Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[taxman]

But the point is you only can claim that because you decided to redefine what you mean by "avoidance"

 

Tax avoidance is any legal means that results in you paying less tax. Like an ISA rather than a regular saving account. Like a pension. They then may get used in strange ways that were never intended like using an ISA backed mortgage that wasnt in the initial spirit of the regulations. Nontheless they are still legal, because the law lets you avoid tax in that way.

 

Not me, parliament.

 

"For those not immersed in matters relating to tax, the debate on tax avoidance can be a confusing one, not least because the term ‘tax avoidance’ can be used somewhat loosely.

 

Legitimate use of reliefs is not tax avoidance:

 

Claiming capital reliefs on investment is not tax avoidance - when those reliefs were introduced precisely to encourage the investment in question.

 

Claiming reliefs against double taxation is not tax avoidance - when the alternative would be taxpayers paying tax twice on the same income.

 

Claiming back tax on legitimate charitable donations is not tax avoidance - any more than ticking the ‘gift aid’ box is.

 

Not paying tax on your pension contributions is not tax avoidance.

 

Taking out a tax free ISA is not tax avoidance."

 

That was from this speech by David Gauke, Secretary to the Treasury.

 

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to

gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that

serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax

advantage. It involves operating within the letter –

but not the spirit – of the law.

Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning. Tax

planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for

which they were intended. For example, claiming tax

relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA

or saving for retirement by making contributions to a

pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning. "

 

HMRC briefing.

 

Those who seek to lump things like ISA's and Pension relief alongside dubious practices involving platinum sponge or base erosion and profit sharing do so to muddy the waters and excuse artificial avoidance practices by comparing them to lawful and correctly administered schemes and reliefs.

[I1L2T3]

I

I'll bet there are not as many as you think. It's just another convenient fiction stirred up by people, like the fact there are hordes of lazy dole bludgers when we all know there are a few but no where near as many as the Mail would have you think.

 

The real fiction is the concept that somebody who takes out an ISA is in the same league as an aggressive avoider who secrets their money offshore.

 

Now, to really take the biscuit you are lumping in every single person in the country who is on PAYE.

 

Preposterous desperate idiotic nonsense.

[tinfoilhat]

I'll bet there are not as many as you think. It's just another convenient fiction stirred up by people, like the fact there are hordes of lazy dole bludgers when we all know there are a few but no where near as many as the Mail would have you think.

 

There's enough though (and enough dole-ites too). And don't get me started on Starbucks et al. I don't want them to pay through the nose but these accounting gymnastics (which are probably legal) are taking the muck and we all know it.

 

I say probably legal because if they're willing to help the brinks mat robbers (or their money at least) is say there's a chunk of their work and/or clients that will quite possibly be on the wrong side of the legal line.

[Obelix]

Yes. Fiction is the word isn't it. That's why I never claimed that did I.

 

But then again from the pair of you who like to redefine language to suit your needs, I'd expect nothing less.

[ricgem2002]

I'm still waiting for an explanation from foxy lady about what he/she thinks I'm hiding in my tax affairs.

these toytown tories on here make me feel sorry for them they get a few crumbs thrown at them and think they got it all. these people think because they own their own house/got a business/and earn a slightly bigger income than someone else they up their with the elite . im just ashamed that when it come s to challenging this behaviour that the greeks/French/etc have got more going for them than us brits:suspect:

[Bob Arctor]

Not me, parliament.

 

"For those not immersed in matters relating to tax, the debate on tax avoidance can be a confusing one, not least because the term ‘tax avoidance’ can be used somewhat loosely.

 

Legitimate use of reliefs is not tax avoidance:

 

Claiming capital reliefs on investment is not tax avoidance - when those reliefs were introduced precisely to encourage the investment in question.

 

Claiming reliefs against double taxation is not tax avoidance - when the alternative would be taxpayers paying tax twice on the same income.

 

Claiming back tax on legitimate charitable donations is not tax avoidance - any more than ticking the ‘gift aid’ box is.

 

Not paying tax on your pension contributions is not tax avoidance.

 

Taking out a tax free ISA is not tax avoidance."

 

That was from this speech by David Gauke, Secretary to the Treasury.

 

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to

gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that

serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax

advantage. It involves operating within the letter –

but not the spirit – of the law.

Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning. Tax

planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for

which they were intended. For example, claiming tax

relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA

or saving for retirement by making contributions to a

pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning. "

 

HMRC briefing.

 

Those who seek to lump things like ISA's and Pension relief alongside dubious practices involving platinum sponge or base erosion and profit sharing do so to muddy the waters and excuse artificial avoidance practices by comparing them to lawful and correctly administered schemes and reliefs.

 

Thank you.

[ez8004]

There are lots of ways to reduce your tax burden, so don't blame others for taking advantage of then. For example:

 

- Making increased contributions to your pension is done on your gross pay, so I avoid 40% tax right there.

- Buying shares in my employer is too taken from my gross salary and avoid another 40% tax. This also means that the shares need to tank 40% before I start losing money. Nice safe way in buying stocks. No need to pay capital gains if kept for five years.

- Buying child care vouchers which is again taken from my gross pay and save another 40% on child care costs I need to pay anyway.

 

The options are there for you. Just need to exercise them.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 22:14 ----------

 

Thank you.

 

About that. Does legislation count?

 

For example, the government introduced legislation to protect zero hour contract workers by ensuring that they get paid an additional amount for holidays taken because when they are away they cannot be working. The wording was along the lines of none regular or standard shifts or work patterns.

 

Well, in my job on top of my basic salary, I too need to work shifts when called upon. The thing is I am not on zero hour contracts and my shifts are not regular, but my employer has decided that this too applies to us. So in addition to the paid holidays we get, I get an additional £100-£200 per day of holiday taken depending on the preceeding average 3 months pay. One colleague got £4k last year from this alone.

 

Just need to play the hand you are dealt.

Edited April 5, 2016 by ez8004

[ricgem2002]

For example, the government introduced legislation to protect zero hour contract workers by ensuring that they get paid an additional amount for holidays taken because when they are away they cannot be working. The wording was along the lines of none regular or standard shifts or work patterns.

 

.

better still why didn't the gov do away with zhc they are a blight on the working man/woman. have you tried to get a mortgage/rent a house/get a loan on a zhc contract (no) because no one will touch you. have you seen the adverts on here from people renting their houses out I bet you there isn't one who rents out to a zhc worker:roll:

[L00b]

You're clearly not a silly person, but I think this is a silly argument. Bullets are essentially amoral, they are just bits of metal; but it matters a lot what people do with them. As with money.

It's not an argument, it's a philosophy based on a truism (and posited in reply to the context of the preceding quote). As your bullet analogy demonstrates quite aptly

You may not be aware of this, but an awful lot of 'little people' (like me) who don't have complex tax arrangements and accounts in BVI and Delaware, who have paid every penny of PAYE and NI due over decades of working get really, really angry knowing that there are other people who use very complex arrangements to pay less than we do, despite having a lot, lot more money than we do, and then take the attitude that 'so what, it's legal'

I'm well aware, Bob.

 

The thing is, in keeping with the above 'philosophy', and as I am not in any position of power or authority, little insignificant me here chooses not to get "really, really angry" but, instead, to get even. By denying such people my business (Google, Amazon, Starbucks, etc.), or my services (never knowingly helping tax avoiding or evading assistance requests) or following in their trailblazing ways (all 3 really), situation- and context-dependent.

Edited April 5, 2016 by L00b

[ez8004]

better still why didn't the gov do away with zhc they are a blight on the working man/woman. have you tried to get a mortgage/rent a house/get a loan on a zhc contract (no) because no one will touch you. have you seen the adverts on here from people renting their houses out I bet you there isn't one who rents out to a zhc worker:roll:

 

But you can rent to someone with zero hour contracts. It is just that if they don't have proof of regular income, they need to pay six months rent upfront. Seen it done before.