which makes one wonder... ...if there shouldn't be some penalty for putting up t&cs that purport to be the legal position but which are in fact - and perhaps known or should be known to these organisations - not effective. A kind of constructive fraud, perhaps?
As we would surely all agree, whatever the position for elective services provided by private companies, HMRC & other govt agencies must be held to a higher standard for compulsory ones.
Not sure about that Not sure that the courts are dismantling the "letter of the law" compliance in these high profile cases. Rather it is the nature of the transactions themselves - as I said, if the transaction is a charitable donation, and the charity concerned is not a penny better off at the end of it, then logically there is no charitable donation *in fact*. Likewise, if you're not really a secondhand car salesman.
And in the Icebreaker case, I believe this again fell down on the facts (not really in business with the intent to make a profit) rather than on any novel approach to tax avoidance per se.
We got to Godwin's Law quickly Look it up, if you don't know what that is.
Counsel's opinion as a defence against fraud is an odd concept. On that basis, would any criminal trial with a QC defending be automatically lost by the prosecution? As has been said, it's likely that such an opinion is couched in terms that really make it watertight, whatever the actual outcome. It looks like a guarantee or an insurance policy, but it won't be valid if you need it.
I would agree with others upthread. It's one thing to have a debate in court about whether section a of law b in interaction with section c means that transaction d could arguably be free of tax, it's another thing when transaction d itself is a farce. An overpaid radio DJ is not a secondhand car dealer. A gift to charity in which the charity gets nothing is not a gift to charity. How this is different from someone deliberately misstating their income on a tax return is a mystery.
TANSTAAFL I think it was a gentleman no longer of this parish who told a story of a lawyer's client who was telephoned on Christmas Eve by their lawyer (whose office was nearby) to be asked along to their office party. Having politely declined, they were amazed to find on the next bill an item for a telephone call on 24th Dec.
Of course, it could have been a mistake drawn from a phone bill, but it was supposedly the end of the relationship.
We all know There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but this guy is foolish to rub your nose in it, rather than put it down as a marketing overhead and recover it as part of his rate of return.
I suggest, if you don't want to be taken for a ride by your customers, that you are already inclined to cut this guy off. In which case, the positive you can take away is an anecdote you can bring out whenever any business contact (your next lawyer, perhaps) suggests taking you out for lunch, which will, hopefully in a subtle way, put them on a warning that you are not to be messed with.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Wasted Experience, either.
Facts I can't help but think Simon is being factious when he writes a whole blog about factual accuracy but includes "If the paper that comes through my door is evidence, there are more self-employed gardeners in this town than there are gardens".
Another fact is that the Liberal Democrats were criticising the failures of Labour's City policy to Gordon Brown's face in the House of Commons before the crash, so Simon's assertion otherwise is another myth that needs busting.
If you mean selling info to The Sun shouldn't be an offence, remember this is Budget info, and therefore market sensitive (let alone the prerogative of Parliament to be informed first).
Not everything in government can be open. Any more than everything in business.
My answers
the story of regionalised fire control is a relevant parallel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiReControl
East - Stratford!!
If it were Norwich it would be bad enough, but once again London sucks the life out of the East of England.
which makes one wonder...
...if there shouldn't be some penalty for putting up t&cs that purport to be the legal position but which are in fact - and perhaps known or should be known to these organisations - not effective. A kind of constructive fraud, perhaps?
As we would surely all agree, whatever the position for elective services provided by private companies, HMRC & other govt agencies must be held to a higher standard for compulsory ones.
It's the law, even if it:s a statutory instrument.
Unless the law gives the power to HMRC so to do, of course.
Not sure about that
Not sure that the courts are dismantling the "letter of the law" compliance in these high profile cases. Rather it is the nature of the transactions themselves - as I said, if the transaction is a charitable donation, and the charity concerned is not a penny better off at the end of it, then logically there is no charitable donation *in fact*. Likewise, if you're not really a secondhand car salesman.
And in the Icebreaker case, I believe this again fell down on the facts (not really in business with the intent to make a profit) rather than on any novel approach to tax avoidance per se.
We got to Godwin's Law quickly
Look it up, if you don't know what that is.
Counsel's opinion as a defence against fraud is an odd concept. On that basis, would any criminal trial with a QC defending be automatically lost by the prosecution? As has been said, it's likely that such an opinion is couched in terms that really make it watertight, whatever the actual outcome. It looks like a guarantee or an insurance policy, but it won't be valid if you need it.
I would agree with others upthread. It's one thing to have a debate in court about whether section a of law b in interaction with section c means that transaction d could arguably be free of tax, it's another thing when transaction d itself is a farce. An overpaid radio DJ is not a secondhand car dealer. A gift to charity in which the charity gets nothing is not a gift to charity. How this is different from someone deliberately misstating their income on a tax return is a mystery.
Well...
... There's nothing like pinning your party colours to the mast, is there?
TANSTAAFL
I think it was a gentleman no longer of this parish who told a story of a lawyer's client who was telephoned on Christmas Eve by their lawyer (whose office was nearby) to be asked along to their office party. Having politely declined, they were amazed to find on the next bill an item for a telephone call on 24th Dec.
Of course, it could have been a mistake drawn from a phone bill, but it was supposedly the end of the relationship.
We all know There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but this guy is foolish to rub your nose in it, rather than put it down as a marketing overhead and recover it as part of his rate of return.
I suggest, if you don't want to be taken for a ride by your customers, that you are already inclined to cut this guy off. In which case, the positive you can take away is an anecdote you can bring out whenever any business contact (your next lawyer, perhaps) suggests taking you out for lunch, which will, hopefully in a subtle way, put them on a warning that you are not to be messed with.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Wasted Experience, either.
Facts
I can't help but think Simon is being factious when he writes a whole blog about factual accuracy but includes "If the paper that comes through my door is evidence, there are more self-employed gardeners in this town than there are gardens".
Another fact is that the Liberal Democrats were criticising the failures of Labour's City policy to Gordon Brown's face in the House of Commons before the crash, so Simon's assertion otherwise is another myth that needs busting.
not if it's Budget info
@John Collingwood
If you mean selling info to The Sun shouldn't be an offence, remember this is Budget info, and therefore market sensitive (let alone the prerogative of Parliament to be informed first).
Not everything in government can be open. Any more than everything in business.