Spectator Article

[webberg]

The MPs are deliberately muddying their tracks in this morass of unethical and immoral behaviour by them and their puppets at HMRC.

If we were all to follow the oh so honest examples of Hammond (a mean man) and Stride (a mean man's dog) then next time you pay that mate who happens to be a plumber and who popped round on Saturday to fix that tap, you need to ask him to declare that tenner you give him.

If he laughs in your face, deduct 35% and pay him £6.50 and send £3.50 to HMRC.

See how funny it is then.

That's where this is going.

Tax avoidance is £1.7bn of the tax gap (allegedly).

Evasion is £5.2bn; black economy (above) is £5.1bn; differences in interpretation (what?) is over £5bn.

If the tax gap was just those four (it's not) where is the justification for 100+ new powers in the last 5 years, additional Budget of £1bn for HMRC, more poeple for HMRC - all aimed at avoidance, when 90% of the problem gets nothing thrown at it?

The Lords enquiry reports soon. Given that Stride was invited - twice - to attend and refused - twice, I'm expecting a none too friendly report for him. Will he care? So long as Hammond is in charge = no.

There are days when you stop hitting your head on the wall and it feels so good.

Thanks for listening - rant over.

[malvolio]

Actually both those examples constitute evasion and are illegal. Both involve making fraudulent claims in the knowledge that you are not entitiled to do so.

Hammond is attempting to equate legal tax avoidance with illegal evasion to muddy the waters and allow HMRC to go after people who used legitimate loopholes in the tax legislation, rather than actually fixing that legislation. Rather than admit that they got things wrong they are attempting to deflect blame on the the end users by insinuating that what they did was somehow illegal, despite the fact that it wasn't.

I thought that was what I said. And they were just illustrative examples, not case law - although EBTs were conceived as a way to enable some investment incomes (i.e. not earned salary), such as pensions and trust funds, to recover taxes from the invested income that had already been taxed. Although, as I suggested, that is not clear in the actual relevant legislation.

And the conflation of avoidance and evasion is both deliberate and politically motivated, to justify the ongoing assault on one section of the workforce..

[Guvernator]

The UK needs to stop retrospective legislation.

This with bells on tbh. How can it be right that they can change the rules after the fact and then go after people who at the time weren't doing anything illegal. Is there any other civilised country where something like this would be allowed? Proof if it were needed that HMRC have been given far too much power in country.

[DaveB]

You need to understand the logic at play. Using an avoidance mechanism is perfectly legal, we all do it. However using one that is not related to your work - for example claiming a pensions-related tax relief against your normal salary, or an allowance for a specific trade that you do not pursue, is "wrong". It shouldn't be described as illegal, obviously, since it isn't, but it the kind of thing that HMT wants to stop, for obvious reasons. Labelling it "Illegal" appeals to the 90% of the population who have no understanding of what's going on.

That said, they are making a right pigs ear out of it, and attacking all the wrong targets the wrong way. Perhaps they should focus on writing the rules unambiguously and clearly before prosecuting people for following them in an inappropriate manner.

Actually both those examples constitute evasion and are illegal. Both involve making fraudulent claims in the knowledge that you are not entitiled to do so.

Hammond is attempting to equate legal tax avoidance with illegal evasion to muddy the waters and allow HMRC to go after people who used legitimate loopholes in the tax legislation, rather than actually fixing that legislation. Rather than admit that they got things wrong they are attempting to deflect blame on the the end users by insinuating that what they did was somehow illegal, despite the fact that it wasn't.

[malvolio]

have you seen Hammond has created a new category? "illegal tax avoidance", what a donkey! its avoidance or evasion you muppet!

You need to understand the logic at play. Using an avoidance mechanism is perfectly legal, we all do it. However using one that is not related to your work - for example claiming a pensions-related tax relief against your normal salary, or an allowance for a specific trade that you do not pursue, is "wrong". It shouldn't be described as illegal, obviously, since it isn't, but it the kind of thing that HMT wants to stop, for obvious reasons. Labelling it "Illegal" appeals to the 90% of the population who have no understanding of what's going on.

That said, they are making a right pigs ear out of it, and attacking all the wrong targets the wrong way. Perhaps they should focus on writing the rules unambiguously and clearly before prosecuting people for following them in an inappropriate manner.

[GreenMirror]

The UK needs to stop retrospective legislation.

[smalldog]

The loan charge scandal: the Treasury U-turn destroying the lives of hardworking families | The Spectator

Nicely written and says nothing blatantly inaccurate whilst lambasting Mr Stride and Mr Hammond.

have you seen Hammond has created a new category? "illegal tax avoidance", what a donkey! its avoidance or evasion you muppet!

[webberg]

The loan charge scandal: the Treasury U-turn destroying the lives of hardworking families | The Spectator

Nicely written and says nothing blatantly inaccurate whilst lambasting Mr Stride and Mr Hammond.