Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[the_bloke 17]

Here we go. The apologists are already on the case.

 

Apologising for who? As far as I am concerned the loopholes should be closed and the system simplified. As it stands though, if people can legally avoid paying tax, they will. Do you want to punish people for not breaking the law?

[Obelix 11]

David Cameron's dad has been named. Hopefully that snake Blair will be on the list too.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 23:49 ----------

 

 

Here we go. The apologists are already on the case.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable point to make though. Many people on here like to demonise tax avoidance out of spite or jealousy that they dont earn as much as those people. The green eyed monster does tend to make people spit bile.

 

As for the plumber accepting cash in hand, thats clearly evasion though and I dont think anyone was condoning that at all.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

Hope that law firm is ready for its negligence claim. It better have a good insurance policy.

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices. Those named deemed to be conducting in perfectly legal activity will be perfectly entitled to sue.

 

All these people rubbing their hands about this "exposure" better watch out. If its supposedly good to expose the rich and powerful for their PERFECTLY LEGAL activity, perhaps everyone who utilised trust funds, pension offsets, ISA accounts, grants and share schemes to legally avoid tax liabilities should be named and shamed too.

Edited April 3, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3 10]

Apologising for who? As far as I am concerned the loopholes should be closed and the system simplified. As it stands though, if people can legally avoid paying tax, they will. Do you want to punish people for not breaking the law?

 

Indeed, for aggressive avoidance absolutely yes we should punish people.

 

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Would you disagree with that? Certainly the HMRC has powers to pursue aggressive avoidance and can retrospectively declare avoidance schemes illegal recovering large sums in the process.

 

It seems that more concerted international action is needed though.

[Obelix 11]

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices.

 

Oh come on, you missed the big bit.

 

ELEVEN MILLION documents.

 

Not just sheets of paper but 11,000,000 documents. It's mindbogglingly insane. Someones going to be running hard from some hard pipe hitting ****** who are going to go medieval on their **** when they catch them...

 

(with apologies to Pulp Fiction...)

[I1L2T3 10]

Hope that law firm is ready for its negligence claim. It better have a good insurance policy.

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices. Those named deemed to be conducting in perfectly legal activity will be perfectly entitled to sue.

 

All these people rubbing their hands about this "exposure" better watch out. If its supposedly good to expose the rich and powerful for their PERFECTLY LEGAL activity, perhaps everyone who utilised trust funds, pension offsets, ISA accounts, grants and share schemes to legally avoid tax liabilities should be named and shamed too.

 

Bit in bold: we've been through this umpteen times but the government introduces such schemes to produce outcomes that are virtuous and mutually beneficial to society. There is no shame involved so yeah name the people. Why would they care?

 

Aggressive avoidance and evasion are very different. One is stretching the spirit of the law to its boundaries. The other is illegal. In both cases secrecy is often key. They do care about being named.

 

Virtuous tax planning and aggressive avoidance are not the same thing, perhaps only linked by legality (often questionable anyway in aggressive avoidance) and human nature.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

Indeed, for aggressive avoidance absolutely yes we should punish people.

 

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Would you disagree with that? Certainly the HMRC has powers to pursue aggressive avoidance and can retrospectively declare avoidance schemes illegal recovering large sums in the process.

 

It seems that more concerted international action is needed though.

 

Yep, you are correct. The HMRC can refer a person or scheme to the Tribunal and its up to a Judge to deem whether or not a scheme is aggressive and a recoupment sought. I have no problem with that.

 

What I do have a problem with though is these so called do gooders leaking and whistleblowing to the press about perfectly legal activities, damaging people's reputations in the process. If they have suspicions then they should be reported through the proper channels.

 

As far as I'm concerned, until a Judge has deemed such activity is illegal its none of our business. It is totally unacceptable for people to put to trial by media.

 

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its not up to the Guardian to decide.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 00:11 ----------

 

Bit in bold: we've been through this umpteen times but the government introduces such schemes to produce outcomes that are virtuous and mutually beneficial to society. There is no shame involved so yeah name the people. Why would they care?

 

Aggressive avoidance and evasion are very different. One is stretching the spirit of the law to its boundaries. The other is illegal. In both cases secrecy is often key. They do care about being named.

 

 

 

Virtuous tax planning and aggressive avoidance are not the same thing.

 

See above. Until the relevant authorities decide that an activity is "aggressive avoidance" its none of our business.

[Anna B 1,417]

Sticking up for who exactly? There is a world of difference between 'lawfully finding loopholes in existing legislation' and 'illegally not paying tax'.

 

Might speak volumes about their morals though...

[I1L2T3 10]

Yep, you are correct. The HMRC can refer a person or scheme to the Tribunal and its up to a Judge to deem whether or not a scheme is aggressive and a recoupment sought. I have no problem with that.

 

What I do have a problem with though is these so called do gooders leaking and whistleblowing to the press about perfectly legal activities, damaging people's reputations in the process. If they have suspicions then they should be reported through the proper channels.

 

As far as I'm concerned, until a Judge has deemed such activity is illegal its none of our business. It is totally unacceptable for people to put to trial by media.

 

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its not up to the Guardian to decide.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 00:11 ----------

 

 

See above. Until the relevant authorities decide that an activity is "aggressive avoidance" its none of our business.

 

If it's none of our business and that is your opinion then walk away from this thread

 

IMO we have a right to know what has been going on, especially so if it impacts the appetite of our government to introduce reform.

[RonJeremy 10]

Indeed, for aggressive avoidance absolutely yes we should punish people.

 

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Would you disagree with that? Certainly the HMRC has powers to pursue aggressive avoidance and can retrospectively declare avoidance schemes illegal recovering large sums in the process.

 

It seems that more concerted international action is needed though.

 

If it's within the law we should of course not punish people.

The revenue punishes and bullies people into paying tax that isn't due under the rules.

They do the equivalent of changing the the speed limit on a road from 60 to 30 then retrospectively fining people for doing 55 because they now think it is dangerous.

 

Obviously I'm happy, like you, for others to pay much more tax than me. Green eyed etc.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

Oh come on, you missed the big bit.

 

ELEVEN MILLION documents.

 

Not just sheets of paper but 11,000,000 documents. It's mindbogglingly insane. Someones going to be running hard from some hard pipe hitting ****** who are going to go medieval on their **** when they catch them...

 

(with apologies to Pulp Fiction...)

 

What about it? What's the number of documents prove.

 

The law firm involved is a large commercial firm with 40 offices around the globe. It has a huge sector with lawyers specialising with trusts and tax. It could have hundreds of thousands of client's whom it represents for such affairs. Just because the newspaper has headlined the key names does not mean that there aren't others.

 

Have you any idea how many "documents" your average corporate law firm holds on its systems.

 

11 million doesn't shock me.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 00:20 ----------

 

IMO we have a right to know what has been going on, especially so if it impacts the appetite of our government to introduce reform.

 

You do. WHEN it has been formally confirmed that illegal activity has taken place.

 

Until such time as that happens why should ANY of these people, no matter high profile they are, be smeared across the newspapers and having their confidential data spread around for activity which they are perfectly entitled to do and is perfectly legal.

 

Do I have a right to get your bank statement and spread it across the papers and internet because I SUSPECT you are engaging in undeclared work???

Edited April 3, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3 10]

If it's within the law we should of course not punish people.

The revenue punishes and bullies people into paying tax that isn't due under the rules.

They do the equivalent of changing the the speed limit on a road from 60 to 30 then retrospectively fining people for doing 55 because they now think it is dangerous.

Obviously I'm happy, like you, for others to pay much more tax than me. Green eyed etc.

 

No they don't. You're talking nonsense. What HMRC do is follow a process to assess a registered avoidance scheme. If that avoidance scheme is found to be not within the spirit of the law (and there is a significant amount of latitude in making that decision) or indeed to have been illegal to begin with then HMRC can make steps to recover unpaid tax and they can retrospectively change the law to make a scheme illegal.

 

Note that this often happens retrospectively because the number of schemes being registered means that HMRC don't always have the resources to fully assess a scheme at the point it is registered.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 00:32 ----------

 

You do. WHEN it has been formally confirmed that illegal activity has taken place.

 

Until such time as that happens why should ANY of these people, no matter high profile they are, be smeared across the newspapers and having their confidential data spread around for activity which they are perfectly entitled to do and is perfectly legal.

 

Do I have a right to get your bank statement and spread it across the papers and internet because I SUSPECT you are engaging in undeclared work???

 

If nothing illegal has happened then there is nothing to hide.