You might also be interested in
Replies (2)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Forget Innocent until Proven Guilty!
Personally, I believe Government and HMRC are now acting ultra vires on supposed avoidance.
http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/queens-speech-tax-avoiders-told-to-pa...
OK: for a number of years, HMRC in its previous incarnation as HM Inland Revenue have enjoyed the power to assess tax payers where they suspected certain irregularities.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/salfmanual/salf409.htm
However, along with the concept of HMRC "raiding" bank accounts, at will, we now face the effective suspension of the core ethos of presumed innocence.
I have been deeply suspicious of the new regime of HMRC demanding details of so-called "Tax Avoidance Schemes", which required approval prior to HMRC accepting such as "legitimate".
Why?
Well, simply because Britain's legal structure had enjoyed robust checks and balances against excess: any decision of and by any government department was open to challenge.
The old revenue system worked, most effectively, on the basis that the state tax collecting authorities could at any time challenge a taxpayer's return and propositions.
The system worked by a series of open legal tests: if the revenue disagreed with a taxpayer's proposition reference extant tax law and its definition, then eventually, the question would gravitate to a civil court for the considered opinion of a learned judge: thereafter, it could escalate to superior courts, and if the disagreement was deemed highly significant, eventually, the House of Lords (now, the Supreme Court).
From these trials emerged numerous principles and doctrines.
In considering this, it must be remembered, the system of British law (both civil and criminal) relies on case law: or precedent. Indeed, when Parliament debates and eventually enacts law and it becomes "Statutory" it is purposefully engrossed to leave vagueness since the process seeks final definition of minutiae and ambiguity through case law. It is case law which creates and defines the body of law.
As exemplars, tax law is littered with famous final determinations, such as The Ramsey Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay_principle
Craven .v. White: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC...
Etc.
Now it seems, the old tried and tested methodology has been all but abandoned.
The sheer concept of "Approved Tax Avoidance Schemes" was and is risible: since if considered laterally it is rather akin to a burglar pre-advising the Police authority they are considering perpetrating a crime and seeking agreement from the Police for clearance!
Previously, The Revenue would if they felt strongly, would challenge a claim which they believed could not be supported in extant tax law. If the principle was sufficiently critical, then both The Revenue and the taxpayer would cross swords and allow the courts to decide.
Additionally, be seeking "clearance" from HMRC this short-circuits the whole judicial process, to HMRC's advantage and the taxpayer's detriment.
On a brighter side, for the moment at least (One wonder for how long!), there does still seem the remaining ability for taxpayers to challenge any HMRC hostile action through the tribunal system: it must, however, be remembered that before permission is given for a taxpayer to progress to any appeal, firstly they must demand an "Internal Review" and before leave to appeal is granted, either pay up the demanded tax or lodge a Hardship Appeal and gain agreement hardship would result if the appeal permission were not to be granted.
Overall, for me, however, it seems government are drifting towards empowering HMRC to become Policeman, Judge and Jury, despite all the enshrined tenets of the body and principles of English jurisprudence.
Participating in organised crime
The Serious Crime Bill has now been published & I have added an article in the Money Laundering & Crime discussion group HERE about the proposed new offence in relation to organised crime.
David