Tax Avoidance: Are they all at it ?

[Pudney]

The examples I've given clearly flout the spirit of the Ramsey principle (ie. the legislative tool we have to determine mitigation or evasion).

If you don't think these given schemes that reduce tax liability down to 1% is "aggressive [tax] planning" then what is? .5%? .25%?

Claiming that these avoidance schemes are equivalent to mitigation schemes is wrong and serves no purpose than to blur both the legal and moral distinction that exists between them.

And I've given plenty of examples of methods to reduce your tax which are allowed, explicit and encouraged which you seem to ignore as tax efficient.

Quite frankly I don't care what the effective tax rate is for planning. If it uses appropriate methods then 0% tax is great.

If it uses inappropriate methods to reduce tax then even a reduction of 1% is wrong.

It's not the reduction in tax that is bad, it's the method that is used to do it.

You don't seem to be able to look past the few dodgy schemes and are getting hung up on that despite my repeated examples of tax efficient methods that are not "dodgy" or "immoral" and are supported by HMRC. But feel free to ignore that yet again so you can keep accusing me of being "wrong" that mitigation is acceptable and of "blurring" the distinction of "legal" and "immoral".

Whilst I'm at it I'll tell everyone that I know to take their savings out of ISAs to stop the "immoral" and "abusive" tax avoidance that they dare to perpetuate against society.

I agree. The tax gap of 35bn is a work of fiction. When you examine how its calculated then it is apparent the real figure is likely to be approximately 95bn (as is speculated by others in the industry).

And some estimates in industry are considerably lower. To try and estimate it is futile, by it's very nature it's hidden and any estimates can only be based on guesswork. Some estimates are less than £10bn for example, and even then it is considered on the high side of the estimate.

Damn, all those years to become a chartered accountant and I cant even give advice on selling socks

No offence but in general a chartered accountant doesn't have sufficient knowledge to deal with complex tax issues unless that's their job. Not to say they can't do any at all though.

 

[Floogie]

And I've given plenty of examples of methods to reduce your tax which are allowed, explicit and encouraged which you seem to ignore as tax efficient.

Quite frankly I don't care what the effective tax rate is for planning. If it uses appropriate methods then 0% tax is great.

If it uses inappropriate methods to reduce tax then even a reduction of 1% is wrong.

It's not the reduction in tax that is bad, it's the method that is used to do it.

You don't seem to be able to look past the few dodgy schemes and are getting hung up on that despite my repeated examples of tax efficient methods that are not "dodgy" or "immoral" and are supported by HMRC. But feel free to ignore that yet again so you can keep accusing me of being "wrong" that mitigation is acceptable and of "blurring" the distinction of "legal" and "immoral".

Whilst I'm at it I'll tell everyone that I know to take their savings out of ISAs to stop the "immoral" and "abusive" tax avoidance that they dare to perpetuate against society.

It seems you aren't reading my posts thoroughly enough. I, or nobody else, classifies ISA's as facilitating tax avoidance.

Here, I'll summarise the issue again:

Tax mitigation is tax structuring within the spirit of the law (often using government sanctioned tax instruments).

Tax avoidance is tax structuring which is outside the spirit of the law (introducing a series of unnecessary and preordained steps which serve no commercial purpose other than to exploit gaps in legislation and thus reduce tax liability).

Tax avoidance is not tax mitigation and vice versa. This distinction is both recognised in law and economics.

The term 'tax efficiency' is weasel word from the accountancy industry which combines avoidance and mitigation to blur the distinction between them and attempt to legitimise the tax avoidance component.

Tax efficient schemes are therefore neither immediately all legal or moral by virtue of being called 'tax efficient' due to the inclusion of avoidance schemes which contradict the limited legal rulings on taxation matters.

If you think all 'tax efficient' schemes are legal or moral then you are welcome to do. Although I have provided some evidence which reflects the reality of the situation and there is plenty more besides.

And some estimates in industry are considerably lower. To try and estimate it is futile, by it's very nature it's hidden and any estimates can only be based on guesswork. Some estimates are less than £10bn for example, and even then it is considered on the high side of the estimate.

I'd be interested to see where that figure is from and how it's been put together as 10bn is utter balls.