So, the new definition of tax avoidance

An arrangement that is intended to reduce or eliminate a liability to one or more taxes in a way that could not have been anticipated by any reasonable legislator and whether or not the law in question specifically relates to tax or not

Super, so paying a 20% margin to your Swiss coffee broker is not avoidance as the law actually insists that you must pay a margin, as if with a third party. Paying royalties is not avoidance as other parts of tax law specifically ban the taxation of the payment of such royalties. Clear evidence that the legislators knew this would happen and approved.

And so on and on. Selling from Ireland into England is not avoidance-it’s clearly laid out in law that yu may and it’s also clearly laid out that they expect people to do this.

Quite simply, Ritchie’s definition of avoidance doesn’t include all the things he calls avoidance.

26 thoughts on “So, the new definition of tax avoidance”

  1. Didn’t Murphy Richards come up with the best definition? If I remember correctly, if you get legal advice then it’s evasion.

  2. Any employer paying below the minimum wage is facilitating the avoidance of income tax and NICs (employee and employer) and under this definition is engaging in egregious tax avoidance.

    Two business that come to mind are recently, one of the co-ops for its newspaper deliveryman and Scottish and Southern Energy. Both were awarded the Fair Tax Mark.

    Oh, wait……

  3. “Ritchie’s definition of avoidance doesn’t include all the things he calls avoidance.”

    Forget all, does it catch any of the things he calls tax avoidance?

  4. What this is saying is “the legislators can draft any old crap (and the incoming Blair/Brown crew came up with some total guff) and it doesn’t matter because if we don’t like the way it turns out we can just treat it the way we prefer”.

    There’s nothing like the rule of law, and neither is that.

  5. Actually, I just noticed this is even stupider than most of Ritchie’s nonsense.

    “in a way that could not have been anticipated by any reasonable legislator”

    Not ‘would not’ or ‘was not’, but ‘could not’. So only things that are utterly unimaginable when writing laws are tax avoidance.

  6. “Reasonable legislator”? Really? In the GAAR you say? Really?

    So this concept would appear to stand outside any consideration of the express will of Parliament.

    And “anticipated”? So if Parliament enacts a relief, with the intention that people use it, and people do use it, but employing new methods Parliamentioned ciuldn’t in your opinion have anticipated, regaRd less of Parliament’s intention that people should use the relief, that’s avoidance?

    You muppet.

  7. Hands together for a particularly aggressive critical series of comments from a John Holmes on TRUK ending, inevitably, with the “stand-up” John being banned.

  8. The fat one gets the commenters he deserves, eg one Mike Parr:

    I agree with this statement. Extending: I don’t believe in ISAs and pensions because I think the returns are poor and/or many pension funds are badly managed. Thus I invest & manage my money directly (mostly publicly quoted shares). But I get no tax relief.

    He seems unaware that you can manage your own ISA and invest in equities that you yourself select. And the fat one does not advise him to do that!

  9. Diogenes

    “The fat one gets the commenters he deserves”

    Really, do all the commenters have skin complaints like him which make them look like infected scrotal sacs?

  10. Bilbaboy: yes sir, mercantilism rules.

    Diogenes: The fat one gets the commenters he deserves

    To be fair he often gets the commenters we invent for him though arguably that amounts to much the same thing.

  11. Nemo, the problem is that this chap does not know what a pronoun is. He falls before the first hurdle. If only he could have been black and thus able to play a victim card

  12. BF

    The John Holmes link on the Jersey post is just brilliant. I don’t think given he is persona non grata with the Corbynite economic team he will be with us much longer – he can cope with anything I imagine except obscurity….

  13. Rocco, don’t imagine for a moment that merely being right in any diminishes your microaggression; grammar is a patriarchal system to enslave the pronounly-challenged. Check your* privilege.

    *Amend as you** wish
    ** This could get quite tedious

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *