I think, unfortunately, most of the call centre staff are probably using the same "Noddy does tax" material that we are seeing on GOV.UK. That is understandable, because as we know they don't have the depth of training that they used to get. Quite what the grizzled TO(HG)s who whipped me into line as a graduate entrant Inspector in training would make of it I shudder to think.
To give the team their due, it is often very well written once you accept the premise that it is designed to be read by the general public. It's a bit like newspapers. The Sun is actually a very well-written paper; extremely economical with wordcount and very clear. Its headline writers are the best in the business. But if I want a detailed explanation of a complex financial issue, I'm going to read the FT.
Mark and I agreed about that one too, if I remember correctly. I should add that, when I started writing my reply, Mark's much better one had not yet been posted...
Both Euan's comment, above, and Steve's reply miss the point that you do not need to have a problem with a Liechtenstein asset in order to use the LDF. Other "irregularities" could be brought within the LDF by creating a relationship with a Liechtenstein financial institution. This might seem an odd thing to do, but the deal was so good for certain circumstances that many people went down this route.
However, the advantages have been significantly reduced by a further memorandum signed today between the two governments. In particular, it appears that the liabilities now need to be substantially connected to the "overseas asset" in order to get the "real deal" of the LDF.
CCW have a very good, indeed Taxation Award-winning, investigations team; it is not surprising that they would encourage other accountants (who, if not experienced in the area, would be unwise to attempt an LDF disclosure without help) to bring the LDF to the attention of their clients. It might be something worth mentioning in a newsletter or general email.
I don't, however, accept that a client who has consistently failed to tell his or her accountant of undisclosed income or gains either a) is the best client that the practice has, or b) has a cat in hell's chance of suing for negligence.
We have heard that some accountants who have signed are writing to their clients and suggesting they may like to sign too - after all, it's their bank accounts that are really at risk. It apparently goes down really well with the clients, so it turns out to be good PR too!
Because of the substantial costs that HMRC might apply for in any appeal, a fighting fund has been set up by Francis Clark LLP to try to take this case to the Court of Appeal.
Contributions in units of £250 (and preferably of about £1,000 or more) are being sought from those with clients who would be affected.
A purse of about £30,000 would be needed.
For more details, including arrangements for dealing with surplus funds, email [email protected]
... though I'm a week behind, seems to be back to the standard of the first. In fact, it seems to be a cross with the political series Borgen, from the same team, which was also very good.
Or at least a couple of the main actors are... Season 1 was inevitably better than Season 2 is turning out to be.
If you like Homeland you may well like Hunted, which is genuinely British, and from the makers of Spooks, but there is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required. On the other hand, since the last play I saw was The Comedy of Errors, I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with suspending disbelief...
Garrow's Law is "by Rumpole, out of Downton Abbey"; a bit saccharine, but I enjoyed the Old Bailey bits.
However, if you haven't watched much TV you have presumably missed the whole Scandacrime boom. For my money (though others disagree) the BBC version of Wallander, with Branagh in the eponymous role, are wonderful; gorgeous cinematography.
On the other hand, and my top pick, the only version of The Killing worth watching, despite the need for subtitles, is the original Danish one (Forbrydelsen), and again Season 1 is by far the best. There are 20 hour-long episodes, so it should keep you busy for quite a while, though I'm not sure when it will next be repeated. Put the box set on your Christmas list?
This is one of the scenarios in Taxation's 'How Far Would You Go?' questionnaire. Without giving the game away too much, there is a marked difference so far between people's views on evading tax themselves and on aiding and abetting others to evade tax.
My answers
Noddy does tax
I think, unfortunately, most of the call centre staff are probably using the same "Noddy does tax" material that we are seeing on GOV.UK. That is understandable, because as we know they don't have the depth of training that they used to get. Quite what the grizzled TO(HG)s who whipped me into line as a graduate entrant Inspector in training would make of it I shudder to think.
To give the team their due, it is often very well written once you accept the premise that it is designed to be read by the general public. It's a bit like newspapers. The Sun is actually a very well-written paper; extremely economical with wordcount and very clear. Its headline writers are the best in the business. But if I want a detailed explanation of a complex financial issue, I'm going to read the FT.
Tax avoidance schemes
Mark and I agreed about that one too, if I remember correctly. I should add that, when I started writing my reply, Mark's much better one had not yet been posted...
LDF not just for Liechtenstein assets
Both Euan's comment, above, and Steve's reply miss the point that you do not need to have a problem with a Liechtenstein asset in order to use the LDF. Other "irregularities" could be brought within the LDF by creating a relationship with a Liechtenstein financial institution. This might seem an odd thing to do, but the deal was so good for certain circumstances that many people went down this route.
However, the advantages have been significantly reduced by a further memorandum signed today between the two governments. In particular, it appears that the liabilities now need to be substantially connected to the "overseas asset" in order to get the "real deal" of the LDF.
CCW have a very good, indeed Taxation Award-winning, investigations team; it is not surprising that they would encourage other accountants (who, if not experienced in the area, would be unwise to attempt an LDF disclosure without help) to bring the LDF to the attention of their clients. It might be something worth mentioning in a newsletter or general email.
I don't, however, accept that a client who has consistently failed to tell his or her accountant of undisclosed income or gains either a) is the best client that the practice has, or b) has a cat in hell's chance of suing for negligence.
Mike Truman
Editor Taxation magazine
#APowerTooFar petition http://bit.ly/1szPr5n
Write to clients?
Thank you!
We have heard that some accountants who have signed are writing to their clients and suggesting they may like to sign too - after all, it's their bank accounts that are really at risk. It apparently goes down really well with the clients, so it turns out to be good PR too!
epetition
Just to say that Taxation has launched an epetition against these proposals that has picked up over 600 signatures in just a few days:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/68384
Mike Truman
Editor, Taxation magazine
Fighting fund for appeal
Because of the substantial costs that HMRC might apply for in any appeal, a fighting fund has been set up by Francis Clark LLP to try to take this case to the Court of Appeal.
Contributions in units of £250 (and preferably of about £1,000 or more) are being sought from those with clients who would be affected.
A purse of about £30,000 would be needed.
For more details, including arrangements for dealing with surplus funds, email [email protected]
Is it too much to hope...
... that the replacement will be AM?
Like the others, very sad to see that the CEO won't be posting any more.
Killing III...
... though I'm a week behind, seems to be back to the standard of the first. In fact, it seems to be a cross with the political series Borgen, from the same team, which was also very good.
Homeland IS sort of British...
Or at least a couple of the main actors are... Season 1 was inevitably better than Season 2 is turning out to be.
If you like Homeland you may well like Hunted, which is genuinely British, and from the makers of Spooks, but there is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required. On the other hand, since the last play I saw was The Comedy of Errors, I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with suspending disbelief...
Garrow's Law is "by Rumpole, out of Downton Abbey"; a bit saccharine, but I enjoyed the Old Bailey bits.
However, if you haven't watched much TV you have presumably missed the whole Scandacrime boom. For my money (though others disagree) the BBC version of Wallander, with Branagh in the eponymous role, are wonderful; gorgeous cinematography.
On the other hand, and my top pick, the only version of The Killing worth watching, despite the need for subtitles, is the original Danish one (Forbrydelsen), and again Season 1 is by far the best. There are 20 hour-long episodes, so it should keep you busy for quite a while, though I'm not sure when it will next be repeated. Put the box set on your Christmas list?
He's been reading our questionnaire...
This is one of the scenarios in Taxation's 'How Far Would You Go?' questionnaire. Without giving the game away too much, there is a marked difference so far between people's views on evading tax themselves and on aiding and abetting others to evade tax.