Ignore them at your peril, class warfare is just around the corner.
"British Tea Party" organises pro-cuts rally - May 14th
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Ignore them at your peril, class warfare is just around the corner.
Haven't you heard, flying pigs are around the corner as well.
Sorry I though you were speaking the other way then since you questioned avoidance.
A fair bit.
Which companies? :
Other's also, it's becoming the norm it would seem.
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores"
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax."
Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1
Without having access to law books I will have to rely on t-interweb for quotes, but the above look right. That is what I agree with (as do the courts).
Companies dont enter into illegal structures with the hope of them not getting notices. They enter into well planned and thought out structures, which is entirely legal. HMRC can choose whether to challenge them on the grounds that they do not function as intended or it can legislate to avoid that structure working twice.
Cutting deals is a way of guaranteeing revenue for the Treasury. Litigation risk will always exist; getting a large chunk up eliminates the risk of losing a case and gets cash.
The Chancellor himself came out and said “a steady stream of companies that have left the UK in recent years”.
Companies to have left UK: Shire, Brit Insurance, Hiscox, Omega, and Beazley (Lloyd's Insurance companies), WPP, Cadbury, Ineos Runcorn UK, Informat, PepsiCo, Aberdeen Asset Management, Hendersons Ireland, Charter, Regus, Brit Insurance, Wolsely, McDonalds (European HQ), UBM, Kraft Foods, Gallaher, Experian, Catlin, Hiscox and Shell.
I am going to assume that the flying pigs are a secret sect of underground gorilla leftist terrorists that I do not know about.
Which they do.
It isn't always appropriate however, and in other more specific cases they haven't consulted the solicitors office which is protocol.
I cba checking but not all of them have left the UK completely or at all, they merely reside their tax affairs elsewhere or have been bought over.
I was making the point that tax avoidance is perfectly legal and those who structure their tax affairs efficiently should not be lambasted for doing so.
Why is it not appropriate not to consult? Presumably there are other factors in play. If I had been arguing for someone for 2 or 3 years and you asked me if I thought I was right and was going to win, what do you think my answer would be? It is not an entirely logical way of making a decision whether or not it is a good idea to litigate. After all if the solicitors office thought they were going to lose they definitely should not have pursued the case so far.
The companies I have listed moved their tax base offshore. Their worldwide income is no longer subject to UK tax, their UK income cannot be excluded though. That is the fear that people have- if you are too punitive, you keep the right to tax UK income but lose the rest of income generated globally. It wont stop the companies from trading in the UK, it will stop them from paying large amounts of their tax bill in the UK.
Why is it not appropriate not to consult? Presumably there are other factors in play. If I had been arguing for someone for 2 or 3 years and you asked me if I thought I was right and was going to win, what do you think my answer would be? It is not an entirely logical way of making a decision whether or not it is a good idea to litigate. After all if the solicitors office thought they were going to lose they definitely should not have pursued the case so far.
The companies I have listed moved their tax base offshore. Their worldwide income is no longer subject to UK tax, their UK income cannot be excluded though. That is the fear that people have- if you are too punitive, you keep the right to tax UK income but lose the rest of income generated globally. It wont stop the companies from trading in the UK, it will stop them from paying large amounts of their tax bill in the UK.
Why not?
Morally I think it is wrong in some cases.
The schemes aren't static either, it's normally a case of the market is too quick and ahead of the game and it's only persued when the loss in revenue become too great, then on to the next one normally.
Because those negotiating aren't masters of the universe who know all legal cases or precidents.
What's new? What's changing?
Nothing, the opposite is happening in some sectors.
You may think it is morally wrong, but the courts do not. In fact they have explicitly made case law on the fact that:
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores"
So your own opinion of what is morally acceptable is of course your own, but the law of the UK says otherwise.
Do you know who does the negotiating? The permanent secretary for tax at HM Revenue and Customs; is he not allowed to form his own opinion on the merits of cases? You assume complete incompetence on his part. There is a reason he is at the top of HMRC, it is to make decisions like this. All the taxpayer sees is "omg HMRC wrote off £xb".
The other side of the arguement is that the case was reviewed by someone at the top of HMRC and what was read was unconvincing. At this point, rather than the UK losing all tax, negotiations then led to tax being recouped.
Without in depth knowledge of a case that never made it to court, it is impossible to determine whether the decision was correct or not.
What you have to accept is that HMRC have a finite amount of resources and they have to deploy them as efficiently as possible to aim to protect and collect the revenue. What you seem to be arguing is a litigate regardless of merit when large amounts of tax are at stake. This can have one of two possibilities if the case has no merit- you lose to the detriment of other areas or you win because Judges decide to side with "poor old HMRC" regardless of what the law says.
Neither seem appealing to me.
Also what companies are moving their tax base into the UK?
To answer your question, what has changed is that the companies I listed specifically left the UK's tax net because of tax regime uncertainty or cost as a result of the UK dragging its feet over the taxation of Controlled Foreign Companies.
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores"
So your own opinion of what is morally acceptable is of course your own, but the law of the UK says otherwise.
Do you know who does the negotiating? The permanent secretary for tax at HM Revenue and Customs; is he not allowed to form his own opinion on the merits of cases? You assume complete incompetence on his part. There is a reason he is at the top of HMRC, it is to make decisions like this. All the taxpayer sees is "omg HMRC wrote off £xb".
The other side of the arguement is that the case was reviewed by someone at the top of HMRC and what was read was unconvincing. At this point, rather than the UK losing all tax, negotiations then led to tax being recouped.
Without in depth knowledge of a case that never made it to court, it is impossible to determine whether the decision was correct or not.
What you have to accept is that HMRC have a finite amount of resources and they have to deploy them as efficiently as possible to aim to protect and collect the revenue. What you seem to be arguing is a litigate regardless of merit when large amounts of tax are at stake. This can have one of two possibilities if the case has no merit- you lose to the detriment of other areas or you win because Judges decide to side with "poor old HMRC" regardless of what the law says.
Neither seem appealing to me.
Also what companies are moving their tax base into the UK?
To answer your question, what has changed is that the companies I listed specifically left the UK's tax net because of tax regime uncertainty or cost as a result of the UK dragging its feet over the taxation of Controlled Foreign Companies.
Why are you explaining in great length the blatantly obvious?
Dave Harnett, but he isn't a lawyer nor is he informed in everything it is beyond the comperihension of one man as the senior leadership team have continually shown.
His position is not a dictator in HMRC, and in tax matters yes of course he should follow protocol he has no excuse not too.
Neither is he involved in all the cases where due process has not been followed.
I like to see you sully the opinions of people who disagree with you, just because you may not look at the positions the same morally doesn't mean others are stupid. It's not increadibly hard to understand.
Quite, which is very lucky as well.
Stating the obvious and a strawman.
HMRC loses often if the case is not valid. I don't see any basis for such emotive arguments that you present.
That is few but a massive amount of business in the UK, it is near irrelevent when the ebbs and flows are taken in.
What do you expect? This country will tax you if it is Labour or Conservative, and it's been going on for decade yet businesses still invest and grow here.
what is your point? I genuinely have no understanding about what you are trying to say other than contradict everything I say. Is your point that there is a big conservative conspiracy not to tax companies? Is your opinion that companies wont move tax jurisdictions if you introduce punitive tax measures?
I am not sullying your opinion, because I have no idea what it is.
My point is simple- HMRC have the ways and means to collect tax. They are pretty good at it. Everyone is allowed to avoid tax, anyone who does so is no less moral than anyone else. In addition, companies and individuals have demonstrated a willingness and have trended in moving tax jurisdictions over specific tax issues
I have no idea what you're on about now, frankly. I'm not sure if you are misrepresenting me or if you just don't understand. Doesn't matter really does it.
No you were sullying the opinion of the public who dissagree "All the taxpayer sees is "omg HMRC wrote off £xb". "
You don't know that for a fact, do you?
Good.
Huzzah- Perhaps we had crossed wires for a while 
edit: regarding the public, my point is that there are quite a few alarmist headlines that get shot out when it comes to big companies/rich individuals minimising their tax bill. Few people I have spoken with examine all the possibilities of what happened which is slightly harsh on HMRC and the companies in question. I have no problem with people disagreeing with what happened, I would prefer if they had reasoned to that point though rather than knee jerked in anger that someone was able to pay less tax than the maximum.
edit: regarding the public, my point is that there are quite a few alarmist headlines that get shot out when it comes to big companies/rich individuals minimising their tax bill. Few people I have spoken with examine all the possibilities of what happened which is slightly harsh on HMRC and the companies in question. I have no problem with people disagreeing with what happened, I would prefer if they had reasoned to that point though rather than knee jerked in anger that someone was able to pay less tax than the maximum.
Not with Vodaphone. They just let them off most of it in hope that they'll pay a bit. Vodaphone don't even need to do any fancy tax dodges - just threaten.
M
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Because it wasn't entirely clear that they broke the rules or not, and it would have been an incredibly long and expensive court case and ruling to find out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
And you know, the truth doesn't matter as long as the rich get richer...
Have fun on your march, i don't expect many there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
No one knows what the 'truth' is because of our tax code is so absurdly complicated. HMRC couldn't even figure it out - it is in no way explicit, otherwise this could have been ruled in court in days (in fact, Vodafone probably would never have done it in the first place if it was explicit outlawed).
People can't blame Vodafone for this - their obligation is to optimise their business and maximise profits (within the law, of course) for their shareholders. HMRC's obligation is to tax and enforce tax law on our society.
If people want to protest something, protest against HMRC for the settlement and even more productively protest for tax reform so this kind of thing won't keep happening.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Of course people can blame Vodafone for this. Doesn't make them right to do so, but however you look at it they are in the wrong. But it's not their fault, it's one of many faults in this system in which we live.
I've been in Vodafone on several protests, and on more than one occasion i've had a friendly chat with the staff who understand that it's not a vendetta against them - they're just earning a living.
I've been in Vodafone on several protests, and on more than one occasion i've had a friendly chat with the staff who understand that it's not a vendetta against them - they're just earning a living.
Actually the courts of the UK have ruled that it is entirely correct for individuals to minimise their tax bill as much as they can using legal means. You would assume that whether something is right is normally determined by whether it is legal...
"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"
There is no moral obligation for individuals or companies in the UK to pay tax if they can legally avoid it. Simples
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
Is it true that companies are legally obliged to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible? So in fact not avoiding tax would actually be illegal?