HSBC scandal.

Heavy handed for sure but one is stealing money from the state which they arent entitled to, the other is legally reducing their tax liability and paying what is due.

To link the two as if remotely similar is utterly moronic.

Edit: The reply was more directed to Uther

HSBC accounts were not legally reducing their tax bill! it was tax evasion not tax avoidance which is using legal loopholes.

theres even notes with a lot of the accounts stating they are "non declared" money the tax man doesn't know about HSBC knew it was illegal clearly but helped people break the law anyway
 
Why shouldn't tax avoidance be frowned upon? I can kind of see his point. You have very rich people reducing what they contribute to society despite being in a better position to do so. It may be entirely legal, but is it moral?

Hey they paid darn good money to lobby for those loop holes, they could probably sue the government for breach of promise if they were closed, loop holes are also handy for the politicians to make the most out of their lobby monies.
 
Tax Evasion = ILLEGAL

You may want to read up the difference between avoidance and evasion together why with this HSBC incident is a international scandal.

I think you should read the post in context so you dont talk a load of crap. I was replying to Uthers point about TAX AVOIDANCE being as bad as benefit cheating.

Tax avoidance should have the same stigma as benefit fraud.

I know the difference between avoidance and evasion thanks

edit: **** me a load more people that cant read a post before going off on one, Jesus Christ
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't tax avoidance be frowned upon? I can kind of see his point. You have very rich people reducing what they contribute to society despite being in a better position to do so. It may be entirely legal, but is it moral?

Morality doesnt even come into it and its BS to suggest otherwise. Tax evasion I can go along with but for instance I paid tax which equated to just over the UK average salary. If I could have paid £5k more by not putting the money (as a for instance) into my pension is that immoral ?

Benefit cheating is stealing from the tax payer, there is no two ways about it, the two are in no way comparable.
 
Last edited:
Morality doesnt even come into it and its BS to suggest otherwise. Tax evasion I can go along with but for instance I paid tax which equated to just over the UK average salary. If I could have paid £5k more by not putting the money (as a for instance) into my pension is that immorral ?

That's not the 'immoral' aspect of tax avoidance people are talking about and you know it.

Spurious use of off shore trusts to pay your salary into and then receive it back via a loan, such as the K2 scheme, is a form of 'aggressive tax avoidance' that isn't being used within the spirit of the law it was set up in, hence why even the government are talking about cracking down on 'Tax Avoidance'

Treasury Minister said:
Where there are arrangements that are artificial, that are contrived, that are not undertaken for genuine commercial reasons but designed to reduce tax liability, that is something we want to address.

“The government is doing an awful lot in this area and we have taken a number of measures to reduce tax avoidance.”

No-one is equating this to paying into a pension or using an ISA
 
Last edited:
I work in the City...

People have and always will try and find a way of evading tax.. HSBC were just stupid enough to not keep a lid on it..

To be fair most of these schemes emanate from the City anyway, particularly ex-employees of HMRC that know the tax loopholes!!!

One thing that we need to remember, tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal (although it is immoral?!!) You will find that the Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr schemes were actually HMRC approved schemes - it's now that tax avoidance has started to be looked upon as wrong when in fact legally it isn't. Saying that IMO I think you should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (i.e. pay your taxes!)

This day and age, certainly on an individual level, most of the schemes that come out from tax firms are at best deferral schemes. It’s big industries that exploit the system to get away with big money. Even down to the way that movies, TV programs and even drug development is financed, often involving tax structures.

I wonder who will be the first in government to mention by name the members of the Royal Family that have their wealth in specific tax efficient vehicles???!
 
Last edited:
That's not the 'immoral' aspect of tax avoidance people are talking about and you know it.

Spurious use of off shore trusts to pay your salary into and then receive it back via a loan, such as the K2 scheme, is a form of 'aggressive tax avoidance' that isn't being used within the spirit of the law it was set up in, hence why even the government are talking about cracking down on 'Tax Avoidance'

Not by paying into a pension or using an ISA

Most of those EBTs etc have been deemed wrong and HMRC have been chasing people up for it. Tax avoidance has many different facets as you know, expecting everyone to understand which part someone is talking about when they say "tax avoidance" is a bit of a stretch escpecially when a lot of the people talking about it dont have the first clue what they are talking about.
 
Benefit cheating is stealing from the tax payer, there is no two ways about it, the two are in no way comparable.

Why don't you see a tax evader is also stealing money from the exchequer ?

A tax avoider is morally questionable using spurious schemes to avoid paying their liabilities hence why the rest of the tax payers are getting hammered.
 
Why don't you see a tax evader is also stealing money from the exchequer ?

A tax avoider is morally questionable using spurious schemes to avoid paying their liabilities hence why the rest of the tax payers are getting hammered.

Who said I dont, can you show me where I have said otherwise please ?

The second part of your post I can agree with if they are using convoluted off shore schemes to get round paying tax
 
Last edited:
meanwhile this is what you get for allegedly, that's allegedly mind, committing benefit fraud. A dozen police officers AND riot officers.

Unbelievable

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...arly-morning/story-26002712-detail/story.html

exzcept that the riot police where there to deal with a warrant for drugs to the teenagers with history of antisocial behavior crimes not benefit fraud.

hence why they weren't there on the second raid which was just a couple of beat officers an the council staff.
 
Most of those EBTs etc have been deemed wrong and HMRC have been chasing people up for it. Tax avoidance has many different facets as you know, expecting everyone to understand which part someone is talking about when they say "tax avoidance" is a bit of a stretch escpecially when a lot of the people talking about it dont have the first clue what they are talking about.

You are absolutely right – a large amount of my work used to be in relation to EBT’s. These have almost all but gone now.

In part the scheme would have resulted in a tax deferral although of course the carrot to having an EBT was that any loans due were offsetable against IHT so yes it’s no wonder HMRC wants an end to this.

It’s a bit more complicated than that but this is the primary reason for the dim view of them now by HMRC.
 
Morality doesnt even come into it and its BS to suggest otherwise. Tax evasion I can go along with but for instance I paid tax which equated to just over the UK average salary. If I could have paid £5k more by not putting the money (as a for instance) into my pension is that immoral ?.
Why shouldn't morality come into it, and why is it "BS" to suggest otherwise?
 
Why shouldn't morality come into it, and why is it "BS" to suggest otherwise?

Reread my post you quoted and try again :confused:

Ok I will try to spell it out. Tax avoidance comes in many forms. When some people couldnt tell you the difference between tax avoidance or evasion it is hard to take anyone seriously when they come out which a catch all phrase such as "tax avoidance is immoral" (not saying you dont).

If you are talking about convoluted schemes like EBTs which have been deemed wrong by HMRC then fine, I agree with you and it would be helpful when discussing these things you made the distinction. If you are using it as a catch all term then I disagree with you, you have to make the distinction because there are clueless halfwits out there that dont understand about any of it and use the catch all phrase.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't morality come into it, and why is it "BS" to suggest otherwise?

Morality is a subjective emotion and makes planning your tax affairs efficiently and legally difficult. Companies are being dissuaded from claiming government backed incentives because they worry that the media will crucify them for having a tax rate lower than the main rate.

There needs to be a balance, some tax planning is aggressive and should be stopped through legislative means. Some tax planning is "vanilla" and shouldn't be lumped together by the hysterical masses. Applying a subjective measure, where two sensible people could disagree is wrong.
 
Most of those EBTs etc have been deemed wrong and HMRC have been chasing people up for it. Tax avoidance has many different facets as you know, expecting everyone to understand which part someone is talking about when they say "tax avoidance" is a bit of a stretch especially when a lot of the people talking about it dont have the first clue what they are talking about.

But you are the one who initially implied it was black and white and as a result incomparable to benefit fraud.

You now acknowledge there are many shades of grey, as there are with benefit fraud, so do you regard someone setting up very complex banking and payment systems for themselves or investing in 'schemes' which clearly have nothing to do with their profession with the sole intention of avoiding tax as 'completely different' (morality-wise) to someone with a bad back overstating their symptoms a bit because they're worried they won't get through the ATOS interview otherwise?

To say morality doesn't come into tax avoidance and trying to reducing it to "well if it's technically legal it would be wrong to criticise it" is asinine. As they say, farting in a crowded lift isn't illegal but that doesn't make it an OK thing to do.
 
I wonder if Ed Miliband and his borther were clients?

http://order-order.com/2015/02/12/flashback-when-the-milibands-avoided-tax/

From the Sunday Times, 19 September 2004:

“DAVID MILIBAND, the schools minister, and his brother Ed, the chancellor’s economic adviser, are set to avoid paying thousands of pounds in tax through an Inland Revenue loophole which the Labour party pledged to close.

The brothers, Labour’s rising stars, are poised to benefit after their family set up a scheme to share ownership of the family’s Pounds 1.3m townhouse in north London which was sold recently.

Accountants and the Inland Revenue say the scheme established by the Milibands is used to reduce inheritance tax.

The move is particularly controversial for Ed Miliband who is chairman of the council of economic advisers responsible for co-ordinating the Treasury’s long-term policy on behalf of Gordon Brown, the chancellor.”



The Sunday Times has learnt that after Ralph Miliband, the socialist father of David and Ed, died in 1994, he transferred almost all his assets, including homes in London and Oxfordshire, to his wife.

However, after taking professional advice, the family is understood to have posthumously rewritten his will to give 20% of the London home to both David and Ed.

David has declared a “20% share of family home in London” on the MPs’ register of interests since 2002.

This scheme is called a “deed of variation” and was highlighted by the chancellor in opposition as an unacceptable way in which the wealthy avoid paying death duties.

It allows people to inherit assets tax-free even if this goes against the wishes of the deceased. Had Ralph Miliband’s will not been altered, David and Ed would have inherited the house (or the money raised from its sale) when their mother Marion died and would have faced a tax bill equivalent to 40% of its value.

Instead they were able to cash in on their stakes when the family’s four bedroom townhouse in Primrose Hill, north London, was sold earlier in the summer.

Dodgy.
 
Heavy handed for sure but one is stealing money from the state which they arent entitled to, the other is legally reducing their tax liability and paying what is due.

To link the two as if remotely similar is utterly moronic.

You have gone way over the top here.

1. Some of it is 'tax evasion' and hence is illegal (just like benefit fraud).

2. Even if there was no tax 'evasion' here, tax 'avoidance' isn't always legal -- sometimes it's just that the authorities don't yet know about it or they do know about it but haven't yet got around to proving the illegality of it. The line separating evasion and avoidance is a very thin one at times. Plenty of tax 'avoiders' are proven by the authorities to be tax 'evaders'.

3. Even if we're just talking about tax avoidance (not evasion), there is a moral equivalence between, at the very least, tax avoidance and someone who lives off benefits their whole life and never works. I.e., because they are both paying nothing into the system and yet they both take lots out of it. E.g., Amazon pays virtually no tax, and yet it benefits from the UK road network for its deliveries, it benefits from the UK education and health systems for its workforce, it benefits from the UK police and courts in ensuring the safety of its property, it benefits from the UK military for the same reason, etc, etc. The money for all of that has to come from somewhere, so if Amazon don't pay their taxes it's you and me who have to make up the shortfall. That's why incomes are so over-taxed.

So, to sum up, if you're a tax avoider you're the moral equivalent of a welfare layabout.
 
But you are the one who initially implied it was black and white and as a result incomparable to benefit fraud.

You now acknowledge there are many shades of grey, as there are with benefit fraud, so do you regard someone setting up very complex banking and payment systems for themselves or investing in 'schemes' which clearly have nothing to do with their profession with the sole intention of avoiding tax as 'completely different' (morality-wise) to someone with a bad back overstating their symptoms a bit because they're worried they won't get through the ATOS interview otherwise?

To say morality doesn't come into tax avoidance and trying to reducing it to "well if it's technically legal it would be wrong to criticise it" is asinine. As they say, farting in a crowded lift isn't illegal but that doesn't make it an OK thing to do.

Not once have I tried to reduce tax avoidance to if it's legal it's wrong to criticise. I want people that come out with BS tabloid headline phrases like tax avoidance is immoral to define what sort of tax avoidance is immoral. Once we have a starting point then we can start a proper discussion. If people are taking about aggressive schemes of the sort you describe above fine, I don't disagree.

If the post above this one doesn't explain where I'm coming from then I'm out of here.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Ed Miliband and his borther were clients?

http://order-order.com/2015/02/12/flashback-when-the-milibands-avoided-tax/



Dodgy.
Hang on.. so you can get a will changed after someone is dead. In this case, they have got 20% of the folks gaff assigned to them, leaving the mother still in charge of the place, but then when she popped it, because 40% (did they both get 20%) has already been binned off over 7 years ago, then only the 60% left is inheritance taxable.

Wow! Great idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom