Ban nasty accountants

[kingcook]

Government wants to ban nasty accountants who use loopholes to avoid paying tax.

BBC News - Ban 'insider' tax accountants from government - MPs

[cojak]

Yeah, watch out Kate C - they've got you in their sights!

[eek]

Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.
2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.

[vetran]

Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

1) A scheme has to be paid to be checked and approved before it can be used & Annually and changes announced 18mo 2 years advance otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.

Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.

no retrospective tax

but yes agree,

[minestrone]

They run a system so feckin terrible and needlessly complicated that they have to use outside agencies to manage it as the staff are so utterly useless. Now the problems seem to be the fault of the outside accountants who presumably work to instruction.

They have some cheek constantly telling us that tax does not have to be taxing.

[eek]

no retrospective tax

but yes agree,

Thats not retrospective. The rules there are simple:-

approved scheme fine
others pay up the standard rate.

HMRCs current approach with S58 is scandalous. But so is the fact that they are so far behind that the tribunals are still dealing with tax cases from 2003/4.

[cojak]

Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.
2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.

Exactly. How difficult can it be??

[OwlHoot]

Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.

2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.

(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?

[NickFitz]

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.

[eek]

(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?

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