Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Avoidance schemes aren't legal, the most aggressive lurk in murky waters that need a legal challenge to prove their illegitimacy, it's very convenient that a large number of the public excuse these shysters practices by saying 'avoidance = legal' rather than give them the benefit of the doubt I'm all in favour of lumping then in together until legality is proven.
|
In matters of law, it is traditional to require proof of wrongdoing, not vice versa. That may seem inconvenient to you, but it is a protection you withdraw at your own peril because it protects you from a capricious or vindictive government just as anyone else, including those that use tax avoidance schemes.
On which point, it's very convenient of you to point to the murky end of the spectrum where HMRC should most certainly be looking to prove wrongdoing, then implying that this is the entire meaning of 'avoidance'. Tax avoidance starts with everyone who ever put money in an ISA, travels through well-worn practices such as the self-employed tradesman who buys new equipment for his business this year rather than next, to offset against his tax bill and maybe avoid going over a threshold, and winds a very long road before it ends up in the sorts of places you're pointing at.
My question is, when people post up big graphics that lump in avoidance (legal) with evasion (illegal), exactly where have they drawn the line between the avoidance they count in their figures and the avoidance they leave out? Do they leave any out at all?