Until it is clear that HMRC won't be appealing the decision, HMRC will not accept that it is a precedent. Of course HMRC are happy to cite FTT decisions (let alone UTT) as precedents in brow beating taxpayers - especially wrong ones!
...when you start unilaterally not pursuing penalties for operational reasons because your actions can affect other taxpayers' legitimate expectations.
Going back to only penalising cases in which there has been a loss of tax would be sensible and essentially fair.
...tax avoidance was properly defined. Once defined it can be outlawed by legislation and the avoidance problem can be solved.
Only problem is defining what counts as tax avoidance - which as it can only encompass legal activity, relies on someone's (whose?) opinion of what is unacceptable but legal. Tough one, that!
in thinking that its all a bit late to be coming out with stuff related to the MG Rover affair? What good does it do now and at what cost to the public purse? Yes people who stand accused need a hearing, but in a reasonable timescale, surely?
...then you'd think he should have access to the money he would need to repay to avoid a harsh POCA sentence. And in that case its right he should repay it.
But POCA doesn't work like that. The convict is presumed to have the proceeds at his disposal and is burdened with proving that he doesn't which is nigh on impossible, especially if the prosecuting agencies might not be too careful to be accurate in making their case. It doesn't seem likely to me that you'd volunteer to do ten extra years in chokey knowing you'd still owe the dosh when you came out, but the amounts some convicts are required to "pay back" do not necessarily reflect realistic ability to repay or the crime they are convicted of.
I also believe that if you don't admit guilt it will be harder to get out early on licence. So there really isn't much point in continuing to deny something that you did.
I guess we'll see if these two have the money to sidestep these extended sentences.
Like naomi2000 I found it hard to believe that Andrew Meeson could be capable of a crime of such breathtaking scale and stupidity as the theft described in the case reports, but evidently a jury was persuaded that he was, and unless one has sat through all the evidence to form one's own view, one must trust that judge and jury.
My point is that if he did it and doesn't have the dosh, what the heck did he do with it? Perhaps he was seeing 0705736's missus!
My answers
Higgs
Until it is clear that HMRC won't be appealing the decision, HMRC will not accept that it is a precedent. Of course HMRC are happy to cite FTT decisions (let alone UTT) as precedents in brow beating taxpayers - especially wrong ones!
Slippery slope
...when you start unilaterally not pursuing penalties for operational reasons because your actions can affect other taxpayers' legitimate expectations.
Going back to only penalising cases in which there has been a loss of tax would be sensible and essentially fair.
Real time
Where did this concept come from and what is "unreal time"?
Complete tosh from someone who doesn't understand the difference between avoidance and evasion and has no idea how to go about simplification.
What?
What on earth are you on about?
Its time
...tax avoidance was properly defined. Once defined it can be outlawed by legislation and the avoidance problem can be solved.
Only problem is defining what counts as tax avoidance - which as it can only encompass legal activity, relies on someone's (whose?) opinion of what is unacceptable but legal. Tough one, that!
Lawyers...
...will make a lot of money from this!
Michael is quite right
But why let facts get in the way of a good story eh?
Am I alone
in thinking that its all a bit late to be coming out with stuff related to the MG Rover affair? What good does it do now and at what cost to the public purse? Yes people who stand accused need a hearing, but in a reasonable timescale, surely?
Probably
Shirley have you read this case (I haven't). What was it about it that makes you feel promoters need to be prosecuted?
If he did it....
...then you'd think he should have access to the money he would need to repay to avoid a harsh POCA sentence. And in that case its right he should repay it.
But POCA doesn't work like that. The convict is presumed to have the proceeds at his disposal and is burdened with proving that he doesn't which is nigh on impossible, especially if the prosecuting agencies might not be too careful to be accurate in making their case. It doesn't seem likely to me that you'd volunteer to do ten extra years in chokey knowing you'd still owe the dosh when you came out, but the amounts some convicts are required to "pay back" do not necessarily reflect realistic ability to repay or the crime they are convicted of.
I also believe that if you don't admit guilt it will be harder to get out early on licence. So there really isn't much point in continuing to deny something that you did.
I guess we'll see if these two have the money to sidestep these extended sentences.
Like naomi2000 I found it hard to believe that Andrew Meeson could be capable of a crime of such breathtaking scale and stupidity as the theft described in the case reports, but evidently a jury was persuaded that he was, and unless one has sat through all the evidence to form one's own view, one must trust that judge and jury.
My point is that if he did it and doesn't have the dosh, what the heck did he do with it? Perhaps he was seeing 0705736's missus!