Ban nasty accountants

[vetran]

(2) Is fair enough, as long as rules aren't changed retrospectively, but (1) is iniquitous and an affront to personal liberty.

Why should anyone be "checked and approved" when going about their lawful business of minimizing tax obligations within the current rules?

we are talking about "schemes" not using an ISA or reclaiming expenses.

I'm not sure they should be able make invalid, maybe just wording how about close entry and give notice? You may well have a long term investment in a checked scheme (e.g. investing in an overseas office building programme), next year HMRC decide its 'invalid' and your investment is ruined.

[AtW]

Make tax advisors jointly and severally liable for any tax that would be due in the event of their schemes "not working" - they would need to maintain sufficient level of insurance to cover any losses.

That should be enough.

[eek]

Make tax advisors jointly and severally personally liable for any tax that would be due in the event of their schemes "not working" - they would need to maintain sufficient level of insurance to cover any losses.

That should be enough.

Just to be 100% sure I added an additional word. HTH

[VectraMan]

The point is that HMRC is paying these people to come and work with them, and they then use what they've learned to avoid tax. It's a bit like paying somebody to work in your house and them then using what they've learned to burgle you; although of course, unlike burglary, tax avoidance isn't illegal unless it's found to constitute evasion.

Either way, it seems a bit stupid to pay somebody to spend time learning how to rip you off.

If the tax system were straightforward, there wouldn't be any issue. What you're basically saying is, HMRC should keep the tax system a guarded secret, and certainly not let accountants know how it works in case those accountants should give their clients correct advice.

It's about as intelligent as the argument that not teaching teenagers about sex means they won't be tempted to have it.

[AtW]

Another thing that can be done is that no firm that gets Govt contracts can provide "tax planning advice" or have any control/benefit in any entities that do so.

It's basically should be choice between making money from taxpayers OR making money from those who want to cheat taxpayers.

[amcdonald]

Because most tax saving schemes are artificial and wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the purpose of saving tax.

That's it ban personal allowances, they're just an artificial tax saving scheme!

[SueEllen]

That's it ban personal allowances, they're just an artificial tax saving scheme!

How is having a personal allowance a "scheme"? Explain.

[AtW]

That's it ban personal allowances, they're just an artificial tax saving scheme!

Are you that stupid that you can't see the difference between intention of Parliament which created personal allowance and artificial tax schemes designed to evade tax on massive scale?

[SueEllen]

Are you that stupid that you can't see the difference between intention of Parliament which created personal allowance and artificial tax schemes designed to evade tax on massive scale?

You've spoilt it.

I wanted a reply for him.

[VectraMan]

Are you that stupid that you can't see the difference between intention of Parliament which created personal allowance and artificial tax schemes designed to evade tax on massive scale?

ISAs are entirely artificial and exist for the sole purpose of avoiding tax. You could say the same about pensions; certainly it'd be a lot less attractive to pay into one if you didn't get tax relief. Both of these were created by the government. It was parlimentary intent that led to tax relief on charitable donations, yet we still had headlines about millionaires avoiding tax by giving away their money to charities (possibly the most insane story of all). For that matter, it was parliamentary intent that taxed dividends at a lower rate and let those personal service company scum (who we all know are really employees) get away with paying less tax.

Just saying. Blame the rule makers, not the rule followers.