The queen and her rich chums are helping the country NOT

[Eric the Half a Bee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

It amazes me how the rich and powerful are able to successfully negotiate their tax obligations with HMRC while the likes of the ordinary person would be jailed for doing so.

[Gofer Blue]

It amazes me how the rich and powerful are able to successfully negotiate their tax obligations with HMRC while the likes of the ordinary person would be jailed for doing so.

Presumably because the former are wealthy enough to employ the services of sharp accountants.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Presumably because the former are wealthy enough to employ the services of sharp accountants.

And the government are obliging enough to lay the carpet of avoidance methods for these accountants to cultivate and mow.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

And the government are obliging enough to lay the carpet of avoidance methods for these accountants to cultivate and mow.

Or more accurately, the tax system is so ****ing overcomplicated, loopholes are always found.

More money is lost through illegal evasion than legal avoidance anyway.

[Wales-Bales]

Or more accurately, the tax system is so ****ing overcomplicated, loopholes are always found.

More money is lost through illegal evasion than legal avoidance anyway.

Found or built-in?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Found or built-in?

Found.

You seem to act as if it's a massive conspiracy. It isn't. HMRC for example can retrospectively act.

Example; in IT there were numerous schemes where income went to off shore Trust who then "loaned" you the money; every year loans would be written off. It was ridiculously obvious the intent - I told one of those accountancy companies spinning it to **** right off. For one thing, should that Trust be taken over and loans demanded, you're financially ****ed. Equally, only way to prevent that is documentation up front proving loans would not be paid - which exposes the concept.

From the day those schemes were clamped down on, HMRC could act retrospectively - meaning you would get penalised for years where those schemes were deemed legal, which craps all over justice.

Equally, the system is so bloated, there's no definite law. It's all interpretation - accountants interpretation and HMRC's interpretation. There's no guarantee HMRC have things right, only way of finding out is testing in the courts.

What we really need is to streamline the tax system, simplify around a few understandable concepts.

[Wales-Bales]

Found.

You seem to act as if it's a massive conspiracy. It isn't. HMRC for example can retrospectively act.

Example; in IT there were numerous schemes where income went to off shore Trust who then "loaned" you the money; every year loans would be written off. It was ridiculously obvious the intent - I told one of those accountancy companies spinning it to **** right off. For one thing, should that Trust be taken over and loans demanded, you're financially ****ed. Equally, only way to prevent that is documentation up front proving loans would not be paid - which exposes the concept.

From the day those schemes were clamped down on, HMRC could act retrospectively - meaning you would get penalised for years where those schemes were deemed legal, which craps all over justice.

Equally, the system is so bloated, there's no definite law. It's all interpretation - accountants interpretation and HMRC's interpretation. There's no guarantee HMRC have things right, only way of finding out is testing in the courts.

What we really need is to streamline the tax system, simplify around a few understandable concepts.

Hence my observation So why haven't they fixed it?

The whole legal system is full of holes that honourable members of the Bar regularly exploit.

[elytillidie]

Presumably because the former are wealthy enough to employ the services of sharp accountants.

The rich getting richer is a good thing, haven't you heard of the trickle down effect...

53-Graphic.jpg