Tax exiles may have to pay back taxes after ruling
Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.
So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.
This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.
Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.
I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.
I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.
Apologies if this mirrors Scooter's BN66 thread - didn't see it until after posting this.
So let me get this straight. I would have thought most personal taxation and certainly most company and corporate taxation is open to interpretation. HMRC guidelines guide us (and accountancy) as to what interpretation is and has for many years been broadly considered acceptable by HMRC.
This latest ruling by 3 judges if not over turned on appeal, paves the way for most individuals and companies to have their tax affairs to be re-interpreted in favour of the HMRC and applied retrospectively.
Presumably HMRC (and Gov't therefore) can and will arbitrarily decide who's tax guidance can be re-interpreted.
I say, let's have as a priority any tax concessions previously enjoyed by judiciary also re-interpreted in favour of HMRC and have that retrospectively applied as well. It's only fair after all.
I can't think of a more efficient way to bring legal clarity to this.
Comment