Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[*_ash_*]

just hope this opens some peoples minds on here. mind you they will still be sticking up for them

 

You don't really get anything ric do you?

[I1L2T3]

David Cameron's dad has been named. Hopefully that snake Blair will be on the list too.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 23:49 ----------

 

Sticking up for who exactly? There is a world of difference between 'lawfully finding loopholes in existing legislation' and 'illegally not paying tax'.

 

Remember that the next time you pay a plumber in cash. Not everyone who avoids paying tax wears a suit.

 

Here we go. The apologists are already on the case.

[the_bloke]

Here we go. The apologists are already on the case.

 

Apologising for who? As far as I am concerned the loopholes should be closed and the system simplified. As it stands though, if people can legally avoid paying tax, they will. Do you want to punish people for not breaking the law?

[Obelix]

David Cameron's dad has been named. Hopefully that snake Blair will be on the list too.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2016 at 23:49 ----------

 

 

Here we go. The apologists are already on the case.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable point to make though. Many people on here like to demonise tax avoidance out of spite or jealousy that they dont earn as much as those people. The green eyed monster does tend to make people spit bile.

 

As for the plumber accepting cash in hand, thats clearly evasion though and I dont think anyone was condoning that at all.

[ECCOnoob]

Hope that law firm is ready for its negligence claim. It better have a good insurance policy.

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices. Those named deemed to be conducting in perfectly legal activity will be perfectly entitled to sue.

 

All these people rubbing their hands about this "exposure" better watch out. If its supposedly good to expose the rich and powerful for their PERFECTLY LEGAL activity, perhaps everyone who utilised trust funds, pension offsets, ISA accounts, grants and share schemes to legally avoid tax liabilities should be named and shamed too.

Edited April 3, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3]

Apologising for who? As far as I am concerned the loopholes should be closed and the system simplified. As it stands though, if people can legally avoid paying tax, they will. Do you want to punish people for not breaking the law?

 

Indeed, for aggressive avoidance absolutely yes we should punish people.

 

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Would you disagree with that? Certainly the HMRC has powers to pursue aggressive avoidance and can retrospectively declare avoidance schemes illegal recovering large sums in the process.

 

It seems that more concerted international action is needed though.

[Obelix]

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices.

 

Oh come on, you missed the big bit.

 

ELEVEN MILLION documents.

 

Not just sheets of paper but 11,000,000 documents. It's mindbogglingly insane. Someones going to be running hard from some hard pipe hitting ****** who are going to go medieval on their **** when they catch them...

 

(with apologies to Pulp Fiction...)

[I1L2T3]

Hope that law firm is ready for its negligence claim. It better have a good insurance policy.

 

Confidential and legally privileged papers "leaked" from their offices. Those named deemed to be conducting in perfectly legal activity will be perfectly entitled to sue.

 

All these people rubbing their hands about this "exposure" better watch out. If its supposedly good to expose the rich and powerful for their PERFECTLY LEGAL activity, perhaps everyone who utilised trust funds, pension offsets, ISA accounts, grants and share schemes to legally avoid tax liabilities should be named and shamed too.

 

Bit in bold: we've been through this umpteen times but the government introduces such schemes to produce outcomes that are virtuous and mutually beneficial to society. There is no shame involved so yeah name the people. Why would they care?

 

Aggressive avoidance and evasion are very different. One is stretching the spirit of the law to its boundaries. The other is illegal. In both cases secrecy is often key. They do care about being named.

 

Virtuous tax planning and aggressive avoidance are not the same thing, perhaps only linked by legality (often questionable anyway in aggressive avoidance) and human nature.

[ECCOnoob]

Indeed, for aggressive avoidance absolutely yes we should punish people.

 

Sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Would you disagree with that? Certainly the HMRC has powers to pursue aggressive avoidance and can retrospectively declare avoidance schemes illegal recovering large sums in the process.

 

It seems that more concerted international action is needed though.

 

Yep, you are correct. The HMRC can refer a person or scheme to the Tribunal and its up to a Judge to deem whether or not a scheme is aggressive and a recoupment sought. I have no problem with that.

 

What I do have a problem with though is these so called do gooders leaking and whistleblowing to the press about perfectly legal activities, damaging people's reputations in the process. If they have suspicions then they should be reported through the proper channels.

 

As far as I'm concerned, until a Judge has deemed such activity is illegal its none of our business. It is totally unacceptable for people to put to trial by media.

 

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its not up to the Guardian to decide.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2016 at 00:11 ----------

 

Bit in bold: we've been through this umpteen times but the government introduces such schemes to produce outcomes that are virtuous and mutually beneficial to society. There is no shame involved so yeah name the people. Why would they care?

 

Aggressive avoidance and evasion are very different. One is stretching the spirit of the law to its boundaries. The other is illegal. In both cases secrecy is often key. They do care about being named.

 

 

 

Virtuous tax planning and aggressive avoidance are not the same thing.

 

See above. Until the relevant authorities decide that an activity is "aggressive avoidance" its none of our business.

[Anna B]

Sticking up for who exactly? There is a world of difference between 'lawfully finding loopholes in existing legislation' and 'illegally not paying tax'.

 

Might speak volumes about their morals though...