The queen and her rich chums are helping the country NOT

[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.

[TH63]

Shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

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.

They haven't fixed it due to it requiring parliament to severely curtail HMRC's powers.

The quickest way to fix it is to go through the ridiculously large number of tax guidelines and simplify them. Do that and the likes of Corbyn will funnily enough play politics with it.

[Wales-Bales]

They haven't fixed it due to it requiring parliament to severely curtail HMRC's powers.

The quickest way to fix it is to go through the ridiculously large number of tax guidelines and simplify them. Do that and the likes of Corbyn will funnily enough play politics with it.

It all sounds very convenient It seems like the lobbyists and polital donors get what they pay for

[ccfc_is_my_life]

It all sounds very convenient It seems like the lobbyists and polital donors get what they pay for

Only if you're a conspiracy theorist.

Tax system started off small, over time became larger becoming a behemoth of small print and edge cases.

[Wales-Bales]

Only if you're a conspiracy theorist.

Tax system started off small, over time became larger becoming a behemoth of small print and edge cases.

Not really a conspiracy, the facts are there for all to see. If you are looking for a motive, just ask the question who benefits? You are saying the situation came about purely by accident rather than design, which is fair enough, but there is no reason to call people who don't agree with you a conspiracy theorist in defence of your arguement. Do you even know how the term conspiracy theory came about?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Not really a conspiracy, the facts are there for all to see. If you are looking for a motive, just ask the question who benefits? You are saying the situation came about purely by accident rather than design, which is fair enough, but there is no reason to call people who don't agree with you a conspiracy theorist in defence of your arguement. Do you even know how the term conspiracy theory came about?

I bet there was a conspiracy behind it. I blame tinfoil manufacturers.