Since when was financial reporting supposed to be about being right-on and politically correct? Surely most investors and analysts will be more interested in what all these measures cost!
The whole point of child benefit was that it was a universal “benefit” direct to the mother. It was introduced in 1977 to replace Family Allowance, which was itself started in 1946 following Beveridge. The stupidly named HICBC is a good example of the low quality of politicians. In this case George Osborne. But then “austerity” was a prime example of saying one thing whilst meaning another. And given it wasn’t austere and that Osborne presided over increased government spending, like ever other Chancellor before or since, it was a silly political move that gave his opponents several sticks to beat him with. You might say far to clever for his own good!
This is an interesting review but actually is about government efforts at defining avoidance as evasion.
The cause of avoidance is undoubtedly self-interest, which as Adam Smith observed is in all our interests. But the opportunity arises from the vast and usually contradictory tax code with its huge opportunity for arbitrage. The one way of reducing the expensive industry would be tax simplification. Of course politicians hate the thought of voters working out just how expensive they really are. Not to mention pointless.
I would have thought that the contingent liability for future compensation payments would be enough to cause the directors to appoint receivers. Given that the taxpayer is on the hook already it would be cheaper all round to get on with it!
Very few understand the UK tax system. Politicians certainly don’t! The real issue here is HMRC and information. The whole basis of the requirement goes against our common law tradition. And guess who picks up the tab for this information overload!
The press reported on the idea that people selling their chattels online will get a tax bill. Notwithstanding the legal position this is a very real possibility.
Some of us have made the observation many times that the term accountant should be reserved to those with appropriate qualifications. Were this the case then there would likely be criminal charges arising, instead of a “slap on the wrists”.
My answers
Businesses don’t normally threaten “customers” with financial penalties. Government agencies regularly do. Ho hum!
An example of overly complex rules causing a business to go bust. Or tail wagging the dog. AGAIN.
Since when was financial reporting supposed to be about being right-on and politically correct? Surely most investors and analysts will be more interested in what all these measures cost!
The whole point of child benefit was that it was a universal “benefit” direct to the mother. It was introduced in 1977 to replace Family Allowance, which was itself started in 1946 following Beveridge. The stupidly named HICBC is a good example of the low quality of politicians. In this case George Osborne. But then “austerity” was a prime example of saying one thing whilst meaning another. And given it wasn’t austere and that Osborne presided over increased government spending, like ever other Chancellor before or since, it was a silly political move that gave his opponents several sticks to beat him with. You might say far to clever for his own good!
This is an interesting review but actually is about government efforts at defining avoidance as evasion.
The cause of avoidance is undoubtedly self-interest, which as Adam Smith observed is in all our interests. But the opportunity arises from the vast and usually contradictory tax code with its huge opportunity for arbitrage. The one way of reducing the expensive industry would be tax simplification. Of course politicians hate the thought of voters working out just how expensive they really are. Not to mention pointless.
Seems like a reasoned response to the political furore as MPs scramble to get on the right side of History!
Fujitsu is a Japanese company, owned by the Furukawa Group. I would guess it’s UK tax obligations are small beer!
I would have thought that the contingent liability for future compensation payments would be enough to cause the directors to appoint receivers. Given that the taxpayer is on the hook already it would be cheaper all round to get on with it!
Very few understand the UK tax system. Politicians certainly don’t! The real issue here is HMRC and information. The whole basis of the requirement goes against our common law tradition. And guess who picks up the tab for this information overload!
The press reported on the idea that people selling their chattels online will get a tax bill. Notwithstanding the legal position this is a very real possibility.
Some of us have made the observation many times that the term accountant should be reserved to those with appropriate qualifications. Were this the case then there would likely be criminal charges arising, instead of a “slap on the wrists”.