Track the Finance Bill 2020-21 here

[DealorNoDeal]

Not sure I'm very happy about a statement I've made being edited in such a way as to have it say something I did not say or intend.

I'd appreciate you taking steps to show that YOU have inserted words into the quote that I did not include.

Thanks

Here you go. My insert in red.

You cannot rely upon the advice of another [like me] in submitting YOUR tax return.

Perhaps you'd like to define what you meant by "another". Did that not include tax advisors like yourself?

[starstruck]

Not sure I'm very happy about a statement I've made being edited in such a way as to have it say something I did not say or intend.

I'd appreciate you taking steps to show that YOU have inserted words into the quote that I did not include.

Thanks

Adding a comment in square brackets is quite a common way to insert into quotes, such as [sic]. Here's a link for you: Inserting or Altering Words in a Direct Quotation – Writing Commons. I imagine most people here would understand its use.

[DanJackiels]

If you have a labour MP I suggest you email them now - as it looks like they are refusing to support NC31....

tough one to take. all that effort...and not even a vote. 50 MPs on the motion...and labour abstain. bad enough to have zero position on Brexit, now when it came to the crunch, couldn't support NC31. thoroughly disillusioned with it all. as for Jesse Norman...doesn't even have the guts to look up when speaking. weasel.
back to filling in the dreaded settlement letter I go.

[elsergiovolador]

Labour seems content that many contractors will now pay effective tax rate of over 50%. That's a dream come true for any communist and to think that it was delivered by CONservatives

IR35 also properly deals with unions - something Stalin would have liked.

[DealorNoDeal]

Adding a comment in square brackets is quite a common way to insert into quotes, such as [sic]. Here's a link for you: Inserting or Altering Words in a Direct Quotation – Writing Commons. I imagine most people here would understand its use.

To be fair, it was a bit more than a comment. It was intended to be pointed.

It pisses me off that an advisor could advise you to put something on your tax return, and you can't rely on that.

Anyone filing a 2018/19 tax return for the LC, based on the advice of a tax advisor, should take note.

[webberg]

Here you go. My insert in red.



Perhaps you'd like to define what you meant by "another". Did that not include tax advisors like yourself?

No, "another" simply means "not you".

It could be a tax adviser, brain surgeon, bin man, random stranger in the street.

[piebaps]

HMRC's position is here EM5130 - Enquiry Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK This of course is not law.

There are a wealth of tax cases which deal with the facts of specific cases so some research time is needed before leaping to conclusions.

While there are few definitives, I don't think its controversial to say that handing over your paperwork to an advisor and leaving them to sort it all out is NOT taking proper care.

Everything is judged against the conduct of an imaginary "reasonable person" - although I've never met him!

[lowpaidworker]

hot on the failure of NC31 am hearing lots of brown envelopes landing on doormats over the weekend.

[dangermaus]

HMRC's position is here EM5130 - Enquiry Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK This of course is not law.

There are a wealth of tax cases which deal with the facts of specific cases so some research time is needed before leaping to conclusions.

While there are few definitives, I don't think its controversial to say that handing over your paperwork to an advisor and leaving them to sort it all out is NOT taking proper care.

Everything is judged against the conduct of an imaginary "reasonable person" - although I've never met him!

This part is certainly interesting...

Avoidance schemes
Taxpayers may attempt to use an avoidance scheme in order to reduce their tax bills. Sometimes you will need to consider avoidance schemes that fail.

For example a taxpayer may enter into an avoidance scheme after being shown written opinion of Leading Counsel, which says unequivocally that the scheme is legally correct. If the scheme is ultimately defeated you may find it difficult to show any negligence. You must however still consider the penalty position in the same way as you would for any other inaccuracy.

Does that effectively cover the user of a scheme from being penalised for "evasion"?

[Fred Bloggs]

This part is certainly interesting...

Avoidance schemes
Taxpayers may attempt to use an avoidance scheme in order to reduce their tax bills. Sometimes you will need to consider avoidance schemes that fail.

For example a taxpayer may enter into an avoidance scheme after being shown written opinion of Leading Counsel, which says unequivocally that the scheme is legally correct. If the scheme is ultimately defeated you may find it difficult to show any negligence. You must however still consider the penalty position in the same way as you would for any other inaccuracy.

Does that effectively cover the user of a scheme from being penalised for "evasion"?

I would say you are reading it wrong. I'd say it means you would have no case for redress against the QC on the grounds of negligence were you to follow QC's opinion. The QC provides an opinion and there's no saying a QC's opinion will always or in fact, ever be, correct. HMRC penalties on the user of a failed scheme will still apply.