So, now that Richard Teather has had a pop at Oxfam The Sage of Ely needs to go all ad hom on Teather. and in doing so he entirely undermines his own campaigning of the last decade:
Tax avoidance is using the law in a way that no government or tax authority anticipated to achieve a result that neither could ever have intended.
That’s rather stronger than his normal statement, isn’t it?
So, for example, we all agree that the UK does not tax profits righteously made in the Eire. No one ever claims that it should either, nor intended to.
Thus Google making profits not taxed in the UK cannot be tax avoidance, can it?
No, really, we’ve got those rules about permanent establishment and so on and they are being met. Obviously those rules are there because they have been considered: QED.
The use of trading subsidiaries by charities, with those subsidiaries then donating their profits to the owning charity tax free, has been an arrangement known about and unchallenged and clearly legally permitted for decades in the UK. That is not tax avoidance. It is a known, endorsed, encouraged and wholy acceptable arrangement.
That’s a little stronger too. Boots financing by debt: known, accepted and legally permitted. Not avoidance. Starbucks royalties: known about, legal, accepted: not avoidance. Etc, through all of the damn cases he’s been blaring about. In order to defend his mates he’s just undermined his entire campaign.