelievable.

It's a logical outcome from lots of court actions aimed to delay the inevitable - now people who make money on it will also be risking losing it, suddenly stalling everything for years isn't such a great strategy.

[centurian]

It did seem to me that this was case on the wording I think I raised it on here. It causes a conflict of interest and adds to the muddle.

What's the conflict of interest ?

It appears to align the interests of the scheme user and the scheme provider/adviser. They are now both on the hook if it fails.