Apologists for tax abuse were out in force at the CBI this week, and on this blog in the form of Mark Lee, commenting here. As I replied to Mark
"The CBI says secrecy is unacceptable — and define its absence as being a TIEA. France recently explained that despite the enormous problems of raising TIEA requests — the impediments to asking are enormous — it has done so about 200 times and in 70% of cases tax havens don't reply. It's pruse sophistry — gross misinformation — or blatant dissembling to say that's transaprency — and you should know it.
It's the same on the GAAR. As ARC point out, this is a deliberate propsoal by a man well known for his involvement in the tax avoidance industry to produce a plan that would stop SHIPS 2 and nothing else. In other words — it is an excuse to say anything but the likes of SHIPS 2 is legimtimate tax planning."
The claim by the CBI to oppose tax abuse is pure sophistry, and anyone with eyes to see can recognise that fact.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, thank you for this.
I saw that comment yesterday and it was plain to me Mr Lee is nothing more than a shrill apologist for big money tax avoidance, as you rightly suggest. It does you credit to have even allowed an anti-democratic, neoliberal troll like him on this site.
Here is a suggestion:
Regard all tax planning as abusive, unless the exemption from tax is clearly written in the legislation. So if you are £100 better off (and that £100 is located anywhere in the world and it doesnt matter how or why you got that £100) you must declare it on your tax UNLESS there is a clear unambiguous legislation to exempt you. So the tax law could be reduced to that rule, plus a few pages of exemptions. And then different rates of course to ensure the rich pay a high percentage.
And 30,000 more HMRC staff to keep proper tabs on people, and our tax problems would be solved.
Richard
I really do resent the personal abuse and inaccurate suggestion that I am in any way an apologist for tax abuse.
My comment on your blog yesterday was simply to point out that the CBI have now publicly said some of the things that you accuse them of not saying. In this regard I was simply a messenger.
I did not express a personal view yesterday so fail to understand how you can accuse me of being an apologist for tax abuse. Indeed I resent the allegation as it runs so completely contrary to my very public views on the subject – as well you know.
There are many within my profession who have accused me of being naive. Some because I chose to give up being a tax adviser because I was uncomfortable with the idea of helping wealthy clients to pay less tax. Others because I do not allow the purveyors of abusive tax avoidance schemes to join my tax advice network.
My views have not changed Richard. Please do not misquote me or accuse me of holding views that are an anathema to me.
“Chris” has clearly been mislead by your accusation and has added more of his own.
I am hurt but walk away with my head held high. You, however, have fallen in my estimations.
Mark
I have already posted three blogs now showing how grossly the CBI misrepresented the truth in the claims they made last week.
I said you were gullible – and I stand by it. You took the claims at face value.
Some wiser than you – Andrew Goodall and Salman Shaheen, quotes here, http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/articles/uk-businesses-are-%E2%80%98perfectly-entitled%E2%80%99-operate-low-tax-countries-says-cbi-44981 saw very clearly through what was being said.
I assume you at least as intelligent as them.
In that case if you weren’t gullible on this occasion you accepted the view because it accorded with what you thought – or wanted to hear. In that case I disagree with you.
In either case my comments are justified, in my opinion – and it is you who has sunk to the ad hominem that’s typical in these cases with comments that are quite absurd here and on Twitter – and proven wrong by the fact I am willing to answer your case.
The only loser is you – and the tax profession, yet again, whose reputation is fast sinking below that of politicians – hard that it is to believe.
Richard
Chris – the problem with your theory is who has the wisdom of Solomon to determine what is ‘clear and unambiguous’? Because if the tax planners are to be believed, every single transaction that they undertake is clear and unambiguous in the eyes of the law…