Reply to: Major Tax Avoidance Scheme Closed Down

[threaded]

ASB: I understand the will of parliament concept. But this intention of parliament thing is something from the continentals.

As I understood it the courts are supposed to interpret what is actually written in an Act of Parliament, not to second guess what they intended to mean when it was written.

[mcquiggd]

Everything this government passes is unclear in its interpretation in law, for probably that reason.... to make it arbitrarily backdated is simply the obvious way for them to behave...

Its still highly ironic that despite nu labour's best efforts to eliminate the House of Lords, that actually the 'Upper House' is still defeating them .. or at least making them try harder.. in their efforts to subvert whatever democracy ever existed in the UK. It now seems it was in fact heriditary peerage that was the best defence against transitory interference in an established Parliamentary system by people such as Beckett, Blair, Irvine, Mandelson et al


This poisonous bunch of w*nkers known as labour deserve to experience whatever old Trosky felt, when he allegedly cried out 'Ive been shot...!'....

[ASB]

Hmm, when did "intention of Parliament" get into English Law?

It's actually the "will of parliament". If I remember correctly it was the reformation.

But, it's only relevant when the written statute is unclear in it's legal interpretation, thus if the statute does not achieve what parliament intended but is legally clear that is just tough.

[ChimpMaster]

Given the disconnect between your comment above and current reality, I assume you will not be voting for NL next time round?

No no and No!! But all of those plebs down the council estate (including 13 yr old Charmain with her 3 kids), as well as the economic asylum immigrants are NL's best friends and will out vote the hard working by a large factor. After all, free hand outs are what Britain is famous for.

[malvolio]

I cannot for the life of me see how he can claim tax for bygone years. I can understand why he'd like to try, and his reasoning behind it, but it is against all basic principles of a free world capitalist country. HMRC will not get away with it.

They can. It's rules, not laws. They can be made to say whatever they want. Even so, GB has paid no attention to parliament or democracy or freedom or fairness in the last 8 years. He has paid no attention to the longevity of the UK economy. He has deliberately set out to take short-term gains from successful businesses in order to fund some screwed-up variant of a Marxist social engineering programme that has got us where we are now. He has deliberately allowed retrospective tax regulations in case he missed something first time round. NL is right now passing a bill to allow ministers to rewrite law without recourse to Parliament. And as of now, the chief architect of this mess is likely to be our next PM.

Given the disconnect between your comment above and current reality, I assume you will not be voting for NL next time round?

[ChimpMaster]

There is nothing to stop Hector decreeing that, on consideration, such dividends should attract an extra 25% windfall tax, for example. If he does, that would be back-dated.

Yes but do you really believe he can get away with it? Scope of regulations etc. yes I agree, but, to use your example, I would expect :
"such dividends should attract an extra 25% windfall tax, from this point onwards"

I cannot for the life of me see how he can claim tax for bygone years. I can understand why he'd like to try, and his reasoning behind it, but it is against all basic principles of a free world capitalist country. HMRC will not get away with it.

And I also agree that running your own Ltd Co is the safest mechanism, so long as you have a good contract and conditions so as to be outside of IR35.

[ChimpMaster]

Does anybody know which scheme this was and, if any back tax was charged.

I am currently with the MTM scheme in the Isle of Man and the Inland Revenue are preparing their attack.

MTM?

[malvolio]

I'm not sure but I think this was one of the clever and complicated schemes banks use to step around paying tax on bonuses, so probably not a widely used one.

In your case, though - ermm, oops! Do you have an escape plan?

[helen7]

Does anybody know which scheme this was and, if any back tax was charged.

I am currently with the MTM scheme in the Isle of Man and the Inland Revenue are preparing their attack.

[threaded]

which get around the intention of Parliament

Hmm, when did "intention of Parliament" get into English Law?

[malvolio]

I'm not so sure, after all there have been numerous discussions regarding this subject indicating that this would be a breach of basic common law and legal rights. For example, how can something that is legal today -- and it is legal -- be deemed illegal 5 years down the line? What leg does the individual then have to stand on? It's like hanging someone and then in the future retrospectively claiming the judgement was too harsh

I've said this before - it's not about legality, it's about scope of regulations. Currently regulations say that people can own shares in composite companies and be paid dividends. There is nothing to stop Hector decreeing that, on consideration, such dividends should attract an extra 25% windfall tax, for example. If he does, that would be back-dated. Similarly, things that are out of scope could be brought into scope - like expenses paid to members of umbrella companies could suddenly become BIKs

There's a hundred ways to do this, and with £10bn to find and no love for anyone not employed by the state or one of half a dozen NL crony companies, it will come about. Pretending it won't happen is naive.

Core advice is ignore all the silly schemes, run your own company, low-ish but not silly salary, divis as and when possible. That is IMHO the optimum risk/reward ratio, but it's your money you're risking, you make your own decision.

[ChimpMaster]

Yes there is a period of time when these schemes will work. However, do you want to take the risk with your money. Just becuase they approved schemes doesn't mean the Revenue won't attack.

There are better ways of saving tax without the threat of the taxman knocking on your door one day.

Tim

perhaps you can enlighten me on some ways to save tax in this manner?

I'm assuming this doesn't involve the Rebecca Loos school of thought on running back to Oz to escape Gordon Brownose!

Cheers

Chimp.

[ChimpMaster]

Wrong - deeply, dangerously wrong in fact.

Any re-application of tax regulations can be backdated to December 2004 - Dim Prawn reserved this right at the 2004 PBR, specifically to allow HMG time to effect the rules to prevent tax avoidance (which remains legal, BTW, but let's not worry about that little detail) that they are now working through. So if you're in a scheme and get out now, you'll still be liable for 14 months worth of back tax.

I'm not so sure, after all there have been numerous discussions regarding this subject indicating that this would be a breach of basic common law and legal rights. For example, how can something that is legal today -- and it is legal -- be deemed illegal 5 years down the line? What leg does the individual then have to stand on? It's like hanging someone and then in the future retrospectively claiming the judgement was too harsh!

Oh yes, I agree that HMRC have "reserved the right" so to day, but that just wouldn't hold up in any court of law.

Don't get me wrong, I don't purport to these schemes being good for anyone. In fact some of them are just so elaborate they must be illegal. I just can't stand the way HMRC operate in "stealth" mode, heck they might as well be communists.

[tim522004@yahoo.co.uk]

There are less riskier ways of saving tax?

Yes there is a period of time when these schemes will work. However, do you want to take the risk with your money. Just becuase they approved schemes doesn't mean the Revenue won't attack.

There are better ways of saving tax without the threat of the taxman knocking on your door one day.

[malvolio]

Wrong - deeply, dangerously wrong in fact.

Any re-application of tax regulations can be backdated to December 2004 - Dim Prawn reserved this right at the 2004 PBR, specifically to allow HMG time to effect the rules to prevent tax avoidance (which remains legal, BTW, but let's not worry about that little detail) that they are now working through. So if you're in a scheme and get out now, you'll still be liable for 14 months worth of back tax.