Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

pinno

...and i'm not the slightest bit condescending and I never, ever make it personal and never imply that your'e are all thick even though I think you are because you don't read my posts and you don't know what you are talking about because you are all a bit dim...

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

...don't worry, the internationally renowned economist, tax accountant and future chancellor of the exchequer will be jumping on here at lunchtime to tell everybody it's all sweetness and light, 99.9999% of all transactions involving tax havens are legitimate, 'it's the way of the world', it's legal therefore it's fair', you are all deaf, you're not listening to what I am saying, I want to be CEO of Apple...
Even a right wing Republican is spouting rightiebollox apparently, so Stevo must be the only one who is right.

Will you stop trying to take over my job on here

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Nope, the debate on the specific point of whether there is a moral obligation against legally minimising your tax is done. Just looks like you are trying to move the goal posts as you conceded on the point in question.

You can swing the lead all you want and call people ignorant (legitimately or not ) but one thing is certain - you have one hell of a blind spot.

I think you may have had a blind spot on the last page:

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.

What part of that don't you understand?

I don't understand how much is made redundant by the Ramsey principle.

It largely took artificial arrangements off the table. It puts the focus on points such as having sufficient substance, underlying purpose of the transaction etc., for which there have been other regs such as those in BEPS. Not a big issue for genuine commercial tax planning and does not change the underlying point of the text above.

In the end most large business transactions are complex and potentially fraught with pitfalls - to be honest tax planning for these is not so much a luxury as a necessity. There are often many permutations and nuances and part of my job is to find a good commercial result that does not inadvertently land us with large costs which did not have to be incurred. I can give a few examples if you want.

pblakeney

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do supporters of tax minimisation through legal means also support benefit maximisation through legal means?

Ooooo! Good question. I know a few people who are working the system.
I disapprove but it is all legal. Having a moan is all I can do.

I can only assume that it is a question more easily ignored than answered.

pinno

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

pblakeney

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

apparently the Japanese take from the State what they need not what they are entitled to.

In my eyes organising your affairs to maximise state benefits is the same as tax avoidance. And my moral compass says it is fine to do it to a certain level but don't take the p1ss

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

I know that but you didn't read his first post, his last post and all the posts in between and your are not taking in what he says.

Actually, in all seriousness, all this thread is doing is inflating his pomp. If no one interacted with him, he would soon go away to Bean Counter Radar. Given just how readily he logs in at lunchtime, this is giving him mojo.

pblakeney

Pinno wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

I know that but you didn't read his first post, his last post and all the posts in between and your are not taking in what he says.

Actually, in all seriousness, all this thread is doing is inflating his pomp. If no one interacted with him, he would soon go away to Bean Counter Radar. Given just how readily he logs in at lunchtime, this is giving him mojo.

Ah! Treat him like a certain not-to-be-named female columnist at the Guardian.
Ignore them and they will fade away. Gotcha!

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do supporters of tax minimisation through legal means also support benefit maximisation through legal means?

Ooooo! Good question. I know a few people who are working the system.
I disapprove but it is all legal. Having a moan is all I can do.

I can only assume that it is a question more easily ignored than answered.

Mine was the first reply on this thread.

Moral? Irrelevant. The only question is legality. If legal no problem. If not, offenders should face action.

My response to your question is obviously the same.

I also posted

So all the indignant on here, what would you do with the people you have deemed to have transgressed? Prosecute them for tax evasion contrary to what? Issue them a tax bill in accordance to which regulation? By all means if they have contravened any Act or regulation, but if they haven't, all that can be done is to look at ways to tighten up the system and move on.

which I also stand by.

ballysmate

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

apparently the Japanese take from the State what they need not what they are entitled to.

In my eyes organising your affairs to maximise state benefits is the same as tax avoidance. And my moral compass says it is fine to do it to a certain level but don't take the p1ss

That sounds awfully like choosing how much tax you want to pay. Stevo will be on to you

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

apparently the Japanese take from the State what they need not what they are entitled to.

In my eyes organising your affairs to maximise state benefits is the same as tax avoidance. And my moral compass says it is fine to do it to a certain level but don't take the p1ss

That sounds awfully like choosing how much tax you want to pay. Stevo will be on to you

I am sure he would think that I was merely putting the Ramsey Principle into laymen terms

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

apparently the Japanese take from the State what they need not what they are entitled to.

In my eyes organising your affairs to maximise state benefits is the same as tax avoidance. And my moral compass says it is fine to do it to a certain level but don't take the p1ss

That sounds awfully like choosing how much tax you want to pay. Stevo will be on to you

I am sure he would think that I was merely putting the Ramsey Principle into laymen terms

I think summarising the Ramsay Principle as "don't take the p1ss" might be an over-simplification.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

My opinion is that they should both be treated equally. If it can be tightened up to stop abuse then fine. If it can't then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

TheBigBean

Ballysmate wrote:

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

I think these sneaky strategies are wrong e.g. making forms intentionally difficult to fill in, advising people who HMRC owe money not to complete a tax return etc.

This shouldn't be confused with some of the medical assessments that have taken place.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

I think these sneaky strategies are wrong e.g. making forms intentionally difficult to fill in, advising people who HMRC owe money not to complete a tax return etc.

This shouldn't be confused with some of the medical assessments that have taken place.

To extend the comparison, if you are going to have someone from HMRC look over your financial affairs, you'd want them to be a bit more thorough than a quick glance at your latest current account statement, a rummage through your wallet and an opinion that "you look like you could pay a bit more tax"

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

I think these sneaky strategies are wrong e.g. making forms intentionally difficult to fill in, advising people who HMRC owe money not to complete a tax return etc.

This shouldn't be confused with some of the medical assessments that have taken place.

To extend the comparison, if you are going to have someone from HMRC look over your financial affairs, you'd want them to be a bit more thorough than a quick glance at your latest current account statement, a rummage through your wallet and an opinion that "you look like you could pay a bit more tax"

Dunno. I had to make a benefits claim a few years ago and I had to supply all my bank account details. They then insisted on a visit to my flat to check that I was living within my means. So yes, it was the equivalent of what you outlined.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Of course the flip side to this question is would you support government bodies actively trying to minimise the benefit payments that claimants are legally entitled to as much as supporting departments deducting tax from people beyond their legal tax obligations?

I think these sneaky strategies are wrong e.g. making forms intentionally difficult to fill in, advising people who HMRC owe money not to complete a tax return etc.

This shouldn't be confused with some of the medical assessments that have taken place.

To extend the comparison, if you are going to have someone from HMRC look over your financial affairs, you'd want them to be a bit more thorough than a quick glance at your latest current account statement, a rummage through your wallet and an opinion that "you look like you could pay a bit more tax"

Dunno. I had to make a benefits claim a few years ago and I had to supply all my bank account details. They then insisted on a visit to my flat to check that I was living within my means. So yes, it was the equivalent of what you outlined.

The principle is fine, it's the degree of care taken and competence in the assessment that has been at issue.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

apparently the Japanese take from the State what they need not what they are entitled to.

In my eyes organising your affairs to maximise state benefits is the same as tax avoidance. And my moral compass says it is fine to do it to a certain level but don't take the p1ss

That sounds awfully like choosing how much tax you want to pay. Stevo will be on to you

No issue there - there are effectively choices depending on how you choose to structure your business and business transactions. Without even getting into avoidance.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

I know that but you didn't read his first post, his last post and all the posts in between and your are not taking in what he says.

Actually, in all seriousness, all this thread is doing is inflating his pomp. If no one interacted with him, he would soon go away to Bean Counter Radar. Given just how readily he logs in at lunchtime, this is giving him mojo.

At least you know you're not listening. Good self awareness

That said you've gone from playing the ball to playing the man. Wonder why?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Okay, so it states tax gap at £34bn.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

I know that but you didn't read his first post, his last post and all the posts in between and your are not taking in what he says.

Actually, in all seriousness, all this thread is doing is inflating his pomp. If no one interacted with him, he would soon go away to Bean Counter Radar. Given just how readily he logs in at lunchtime, this is giving him mojo.

At least you know you're not listening. Good self awareness

That said you've gone from playing the ball to playing the man. Wonder why?

Oh just lighten up square pants.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Okay, so it states tax gap at £34bn.

Um... Avoidance is 'only' £1.7bn. I'm not sure what the distinction between legal interpretation (£6bn) and avoidance is. Or between failure to take reasonable care (£6.1bn) and error (£3.3bn). Perhaps Stevo can expand on that.

Split by size of business, SMEs are way out in front with nearly half of that £34bn.

I'm in no position to comment on the squareness of pants

mamba80

Great minds and all that...., i wrote this last week......

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A bit of a review of the criticism of the HMRC's figures here

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-gap/

The hidden economy seems to be the biggest area of contention (perhaps not surprisingly), and as you might expect, Mr Murphy thinks that multi nationals are avoiding a lot more than the HMRC estimate.

........ also, when does "failure to take reasonable care" or "legal interpretation" became Avoidance? and would nt a properly funded and staffed HMRC be more able to check things like this a little better?

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Okay, so it states tax gap at £34bn.

No, it says tax avoidance is £1.7bn: you said tax avoidance was £34bn.

So you're only out by a factor of 20.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was more interested in the being legal/morally wrong conflict being flipped the other way.
Double standards from some?

I know that but you didn't read his first post, his last post and all the posts in between and your are not taking in what he says.

Actually, in all seriousness, all this thread is doing is inflating his pomp. If no one interacted with him, he would soon go away to Bean Counter Radar. Given just how readily he logs in at lunchtime, this is giving him mojo.

At least you know you're not listening. Good self awareness

That said you've gone from playing the ball to playing the man. Wonder why?

Oh just lighten up square pants.

Just because you've run out of arguments...

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Okay, so it states tax gap at £34bn.

Um... Avoidance is 'only' £1.7bn. I'm not sure what the distinction between legal interpretation (£6bn) and avoidance is. Or between failure to take reasonable care (£6.1bn) and error (£3.3bn). Perhaps Stevo can expand on that.

Split by size of business, SMEs are way out in front with nearly half of that £34bn.

I'm in no position to comment on the squareness of pants

Completely different things.
- Reasonable care and error is a fancy way of saying 'making a mistake', most likely SMEs and individuals.
- Difference of legal interpretation is a genuine difference of view on how tax rules should be interpreted, given that they are pretty complex. Generally means that the tax payer has a genuinely defendable but maybe not 100% black and white position, and/or that HMRC were wrong and had to back off, but don't like the answer.

None of these are avoidance.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Benefits fraud £12bn
Tax avoidance: £42bn,

According to Cameroon who was banging on about the benefit cheats at the time.

I've already posted the numbers for tax avoidance. Take a look again - page 5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Okay, so it states tax gap at £34bn.

Um... Avoidance is 'only' £1.7bn. I'm not sure what the distinction between legal interpretation (£6bn) and avoidance is. Or between failure to take reasonable care (£6.1bn) and error (£3.3bn). Perhaps Stevo can expand on that.

Split by size of business, SMEs are way out in front with nearly half of that £34bn.

I'm in no position to comment on the squareness of pants

Completely different things.
- Reasonable care and error is a fancy way of saying 'making a mistake', most likely SMEs and individuals.
- Difference of legal interpretation is a genuine difference of view on how tax rules should be interpreted, given that they are pretty complex. Generally means that the tax payer has a genuinely defendable but maybe not 100% black and white position, and/or that HMRC were wrong and had to back off, but don't like the answer.

None of these are avoidance.

Thanks, much clearer. On that basis, maybe HMRC should fund some basic lessons on completing your self assessment in schools/colleges. I think I spotted a stat in that report that in an audit of a sample of tax returns, the average underpayment was ~£800. Doesn't sound like much, but if there are ~10million tax returns filed, that's ... £8bn. Comparable to the annual cost of HS2 + Trident renewal combined (£56bn over 20 years + £205bn over 30 years).