Is Tax Avoidance Morally Repugnant or Good Business Practice?

I think it's great what the Times is doing.  It's putting HMRC to shame - why couldn't they have done these investigations themselves if they were really serious about tax avoidance.

Will the GAAR really tackle the issues at hand?  It's too early to say perhaps.  I seem to get the impression that it might not bite where it ought to.

I suppose HMRC is just a face of the UK Government, and as a recent leader in the Times pointed out it is the main or only face of the UK Government for many taxpayers/voters.  The poor quality of service combined with inability to tackle tax avoidance might be explained away by lack of resource/funding, but the government as a whole is accountable for their tax administration.  

To be fair to HMRC, they are actually better than other jurisdictions in some areas (the areas  mostly seen by advisers, such as consultation and tax enquiries) and they are pretty bad in the areas that most taxpayers/voters actually see. That is pretty unfortunate for the government and I wonder if HMRC really have their priorities right.

The government needs to sort out HMRC, whether it is with funding or better management - or both.

I really enjoy the debates where people attempt to explain why tax avoidance is their duty as responsible entrepreneurs and that tax evaders should be shot at dawn. It is even more entertaining when we accountants attempt to explain why we feel it is our duty to assist one and prevent the other.

do people still read it?

or is it the Kettle? or the Pot?

I'm sorry, Philip, but I have to disagree. Introducing emotion and sentiment into technical calculations does nothing to provide the certainty that is required for a tax system to work. Tax is calculated according to the laws introduced by government, and the right to minmise that cost was enshrined by Lord Denning. Viewpoints may have changed since his day, but principles havent. The tax code is stupidly and dangerously long and out of control, and actively breeds inventive planning. Whose fault is that?

It is impossible to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable that does not come back to "what the law says". You cant run a tax system in the court of public opinion, and the penchant for judges to interpret the law into what should have been said is just another example of a society going wrong. Already, you and I disagree, so how do you settle that when you are calculating a tax bill - by majority vote? That is nothing more than mob rule and the politics of envy. Or by learned judges deciding what they think the law should say - that is a tyranny.

But beyond that, there is also a probloem with perspective, Figures bandied around yesterday for tax losees from avoidance came to around £7b maximum (and that will never be 100% collectable). Compare that to the £100bn the government is borrowing every year to pay for a public sector we cant afford. It barely covers the interest on that bill.On top of that we have £1.2 TRILLION unfunded government liabilities. If you are looking for morally repugnant, then dumping these bills on my children and grandchildren because politicians are too cowardly to tell the current electorate we can no longer afford our lifestyle is a far better candidate.

Government waste and personal indulgence is beyond farce and dwarfs the figures involved for tax avoidance. Set HMRC onto that and get a far higher yield with less pain.

Finally, anyone who has ever paid cash for a cheaper service is in no posiiton to throw stones here.

Isn't the Times part of News International? Is this an attempt by the Murdoch Empire to curry favour with the Government, part of deal struck in the "smoked-filled corridors" of No.10 or given that I understand David Cameron's family wealth comes partly  from offshore tax havens, is it a subtle attempt to embarrass the PM? Wonder if this will feature in PMQs...

Buffett seems to have picked the comment up from Nicholas Ferguson of SVG Capital, the hedge fund, who used it some years ago in relation to the then business asset tapoer treatment of carried interest.

I would regard attempts to minimise the amount of tax paid as no different from the efforts of those on the public payroll to enjoy:

- higher pay than is justified by an analysis of qualifications and responsibility (More of Less, BBC R4 et al) or by the market rate for the work that they do in the location that they do it (Budget);

- unaffordably high rates of return on their pension contributions along with protection from the impact of the last Labour Gov'ts various raids on pension funds, and the state of the economy;

- full pay regardless of performance, because of a lack of bonus schemes and reportedly poor performance (paying £1 for 36p worth of milk, pretending to be a professional finance manager but be bailed out if the money is lost);

- business expenses that are deemed - inappropriately - as such.

They are less offensive, being legal, than: charging inappropriate items to employer-issued credit cards; taking sick leave when they're not ill, etc.

So David Cameron says when Jimmy Carr undertakes a tax avoidance scheme it is not morally acceptable but yet when asked about Gary Barlow he says he doesn't want to give a running commentary.  We now have the class system within tax avoidance.  If you are OBE and part of the establishment you are free from critisism but if you are a Jimmy Carr, people like you shouldn't be doing it - its immoral.  The hypocrisy beggars belief. 

Sorry but this is nonsense. HMRC are investigating the schemes and they publicise the sort of thing that they most dislike on the Spotlights page of their website. Have you seen it?

Sadly it can take years before the final outcome of challenges to tax schemes are finalised and publicised.

Mark

A good observation, but you are commenting on something that happened a week ago, apparently without having followed the rest of the story in the meantime......