The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Pose the question again to whom? The post I replied to was one where you attempted to say that avoidance was legal when often it isn't and how I think measures should be in place that require them to prove dubious practise legal before it's used rather than wait sometimes years for judgement to be reached and negotiate their bill down.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------



What for, how many times have your accounting practices been found to be illegal and besides when has any of these shysters ever been locked up, perhaps if we started that it might put paid to some of the worst practices

Err, no, avoidance is always legal, by definition. If not paying tax is achieved by illegal means, it is by definition 'evasion'. Someone may claim it's one when it's the other, but that's a different matter. The problem with the figures quoted above is that the activists behind them think as you do - they wish to simply declare a proportion of tax avoidance to be illegal, without there having been any trial or due process. That is not how a free society based on the rule of law functions.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Err, no, avoidance is always legal, by definition. If not paying tax is achieved by illegal means, it is by definition 'evasion'. Someone may claim it's one when it's the other, but that's a different matter. The problem with the figures quoted above is that the activists behind them think as you do - they wish to simply declare a proportion of tax avoidance to be illegal, without there having been any trial or due process. That is not how a free society based on the rule of law functions.

No avoidance isn't always legal hence vodafone had to pay all that cash back and why we now have general anti abuse rules in place.

If measures are shown to be illegal, then they are not avoidance, they are evasion. It's very simple.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

If measures are shown to be illegal, then they are not avoidance, they are evasion. It's very simple.

Is this not obvious? Avoidance is when people or companies use laws to avoid paying tax.

Originally Posted by Russ

Is this not obvious? Avoidance is when people or companies use laws to avoid paying tax.

It is obvious to all but those who wish to make tax a moral rather than a legal issue, the better to inflate figures such as those posted above.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

If measures are shown to be illegal, then they are not avoidance, they are evasion. It's very simple.

It's not very simple at all nor is it obvious Russ, they exist in the murky waters that need a court judgement to decide if it's legal often under advice that the judgement will go against them but happy to try their hand knowing it can take years to be decided and a favourable settlement with hmrc could follow

[Russ]

I think you're just under the impression that avoidance and evasion are the same thing.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think you're just under the impression that avoidance and evasion are the same thing.

And after that comment I'm under the impression you're not up to this debate

[peanut]

The sooner IDS gets the boot the better... Why or how does he get away with it all I don't know.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-credit-delays

Looking more like a repeat of the NHS IT system.

[Osem]

It's a massive change to the system and delays are therefore not a surprise. Personally I think it's the way to go as the benefits system has become fragmented and far too complicated. Whether it's achievable technically and/or at what cost is a different matter and as has been proved many many times over the decades, such reform doesn't often come cheap or without problems and isn't always possible in the form originally envisaged for various reasons. There's no doubt that we have a bloated, complex and user-unfriendly benefits system and trying to reform it is not a bad thing but it won't be easy and it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It's not very simple at all nor is it obvious Russ, they exist in the murky waters that need a court judgement to decide if it's legal often under advice that the judgement will go against them but happy to try their hand knowing it can take years to be decided and a favourable settlement with hmrc could follow

Just to add hmrc is successful in 80% of cases it brings against the most aggressive tax avoidance schemes

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...heme-promoters

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And after that comment I'm under the impression you're not up to this debate

So what is the difference between tax avoidance and evasion?

what has tax evasion and tax avoidance got to do with the mega benefits thread?

[Russ]

Your answer should start from http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35660701-post762.html

Originally Posted by Russ

Your answer should start from http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35660701-post762.html

still do not it really has to do with benefits 3 pages or more on the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Anyway none of my business of course