RobJenks

I have just watched a Panorama special on the dealings of HSBC and the presiding CEO Lord Green.
Why would the government elevate this piece of **** to the house of lords?
3 million quid a year for effectively nurturing criminal tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy.
This **** is also a clergyman - whatever that is supposed to mean. I thought Christians were there to help the poor , not to help the wealthy.
He certainly has friends in high places looking after him.
Apparently hundreds of HSBC tax defrauders , but only one has ever been convicted .
Another example of the inequality in the UK.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.
(The more it changes, the more it's the same).

Welcome to modern UK...and the REALLY scarey thing for me?

They are getting more blatant with the disappearing of people who interfere.........

jonc

Not criminal, avoidance is legal.

hodgy0_2

I believe tax avoidance schemes, can subsequently be deemed evasion - hence criminal by the HMRC

CrisPDuk

Not true :nono

Tax avoidance schemes can be made illegal, but not retro-actively. It can only be deemed evasion if you continue to use the scheme once it has been outlawed.

I do think it's a bit harsh to blame promoters and users of avoidance schemes entirely. They didn't create the gaps and loopholes in the law that made the schemes possible

hodgy0_2

sure, that maybe so - I did not say whether it was retrospective though

just that a scheme that was considered avoidance can be reclassed as evasion

and Cameron and George Osborne have created the term "aggressive tax avoidance"

to move the conversation away from the "you have an ISA therefore STFU"

hodgy0_2

although

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance
"In the UK in 2004, the Labour government announced that it would use retrospective legislation to counteract some tax avoidance schemes, and it has subsequently done so on a few occasions, notably BN66. Initiatives announced in 2010 suggest an increasing willingness on the part of HMRC to use retrospective action to counter avoidance schemes, even when no warning has been given"

would suggest that can retrospectively reclassify

legb4rsk

It really brings into sharp focus the hypocrisy of it all now they have launched the campaign of adverts & posters threatening the underclass that the government are out to get them if they have been 'avoiding' tax.

hodgy0_2

from my understanding, you get caught out by the benefit rules, for relatively small amounts, and the HMRC will hunt you down like a dog

I think they have 1000's looking into benefit scroungers and the less and hundred looking in tax evaders

Maz

iTrader: (34)

It seems Margaret Hodge herself wasn't squeaky clean. I'm not sure she has the credibility to lead the Public Accounts Committee.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...in-the-UK.html

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

This is nothing new. I'm not sure if it's still going now, but under New Labour, a scheme was brought in where central govt would quite literally pay local authorities a premium of £2000 for every benefit cheat they took to court and successfully prosecuted.

As for HSBC, the current allegations against them aren't just of aggressive tax avoidance (or its promotion), but of outright evasion.

CrisPDuk

Margaret Hodge is a professional bandwagon jumper and born Fcukwit. She is the one who demanded that the Proms be abolished for being elitist

She was on the news tonight demanding to know why HMRC aren't prosecuting tax evaders. The reason is because HMRC know that even a successful prosecution costs more than they are likely to recover, whereas they can generally recover what is owed plus fines by talking with offenders directly, at far less cost.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Cool, can someone let me know what that figure is so I can reduce just a little less than it off my tax return form now on! Thanks

Dingdongler

I loathe that woman

jonc

To be fair, that story is a nothing more than a headline grabbing sensationalist cr@p to add to the brewing storm over tax avoidence/evasion and is a bit of a fail on the Telegraph, that is, you do not pay tax on revenue or sales generated !!!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The trouble with all this tax avoidance and evasion malarkey is it focuses way too much on the legalities rather than the ethics. Whilst some of what has gone on may well be legal it is clearly morally wrong and these people are, if nothing else, morally bankrupt, but that's probably how many of them have got where they are in the first place of course!

jonc

When it comes to taxation, statutes are there so as to avoid any confusion when it comes to the obligation of the taxpayer. If there is any confusion in the interpretation of the legalities surrounding tax laws, we have to leave it up to the judges in the law courts to decide if there is any wrong doing. The law is absolute whereas ethics and morality are not. Is it "more" morally and ethically right and just to pay more tax than you are obligated to? If so, why don't you pay more than you are obligated to? No one is obligated to pay more than they have to within the confines of the law.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

It is typical of your type to turn this argument round. My position is very simple. People should pay their fair share,. Like it or not these people are not doing so, not from an ethical standpoint anyway.

The question of how much money do you really need is one I often ask when I look at them and then 'across the road' at those struggling to afford their next meal.

Your repeated defence of these types is both illuminating and unsurprising!

jonc

My type? *sigh* Where and who exactly am I supposidly defending? I'm just highlighting what is within law. What you deem as fair maybe deemed as unfair to another; for example, you may feel what you pay in tax is fair, but someone struggling to afford their next meal may feel it would be fairer for you to paid more. You simply cannot have taxation governed my morality or ethics, it wouldn't be fair for everyone.

Like your thread with regards to a bartering system to avoid paying tax, it was a discussion of what was within the confines of the law, not about morality or ethincs, just like the points I've made in this thread.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

All of which would be fine if you weren't always the first to jump to the defence of the likes of bankers and highly paid tax dodgers.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Incorrect. If an avoidance scheme is deemed at a later date, that it doesn't work. If there is a QC opinion on the scheme , then it can not be classed illegal, tax maybe due at that point.

There has to be a willingness to ignore the law, that is evasion.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

If you have a ISA or pension or many other forms of tax reducing method, you're engaging in Avoidance. Companies have similar structures available. The legislation is setup by parliament and it those who create these avoidance structures.

Why do think people engage in saving tax. It is due to the fact that we hear regularly how government waste our tax revenue on absolutely shameful incentives, software mega structures, buying thousands of chairs for the royal navy at inflated prices. People want to keep their hard earned money for their own uses. You can only do avoidance if you have earned the money before hand despite whatever level you engage in, being a few quid in an isa or a multi million pound corporate structure. We live in a commercial society, some have more than others. Those that have more, pay by far the greatest proportion of tax. Envy is at the root of this, thats all

jonc

Always the first now too? Again, where and who?

hodgy0_2

that seems at odds with the below though


"Budget Note 66 (BN66) is the mechanism by which the UK Government introduced clause 55 of the Finance Bill 2008, which would later become Section 58 of the UK Finance Act 2008. This specifically targeted tax avoidance schemes that made use of offshore trusts and double taxation treaties to reduce the tax paid by the scheme's users. These schemes were heavily marketed to the freelance community after the introduction of intermediaries legislation known as IR35, as they appeared to offer more certainty concerning tax liabilities than would be the case if running a limited company.

In introducing S58 the Government retrospectively changed the law so that not only could these schemes not operate in future but they were effectively made unlawful from the day they were first introduced.

In the case of S58 this change was applied without exemption. This meant that many people who had been using tax avoidance schemes in the belief that they were legal in the wake of the Padmore decision and the legislation that followed it, found themselves facing large tax bills due to this retrospective application.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

There has been a few cases retrospective legislation brought in, but government don't like to do it because it has lots of unintended consequences, snaring many others. Son of IR 35 lives strong and is huge I believe. I know someone who is at the very forefront of tax mitigation. He says the HMRC just ties themselves in knots closing one piece of legislation whilst creating others.

hodgy0_2

sure - but YOUR post 21 is incorrect

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Not quite there have been only a few cases of retrospective legislation. The vast majority are not. So at the time of planning the legislation could allow the tax avoidance scheme to work. The HMRC will either change legislation and at that point the avoidance scheme will become illegal to continue. That doesn't mean those who did the planning before legislation change have to pay any tax. Obviously the HMRC could and do takes cases to the courts. They sometimes win, but also lose and create a point of law which undermines their own legislation. Then the providers of these schemes have the very best tax specialist in the country to work round changes in legislation.