PDA

View Full Version : Ramsay defeated



webberg
6th March 2015, 10:40
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j8278/TC04302.pdf

The above case concerns attempts by a property group to avoid tax on the sale of properties to British Land.

They were challenged by HMRC on the grounds that the complicated structure that sought to use the group relief provisions should be ignored due to the tax avoidance purpose.

HMRC lost the case. The Judge decided that, even though the result was "unsatisfactory", he had to find for the taxpayer as the group relief rules created an artificial situation and was a self sustaining code to which commercial motives cannot be applied. see para 143.

Following from Tower Radio, are we seeing some ground being recovered?

Too early to say and this case will be appealed, but a good reason to continue a debate with HMRC rather than fold.

lilikins1
6th March 2015, 14:14
:banana::yay::banana:

StrengthInNumbers
6th March 2015, 15:17
This was expected. As things will move through the courts HMRC will find this increasingly difficult.

What will happen to all budgets which are planned based on counting future tax collection now and assuming HMRC figures are correct?

DonkeyRhubarb
6th March 2015, 15:26
HMRC are probably going to find that many cases will now go to tribunal which they wouldn't have chosen.

No more cherry picking. Lots of rotten fruit.

northernladuk
6th March 2015, 15:39
:banana::yay::banana:

Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.


143. For all the reasons given above I must allow this appeal. That will no doubt be
viewed as an unsatisfactory result given the tax avoidance motive of the Appellants.
35 However it follows from the way in which Parliament has defined groups for group
relief purposes.

regron
6th March 2015, 15:42
.....Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

Anything HMRC lose these days is a victory in my eyes :laugh

RoastedSlopes
6th March 2015, 15:59
Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.


Thank you for your input :confused:, but close the loopholes so that people do not enter into such agreements, don't ruin the lives of 'real' people no law was broken!! (At the time)

squirrel
6th March 2015, 18:25
Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.


Oh dear. So many things wrong with your post, I couldn't possibly know where to start. if you hadn't posted so often in the past I would have thought you were trolling.

northernladuk
6th March 2015, 19:23
Am not trolling just not subscribing to throwing a party everytime HMRC lose something. There are genuine tax evaders out there. I'd be happy to hear your comments. If HMRC are wholly wrong here I'm big enough to accept it.

DonkeyRhubarb
6th March 2015, 19:44
There are genuine tax evaders out there.

Genuine tax evader? Tax evasion is a criminal offence.

northernladuk
6th March 2015, 19:45
Genuine tax evader? Tax evasion is a criminal offence.

Yes and?

DonkeyRhubarb
6th March 2015, 19:54
Yes and?

What?

northernladuk
6th March 2015, 19:55
Well this one has gone wrong. Am out.

ASB
6th March 2015, 19:58
Genuine tax evader? Tax evasion is a criminal offence.

I think one of the issues is that if hmrc go the evasion route then it is in a criminal court beyond reasonable doubt. A much higher barrier hence they are minded to go to tribunal where it is easier.

This may be part of the muddying waters.

Hmrc have had some spectacular, and to me surprising, defeats in the criminal courts. Dodd and Rednapp spring to mind. Of course the juries spoke.

edit: obviously not any form of evasion here. The various rules seem largely mandated to mem they might not like the result, but it looks inevitable and I dont really see how hmrc could have hoped to win apart from by hoping to rump with ramsay.

SantaClaus
6th March 2015, 22:29
Am not sure that HMRC loosing a large chunk of income through a complex tax avoidance strategy is really a banana moment. The money would have gone to the public purse so could argue we all lose out.

The outcome even admits it's a tax avoidance measure. It's just Parliment's definition of groups have allowed them to exploit a legal but not moral loophole. Not really a victory in my book I am afraid.

Somebody who still thinks tax goes to the public purse and doesn't just line the pockets of MPs and their corporate friends... bless!

Not Losing Any Sleep
7th March 2015, 07:07
Somebody who still thinks tax goes to the public purse and doesn't just line the pockets of MPs and their corporate friends... bless!

A judge would never admit to it in 1000 years but you have to wonder if the recent defeats of Ramsay are the Judges' response to APNs and all other tosh the govt and HMRC are inflicting on us.

SantaClaus
7th March 2015, 14:07
A judge would never admit to it in 1000 years but you have to wonder if the recent defeats of Ramsay are the Judges' response to APNs and all other tosh the govt and HMRC are inflicting on us.

Would be nice to think so, but this country and it's corruption are rotten to the core.

webberg
7th March 2015, 17:08
Would be nice to think so, but this country and it's corruption are rotten to the core.

I would defend the comments about a loss for HMRC being a loss for everybody IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

The company set out with the clear intention of avoiding tax. To date they have done that. The UK taxpayer has lost out on around £30m of tax.

the fact that the judges felt compelled to find the way they did is important for all those who did not set out with a clear tax avoidance (and no other) purpose.

Contractors did their planning based on the letter of the law. Some were absolutely aware that it was tax avoidance. Most I suggest assumed that because everybody was doing it and HMRC were silent (approval by omission) then it was fine.

there is consequently a difference in the cases and I can sympathise with those who feel that we've all lost because of the result in the case but feel equally aggrieved at the treatment afforded contractors.

MicrosoftBob
9th March 2015, 12:49
I would defend the comments about a loss for HMRC being a loss for everybody IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

The company set out with the clear intention of avoiding tax. To date they have done that. The UK taxpayer has lost out on around £30m of tax..

It's a companies legal duty to pay as little tax as possible, avoiding tax is a legal way of doing that, just because Hector tries to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion in the court of public opinion does not make it a fact

Tax avoidance is legal, you do it if you ever cycle...you are avoiding paying duty on petrol, if you don't smoke you are avoiding paying tax, if you use your personal allowance you are intentionally avoiding tax

In short you can't breath without avoiding tax, and tax avoidance is legal

northernladuk
9th March 2015, 14:38
It's a companies legal duty to pay as little tax as possible, avoiding tax is a legal way of doing that, just because Hector tries to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion in the court of public opinion does not make it a fact

Tax avoidance is legal, you do it if you ever cycle...you are avoiding paying duty on petrol, if you don't smoke you are avoiding paying tax, if you use your personal allowance you are intentionally avoiding tax

In short you can't breath without avoiding tax, and tax avoidance is legal

Unless it's classed as aggressive and suddenly it is much more unclear.

MicrosoftBob
9th March 2015, 14:41
Unless it's classed as aggressive and suddenly it is much more unclear.

There is no legal definition of aggressive tax avoidance that is just FUD by HMRC and Gideon for anything that is legal but they don't like

DonkeyRhubarb
9th March 2015, 15:22
There is no legal definition of aggressive tax avoidance that is just FUD by HMRC and Gideon for anything that is legal but they don't like

Trouble is when you do something Government/HMRC don't like it can bring a shed load of grief.

fullyautomatix
9th March 2015, 15:43
It's a companies legal duty to pay as little tax as possible, avoiding tax is a legal way of doing that, just because Hector tries to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion in the court of public opinion does not make it a fact

Tax avoidance is legal, you do it if you ever cycle...you are avoiding paying duty on petrol, if you don't smoke you are avoiding paying tax, if you use your personal allowance you are intentionally avoiding tax

In short you can't breath without avoiding tax, and tax avoidance is legal

Your argument is flawed. What a crappy argument that if you dont smoke you are avoiding tax. Really ? You are an idiot. Its a bit like saying, if you dont work and dont earn you are avoiding income tax. Some imaginary income tax.

If you want to debate properly, if you do smoke, but go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

vern19
9th March 2015, 15:51
go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

That sounds like tax evasion to me

MicrosoftBob
9th March 2015, 16:00
Your argument is flawed. What a crappy argument that if you dont smoke you are avoiding tax. Really ? You are an idiot. Its a bit like saying, if you dont work and dont earn you are avoiding income tax. Some imaginary income tax.

If you want to debate properly, if you do smoke, but go over to Calais and come back with boat load of cigarettes, you are avoiding tax and such people are often prosecuted.

You can bring back as many ciggies as you like for personal use, it's only reselling them withour paying duty that is tax evasion

Also please read up on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion

HTH

DonkeyRhubarb
9th March 2015, 16:03
That sounds like tax evasion to me

Not as long as it's for personal consumption. HMRC have set guidelines on the amount you can bring back but in reality there are no legal limits if it's from another EU country. If you bring more than this amount in you can expect a ton of hassle (confiscation etc) but you're not breaking the law.

fullyautomatix
9th March 2015, 16:04
You can bring back as many ciggies as you like for personal use, it's only reselling them withour paying duty that is tax evasion

Also please read up on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion

HTH


How is not smoking avoiding tax ? What tax is being avoided ?

squirrel
9th March 2015, 19:33
Unless it's classed as aggressive and suddenly it is much more unclear.

And therein lies the problem (apologies for the trolling insinuation earlier in the thread). Regardless of the aggressiveness of it, it is still Avoidance not Evasion. The spirit of the law should be an irrelevance. Are you breaking the law or not. If not you should not be subsequently penalised.

northernladuk
9th March 2015, 20:38
And therein lies the problem (apologies for the trolling insinuation earlier in the thread). Regardless of the aggressiveness of it, it is still Avoidance not Evasion. The spirit of the law should be an irrelevance. Are you breaking the law or not. If not you should not be subsequently penalised.

True but I just don't believe that the spirit should be irrelevant. People go out of their way to pick a loophole that only exists because the law wasn't robust enough. It's almost impossible to get the wording right but the reasoning should be clear. I just don't think this, in many cases, is right at all. Obviously there is no way to fix it and it's a constant battle to prove in court but the reasons the law is in place (but not robust enough) is clear...

Let's remember that this loophole finding can have some terrible fall out. There was a case on moneybox about a company called arc coming up with a scheme to allow people to take a portion of their pension out and class as some sort of loan.. Are your warning bells ringing?.. anyway.. They've ****ed it up and HMRC have proved the loophole they went for wasn't really there and 400+ people now not only have to pay this loan off but also 55% tax on top!!

Not all loophole exploitation is harmless.

Anyway.. Am going on about the morals of it which unfortunately doesn't stand up in court and will never be fixed.

squirrel
9th March 2015, 23:26
There was a case on moneybox about a company called arc coming up with a scheme to allow people to take a portion of their pension out and class as some sort of loan.. Are your warning bells ringing?.. anyway.. They've ****ed it up and HMRC have proved the loophole they went for wasn't really there and 400+ people now not only have to pay this loan off but also 55% tax on top!!

HMRC proved the loophole didn't exist. In my case HMRC have proved nothing but that doesn't seem to bother them with their ridiculous settlement opportunities, APNs, Follower Notices, threats of raiding bank accounts etc.

For me there is absolutely no moral issue either.

Having paid approx £500k in tax during my 25 year working career (on salaries and contracts ranging between £7k pa and £80k pa so we're not talking ridiculous money) and never once having claimed a single penny back, anyone that even vaguely suggested I haven't paid my fair share to date would be put straight in no uncertain terms (that's not directed at you northernladuk, you have said nothing of the sort, just making a general point :smile). And yet here I am, having spent just under two years in a Scheme some 8 years ago because I was somewhat annoyed after a few years of IR35 and paying 54p in the pound. Which apparently was my fault anyway because I deliberately started a LtdCo to avoid paying tax ... Err, no I didn't Ms Primarolo, the government told me I had to have a LtdCo to be a contractor. My accountant then told me to pay myself a small salary and the rest in dividends as it was more tax efficient, so I did - Him Accountant, Me Programmer, what do you expect! Even then I was the sole recipient of the dividends so paying 40% tax on the majority of it anyway, just no company NI - which I shouldn't have paid because I wasn't really a company. I would rather have been self-employed, got my contract income and paid PAYE but I wasn't allowed to. Having said that, even with me paying a small salary and dividends, HMRC were still getting more (approx twice as much) out of me than when I was a permie. So the whole Friday-Monday worker excuse was utter tosh too. But that apparently wasn't enough for HMRC.

So in my eyes having been forced to overpay tax for quite some time I had absolutely no moral issue with joining a Scheme then. I have absolutely no problem with tax avoidance now, regardless of how aggressive, as it is within the law. Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with MPs claiming lots of expenses if it was legal for them to do so and I don't mind Bankers getting big bonuses and I haven't tried to reclaim any PPI because it was me that decided to take it out. If it wasn't suitable for me I should have read the gumpf more carefully. That's the extent of my twisted logic!

I certainly take your point about the danger of people joining Schemes in good faith only to find out that it's all fallen down around them but that is a different issue to the original post in this thread that you had replied to regarding HMRC losing a case. HMRC lost, Scheme won, Scheme vindicated, Where's the problem? The Judge's passing shot is irrelevant, he has applied the law as he should.

If HMRC take the Scheme I was in to court and prove using the actual, true, real and proper LAW, NOT the jumped up fictitious make it up as you go along to suit your circumstances spirit of the law, that I am in the wrong then I will be devastated. I will have to find some way to pay (contrary to what HMRC would have The Lords, Parliament and Joe Public believe, I do not have £50k tucked away anywhere, not even in a house) and that will, as I say, Learn Me. Either HMRC didn't tell the Scheme I joined all those years ago that it was operating within the law and therefore the Scheme lied to me or HMRC did tell them but are now trying to do a u-turn.

Until all that happens, however, no-one can tell me I have done anything wrong, either legally or morally so HMRC can stick their APN up their hoo hah and all the pathetic vitriol and moral indignation about tax avoidance from Parliament, HMRC and Joe Public can fk right off.

Them's my thoughts on the matter anyway :happy

DonkeyRhubarb
10th March 2015, 12:00
Playing devils advocate...

Imagine if everyone could reduce their tax liability to a few percent like the schemes achieve. The state would fall apart.

That's why it's being hit so hard.

squirrel
10th March 2015, 12:41
Playing devils advocate...

Imagine if everyone could reduce their tax liability to a few percent like the schemes achieve. The state would fall apart.

That's why it's being hit so hard.

Would the state falling apart necessarily be a bad thing, I can't say I'm particularly enamoured with any of the choices at the next election (and that's nothing to do with this avoidance issue) :wink Maybe it's time for a radical overhaul...

I do absolutely agree with you about the need to pay tax, my personal argument is not with that.

I do, however, think this is a big ticket item because they tried to use it as a political tool in advance of the election.

lilikins1
20th March 2015, 14:41
HMRC proved the loophole didn't exist. In my case HMRC have proved nothing but that doesn't seem to bother them with their ridiculous settlement opportunities, APNs, Follower Notices, threats of raiding bank accounts etc.

For me there is absolutely no moral issue either.

Having paid approx £500k in tax during my 25 year working career (on salaries and contracts ranging between £7k pa and £80k pa so we're not talking ridiculous money) and never once having claimed a single penny back, anyone that even vaguely suggested I haven't paid my fair share to date would be put straight in no uncertain terms (that's not directed at you northernladuk, you have said nothing of the sort, just making a general point :smile). And yet here I am, having spent just under two years in a Scheme some 8 years ago because I was somewhat annoyed after a few years of IR35 and paying 54p in the pound. Which apparently was my fault anyway because I deliberately started a LtdCo to avoid paying tax ... Err, no I didn't Ms Primarolo, the government told me I had to have a LtdCo to be a contractor. My accountant then told me to pay myself a small salary and the rest in dividends as it was more tax efficient, so I did - Him Accountant, Me Programmer, what do you expect! Even then I was the sole recipient of the dividends so paying 40% tax on the majority of it anyway, just no company NI - which I shouldn't have paid because I wasn't really a company. I would rather have been self-employed, got my contract income and paid PAYE but I wasn't allowed to. Having said that, even with me paying a small salary and dividends, HMRC were still getting more (approx twice as much) out of me than when I was a permie. So the whole Friday-Monday worker excuse was utter tosh too. But that apparently wasn't enough for HMRC.

So in my eyes having been forced to overpay tax for quite some time I had absolutely no moral issue with joining a Scheme then. I have absolutely no problem with tax avoidance now, regardless of how aggressive, as it is within the law. Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with MPs claiming lots of expenses if it was legal for them to do so and I don't mind Bankers getting big bonuses and I haven't tried to reclaim any PPI because it was me that decided to take it out. If it wasn't suitable for me I should have read the gumpf more carefully. That's the extent of my twisted logic!

I certainly take your point about the danger of people joining Schemes in good faith only to find out that it's all fallen down around them but that is a different issue to the original post in this thread that you had replied to regarding HMRC losing a case. HMRC lost, Scheme won, Scheme vindicated, Where's the problem? The Judge's passing shot is irrelevant, he has applied the law as he should.

If HMRC take the Scheme I was in to court and prove using the actual, true, real and proper LAW, NOT the jumped up fictitious make it up as you go along to suit your circumstances spirit of the law, that I am in the wrong then I will be devastated. I will have to find some way to pay (contrary to what HMRC would have The Lords, Parliament and Joe Public believe, I do not have £50k tucked away anywhere, not even in a house) and that will, as I say, Learn Me. Either HMRC didn't tell the Scheme I joined all those years ago that it was operating within the law and therefore the Scheme lied to me or HMRC did tell them but are now trying to do a u-turn.

Until all that happens, however, no-one can tell me I have done anything wrong, either legally or morally so HMRC can stick their APN up their hoo hah and all the pathetic vitriol and moral indignation about tax avoidance from Parliament, HMRC and Joe Public can fk right off.

Them's my thoughts on the matter anyway :happy

:banana::yay::banana:

webberg
4th April 2015, 16:16
Gemsupa Limited and Consolidated Property Wilmslow Limited v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0097 (TC)

A case relying on HMRC's interpretation of Ramsey - HMRC loss.

Following a very helpful post from Strength in Numbers earlier on a tax case relating to penalties, I've been digging around. It appears that the case mentioned to me has not been reported on the official website (although it's now late).

This case is about a wholly artificial scheme. Essentially a gain arose, it was claimed to be eradicated by a clever financial transaction and the group then folded.

the trenches may have moved a bit more.

centurian
4th April 2015, 16:32
Would the state falling apart necessarily be a bad thing

However bad you may think things are in this country - you don't want the state to fail - it's the only thing that keeps us from total anarchy. Despite our pretences about being civilised, our core beings have moved on little from the cavemen we once were.

In a failed state - if the "powers that be" didn't think you were paying enough "tax" (or whatever they term it) - you would just be dragged out into the street and shot in the head without even getting a chance to plead your case.

...and that does happen in a lot of places around the world today.

TykeMerc
4th April 2015, 17:03
Playing devils advocate...

Imagine if everyone could reduce their tax liability to a few percent like the schemes achieve. The state would fall apart.

That's why it's being hit so hard.

True, at a purely personal level I find the schemes thoroughly repulsive, they were clearly run by shysters and frankly the users are deserving of no sympathy provided that the loopholes were properly closed and they're attacked using law that is subject to natural justice.

I feel very strongly that the use of retrospection is entirely at odds with natural justice and it's every bit as repulsive as the schemes in the first place, as for that matter is the behaviour of HMRC where bullying, deception and a lack of integrity appear to be routine.

When it comes to taxation people are entitled to a high level of certainty so they can plan, but they are not entitled to take the piss and hide large quantities of income behind fake structures.

As others have said if the state fails the consequences are far too nasty to contemplate.

squirrel
5th April 2015, 05:17
However bad you may think things are in this country - you don't want the state to fail - it's the only thing that keeps us from total anarchy. Despite our pretences about being civilised, our core beings have moved on little from the cavemen we once were.

In a failed state - if the "powers that be" didn't think you were paying enough "tax" (or whatever they term it) - you would just be dragged out into the street and shot in the head without even getting a chance to plead your case.

...and that does happen in a lot of places around the world today.

Only picking out a small quote in the middle of a much bigger piece so you can put your own spin on it?

If you honestly think that is what I meant then so be it.

webberg
5th April 2015, 09:11
Alternatively, imagine a couple of other scenarios.

First, everybody who currently receives cash for work actually declares it and pays 10%/20%/40% on the income over the appropriate limit. The Treasury coffers would benefit by several times the quantity they expect from crushing tax avoidance.

Second, imagine that Government became efficient. Imagine that MP's are no longer paid by us but by their party. After all they represent their party most of the time and not us. Imagine if it took only one Civil Servant to do one job instead of 4 or 5. Imagine that we had a better system for assessing and distributing benefits and welfare. Again the savings are huge.

Under both of the above worlds, the tax avoider does not exist because he doesn't need to. Government has money, spends it wisely and upholds its end of the covenant.

Unfortunately the job is too big for the politicians and they cannot fix it. Therefore they continue to renege on the covenant by ever more odious means (retrospective law making is not the worst) and if that brings the benefit of stroking their egos by attracting votes, so much the better.

Tax avoidance for its own sake is not acceptable. Tax avoidance to preserve cash for growing a business? To pay for salaries?

Equally retrospection is not acceptable, creates unfairness and uncertainty.

centurian
5th April 2015, 09:45
Only picking out a small quote in the middle of a much bigger piece so you can put your own spin on it?

If you honestly think that is what I meant then so be it.

Yes, I honestly did think you meant the complete failure of the state

...and not just based upon that single quote, but other parts of your post "Maybe it's time for a radical overhaul..." etc.

Happy to be corrected, but you do get quite a lot of people posting on here that they think our state is far worse than Mugabe etc. That annoys me - I feel a sense of perspective is required - as there are millions of people in the world that are living under such tyranny every single day - who would probably give their right hand (if it hasn't already been cut off) to be living under our level of "persecution".

Rant over...

handyandy
5th April 2015, 15:41
Yes, I honestly did think you meant the complete failure of the state

...and not just based upon that single quote, but other parts of your post "Maybe it's time for a radical overhaul..." etc.

Happy to be corrected, but you do get quite a lot of people posting on here that they think our state is far worse than Mugabe etc. That annoys me - I feel a sense of perspective is required - as there are millions of people in the world that are living under such tyranny every single day - who would probably give their right hand (if it hasn't already been cut off) to be living under our level of "persecution".

Rant over...


What he said.

DotasScandal
5th April 2015, 22:11
Happy to be corrected, but you do get quite a lot of people posting on here that they think our state is far worse than Mugabe etc. That annoys me - I feel a sense of perspective is required - as there are millions of people in the world that are living under such tyranny every single day - who would probably give their right hand (if it hasn't already been cut off) to be living under our level of "persecution".ery
Rant over...

Not buying the "we don't have it that bad, look at [insert 3d world country of your choice], people there would love to live under our level of "persecution"..." rhetoric. That's comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, a sense of perspective is needed, but there are many nuances, too. A political system does not have to be a full blown, easily recognizable dictatorship to be oppressive. More often, it poses as a democracy to some extent while at the same time having, for all intents and purposes, authoritarian tendencies.
As it happens, our country's elites' default mode of dealing with the population is the stick/carrot approach (rather than a civilized, human-to-human approach).
Just look at HMRC's main mode of communication, which is straight out of 1984 (the novel): "we are watching you", "we are closing in on you", "if you don't do XXX, you are at risk of [insert punishment of your choice]"...or just the overall tone of every single letter they send you!
All in all, it is a very crude, unsophisticated way of dealing with the populace.

Contrast it, for example, with Northern Europe, where dealings with administration are polite, honest, and professional, and where the population is actually HAPPY to pay high tax, because people know the politicians will be held accountable for what the money is spent on.
(Yes, I know consent is always manufactured...but believe it or not, it is easier to get people to pay their taxes by talking to them like intelligent human beings, rather than treating everyone as "guilty until proven innocent" and using various "naming and shaming" tactics...)
It is a social contract that has no equivalent in the UK, where politicians just get away with making bad law, patching it with worse law (retrospective if necessary), and telling the plebs who dare protest to STFU.
I assure you the British way is quite peculiar when compared with many other western countries. Go work abroad for a year or two (in a non Commonwealth country), and you'll understand what I mean.

Rant over :wink

stek
5th April 2015, 23:03
+1

ireland2013
9th August 2015, 08:10
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j8278/TC04302.pdf

The above case concerns attempts by a property group to avoid tax on the sale of properties to British Land.

They were challenged by HMRC on the grounds that the complicated structure that sought to use the group relief provisions should be ignored due to the tax avoidance purpose.

HMRC lost the case. The Judge decided that, even though the result was "unsatisfactory", he had to find for the taxpayer as the group relief rules created an artificial situation and was a self sustaining code to which commercial motives cannot be applied. see para 143.

Following from Tower Radio, are we seeing some ground being recovered?

Too early to say and this case will be appealed, but a good reason to continue a debate with HMRC rather than fold.


Just wondering if this was appealed - what is the time limit for appeal?

LandRover
10th August 2015, 10:12
Am not trolling just not subscribing to throwing a party every time HMRC lose something. There are genuine tax evaders out there. I'd be happy to hear your comments. If HMRC are wholly wrong here I'm big enough to accept it.

But your first response used the quote of tax avoidance, so please make the assertion that avoidance and evasion are different, it doesn't help when the muddying of the water by posters is similar to HMRC rhetoric.

If HMRC and government simplified the tax system then many wouldn't suffer the HMRC abuse of their powers. But there again so called tax specialist accountants and lawyers wouldn't have a permanent income stream:grin