View Single Post
Old 13-05-2014, 20:38   #1206
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh View Post
Only after a ruling ,at which point it ceases to be avoidance and becomes a tax liability ,prior to any ruling HMRC have no claim on any money because of course the avoidance scheme could be ruled legitimate such as the UBS scheme



Please see the Ramsay principle. I didn't say all avoidance but 'aggressive' avoidance, which falls foul potential both of the Ramsay principle and GAAR, amongst other things.

It's tax avoidance, it's legal, it's money the treasury should have been entitled to if not for said avoidance, and the appropriate legal order has been made to compel its payment.

Anyway, all semantics and rather pointless. Doing things purely to avoid tax isn't nice and the tax code needs fixing as it is a complicated mess. That Mr PAYE pays a higher marginal tax rate than those who are super-rich is a joke but unsurprising. They can pay accountants to help them reduce their liabilities.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote