Block on tax avoidance planned after ruling

[richard-af]

Also:

... I suspect the cost of running the department is greater than the returns could ever be.

I agree - just a way of keeping would-be traffic wardens in work.

[smee.again]

This will get closwd down very quick...any way they can to recoup some of the money they lost!!

[The Lone Gunman]

Also:

Does the panel think there is any mileage in starting a campaign to get the people responsible for this debacle sacked?
From the first inspector through to the special commissioners decisions were made not on the reality, but on what HMRC wanted the reality to be. Surely this smacks of incompetance and should be dealt with.
The same should apply to the IR35 side of things too. 1500 lost cases amounts to gross departmental incompetance and/or incompetance in the legislature.

It is about time we started hunting these people and removing them from office. They are costing the tax payer millions, more than would ever be recovered if they won. I suspect the cost of running the department is greater than the returns could ever be.

How does one get the PCG to start a campaign for this?

[The Lone Gunman]

I do not doubt they will try and do something.

Note again the use of those weasel words: genuine commercial business and fair.

No doubt they will cock it up again and make it harder to do business for us yet will let the Greens of this world get away with giving millions to his wife in a tax haven.

[richard-af]

Looks like FT "silly season" bumf, or HMRC doing its best to save face by rattling its now utterly blunted sabre. Predictable, really.

[donaldduke]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d0c80422-3a9...0779fd2ac.html

Tens of thousands of “husband and wife” businesses face a rise in their tax bills, after the Treasury said it would block a widely-used form of tax planning following an expensive legal defeat in Britain’s top court.

Plans for legislation are being drawn up to meet the government’s commitment “to maintaining fairness in the tax system”, it said. The move followed a decision by the House of Lords in favour of Geoff and Diana Jones, co-owners of Arctic Systems, a small IT business.

The ruling has ramifications for many business couples because the corporate arrangements at the heart of the case are widely used. By drawing low salaries and splitting corporate income between spouses who fall in different tax brackets, business owners have saved hundreds of millions of pounds of tax.

The Treasury said: “This case has brought to light the need for the government to ensure that there is greater clarity in the law regarding the tax treatment of ‘income-splitting’ arrangements, which are used by some taxpayers to achieve an unfair advantage over others.

“The government will therefore bring forward proposals for changes to legislation to ensure that the principle of fairness is maintained. The government’s intention is that genuine and commercial business arrangements will not be affected by this legislation and we will consult to ensure this is the case.”