I am not alone in voicing fears over this issue.
The FT reports that in response to plans being drafted for curbing "artificial and abusive" avoidance schemes and a proposed advisory panel, which will give quick, non-binding opinions to HMRC and taxpayers about whether the Gaar should be invoked, John Overs, head of corporate tax at Berwin Leighton Paisner, said that the concept was “constitutionally unsound”:
"How much tax is due should ultimately be decided by parliament, whose intention is interpreted by the courts, not by HMRC and a group of unelected and unaccountable professionals who may have a professional interest in the matters they are asked to consider."Quite!
Tax does have to be taxing.
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations
Insurance to protect you against the cost of enquiry or dispute with HMRC is available from several sources including Solar Taxwise.
Ken Frost has negotiated a 10% discount on any polices that may suit your needs.
However, neither Ken Frost nor HMRCISSHITE either endorses or recommends their services.
What is TAXWISE?
TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.
To find out more, please use this link Taxwise
Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.
Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies
HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Well said Mr Leighton Paisner.
ReplyDeleteUnsure as to why Osborne & Co. PLC are not attempting to sort out the problem, but in the continued absence of Government intervention I suspect that Margaret Hodge and a far more resilient PAC plus the 48 Degrees case may well throw the covers back at last.
Truth always outs, no matter what the Bad Guys may state!
Amusingly (gemusingly?!?), Overs is far from the only one who has concerns about the advisory panel and its non-binding decisions, though not everyone is against it for the same reasons:
ReplyDelete" The Aaronson report recommended that if a general anti-abuse rule were accepted at all, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should be obliged to consult and get the approval of a tribunal before it could be used against any particular person or company. In other words, the Government’s official tax collection agency should have to get permission from an external body before it could exercise its legal powers. That is an extraordinary proposal. However, it gets worse. The Aaronson group proposed that the tribunal should have three members—fair enough—of whom two should be from the tax avoidance industry. That makes it an open and shut case: the general anti-abuse rule will certainly gather dust on the shelf."
- Michael Meacher MP
Stew G
"The Aaronson report recommended that if a general anti-abuse rule were accepted at all, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should be obliged to consult and get the approval of a tribunal before it could be used against any particular person or company. In other words, the Government’s official tax collection agency should have to get permission from an external body before it could exercise its legal powers. That is an extraordinary proposal. However, it gets worse. The Aaronson group proposed that the tribunal should have three members—fair enough—of whom two should be from the tax avoidance industry."
ReplyDeleteConstitutionally sound anyone!?
I reckon HMRC decided that they would boost the economy by giving LAWYERS more work! This will run and run. The definitions are woolly at best.
ReplyDelete