Has there ever been a test case go through the courts in any field of law whereby someone challenged being prosecuted for only breaking "the spirit" of a law and not an actual law?
I can't see how that stacks up legally
It the same as proving if a marriage is for real or not.
It the same as proving if a marriage is for real or not.
But is the comparison with marriage valid? - the reason behind sham marriages is to bypass other laws as regards immigration and welfare. By arranging your finances to legally avoid paying more tax than you are liable for you are not trying to get around anything - you are simply following the rules as they are.
Your careless reporting of what was said makes it completely unclear what you are objecting to, the existing measure that aggressive tax avoiders have to repay the tax or that Balls is proposing they pay back double rather than just the tax avoided.
Your slavish devotion to Labour is rather touching.
It the same as proving if a marriage is for real or not.
Sorry, but I'm struggling to join the dots with that comparison or even why you'd try and make it. Tax avoidance is legal otherwise it wouldn't be tax avoidance it would be evasion. Actively seeking to lower one's tax liability legally cannot, by definition be against the law so why are you in favour of fining people for doing nothing wrong?
Ed Balls has announced that he will fine tax avoiders. Except someone who is avoiding tax has not actually broken any laws - are we now fining people who keep to the law.
(incidentally there is a concept in Taxation called the Ramsey Principle - which has allowed the tax office to wind back tax if tax avoidance was the only reason for the transactions)
Twerp, since when has tax avoidance been illegal?
Tax avoidance is the only reason I pay into an ISA.
Document D gives definitions and examples, but I suppose the simplist ones are the following:
Arrangements that are contrived or abnormal and produce a tax position which is in no way consistent with the legal effect and economic substance of the underlying transaction D2.8
Exploiting a shortcoming in legislation whose purpose is to close down a form of activity D2.7
Transactions that are demonstrably contrary to the spirit (or policy and wider principles) of the law D2.6
Tax avoidance is the only reason I pay into an ISA.
It would appear you've translated paul's post in the polar opposite way I did. I read it as him asking how the hell Ed Balls can fine folk for doing nothing illegal.
Ed Balls has announced that he will fine tax avoiders. Except someone who is avoiding tax has not actually broken any laws - are we now fining people who keep to the law.
(incidentally there is a concept in Taxation called the Ramsey Principle - which has allowed the tax office to wind back tax if tax avoidance was the only reason for the transactions)
Then change the law, but what's currently legal is legal. You can't levy fines against someone for not breaking the law. Wouldn't that be unlawful in itself?
Typical Labour nonsense. I'm all for closing loopholes and then bringing the full force of the law down on those who have engaged in illegal activity. But tax avoidance isn't illegal, as Annsyre pointed out ISA's are a form of tax avoidance as are many other legitimate schemes run by the government.
But then it's typical of Labour to try and criminalise more people.
Then change the law, but what's currently legal is legal. You can't levy fines against someone for not breaking the law. Wouldn't that be unlawful in itself?
One would hope so, but then this is HMRC. I'm looking at a letter from them which tells me about a VAT debt that they're going to pass to some debt collectors if I don't pay immediately. Minor issue is that company hasn't traded for years so no VAT is due. If I tried reclaiming VAT that wasn't due from HMRC, that would be fraud.
This will end up the same way. HMRC can't fine anyone for doing something that's legal, so only option is to make some avoidance illegal, which will no doubt make the tax system even more complex than it already is. Alternatively it could try to simplify the system to reduce or remove some contrivances, but there'll be lobbying against that. Especially when the big accountants who 'advise' HMRC would lose money.
Otherwise it'll end up with a system of pseudo-fines where HMRC's computers will no doubt issue 'penalty' notices based on some assumptions about tax that could be due. The appeals process will no doubt be managed by HMRC and punitively expensive to challenge their 'assessments'.. Especially when there have also been suggestions to seize the money first in tax disputes leaving no money to hire lawyers or tax specialists.
One would hope so, but then this is HMRC. I'm looking at a letter from them which tells me about a VAT debt that they're going to pass to some debt collectors if I don't pay immediately. Minor issue is that company hasn't traded for years so no VAT is due. If I tried reclaiming VAT that wasn't due from HMRC, that would be fraud.
This will end up the same way. HMRC can't fine anyone for doing something that's legal, so only option is to make some avoidance illegal, which will no doubt make the tax system even more complex than it already is. Alternatively it could try to simplify the system to reduce or remove some contrivances, but there'll be lobbying against that. Especially when the big accountants who 'advise' HMRC would lose money.
Otherwise it'll end up with a system of pseudo-fines where HMRC's computers will no doubt issue 'penalty' notices based on some assumptions about tax that could be due. The appeals process will no doubt be managed by HMRC and punitively expensive to challenge their 'assessments'.. Especially when there have also been suggestions to seize the money first in tax disputes leaving no money to hire lawyers or tax specialists.
Accountants will always find a way around anything the clowns in the Treasury and HMRC think up. If not, I will stop paying mine.
Document D gives definitions and examples, but I suppose the simplist ones are the following:
Arrangements that are contrived or abnormal and produce a tax position which is in no way consistent with the legal effect and economic substance of the underlying transaction D2.8
Exploiting a shortcoming in legislation whose purpose is to close down a form of activity D2.7
Transactions that are demonstrably contrary to the spirit (or policy and wider principles) of the law D2.6
The estimated figures for new revenue don't suggest that much will fall the wrong side of the line. If there's tens of billions at stake, you would expect a realistic effort to reel the money back in to bring in far more. And, if the figures remain small, it looks inevitable that most people's tax lawyers are going to find a way around the legislation.
Labour seem to reflect this - by proposing to tax the few miscreants they can deem guilty twice as much. It leaves the stable door just as open, but penalises the few who get caught more? It may look more successful - without actually doing much more about the problem ?
Then (as has already been pointed out) it would not be avoidance. Anyway there was enough tinkering in the tax code already under Brown - who actually managed to double the size of the tax code making it the longest in the world.
What is needed is wholesale reform of the tax code to remove the aggressive schemes not demanding money from people for obeying the law.
Comments
It the same as proving if a marriage is for real or not.
But is the comparison with marriage valid? - the reason behind sham marriages is to bypass other laws as regards immigration and welfare. By arranging your finances to legally avoid paying more tax than you are liable for you are not trying to get around anything - you are simply following the rules as they are.
There is absolutely no moral obligation to pay more in tax than proscribed under law.
The labour party know this, and are trying to make tax a moral argument as opposed to a legal argument.
And staggeringly hypcrocritical.
Sorry, but I'm struggling to join the dots with that comparison or even why you'd try and make it. Tax avoidance is legal otherwise it wouldn't be tax avoidance it would be evasion. Actively seeking to lower one's tax liability legally cannot, by definition be against the law so why are you in favour of fining people for doing nothing wrong?
That's a slippery slope I want no part in.
Twerp, since when has tax avoidance been illegal?
Tax avoidance is the only reason I pay into an ISA.
Pointless Ed Balls
Document D gives definitions and examples, but I suppose the simplist ones are the following:
Arrangements that are contrived or abnormal and produce a tax position which is in no way consistent with the legal effect and economic substance of the underlying transaction D2.8
Exploiting a shortcoming in legislation whose purpose is to close down a form of activity D2.7
Transactions that are demonstrably contrary to the spirit (or policy and wider principles) of the law D2.6
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaar.htm
It would appear you've translated paul's post in the polar opposite way I did. I read it as him asking how the hell Ed Balls can fine folk for doing nothing illegal.
Laws can be changed.
Then change the law, but what's currently legal is legal. You can't levy fines against someone for not breaking the law. Wouldn't that be unlawful in itself?
But then it's typical of Labour to try and criminalise more people.
One would hope so, but then this is HMRC. I'm looking at a letter from them which tells me about a VAT debt that they're going to pass to some debt collectors if I don't pay immediately. Minor issue is that company hasn't traded for years so no VAT is due. If I tried reclaiming VAT that wasn't due from HMRC, that would be fraud.
This will end up the same way. HMRC can't fine anyone for doing something that's legal, so only option is to make some avoidance illegal, which will no doubt make the tax system even more complex than it already is. Alternatively it could try to simplify the system to reduce or remove some contrivances, but there'll be lobbying against that. Especially when the big accountants who 'advise' HMRC would lose money.
Otherwise it'll end up with a system of pseudo-fines where HMRC's computers will no doubt issue 'penalty' notices based on some assumptions about tax that could be due. The appeals process will no doubt be managed by HMRC and punitively expensive to challenge their 'assessments'.. Especially when there have also been suggestions to seize the money first in tax disputes leaving no money to hire lawyers or tax specialists.
Accountants will always find a way around anything the clowns in the Treasury and HMRC think up. If not, I will stop paying mine.
...and benefits can be cut.
Looks like a lawyers paradise.
The estimated figures for new revenue don't suggest that much will fall the wrong side of the line. If there's tens of billions at stake, you would expect a realistic effort to reel the money back in to bring in far more. And, if the figures remain small, it looks inevitable that most people's tax lawyers are going to find a way around the legislation.
Labour seem to reflect this - by proposing to tax the few miscreants they can deem guilty twice as much. It leaves the stable door just as open, but penalises the few who get caught more? It may look more successful - without actually doing much more about the problem ?
No change there then. The best statement Balls could ever make is his resignation statement.
Then (as has already been pointed out) it would not be avoidance. Anyway there was enough tinkering in the tax code already under Brown - who actually managed to double the size of the tax code making it the longest in the world.
What is needed is wholesale reform of the tax code to remove the aggressive schemes not demanding money from people for obeying the law.
That sounds like something Ed Miliband would say
Ol' Panda Eyes should grow a spine and sack the borrow/spend/debt complete liability that is Balls.