Boris Becker jailed for trying to hide assets following bankrupcy

A little off topic but another illustration of how the system works for the rich.  It really is worth giving the Public Accounts Committee a read.

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers have provided the government with expert accountants to draw up tax laws. But the firms went on to advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write, the public accounts committee (PAC) found.

Which again backs up what my ex said about the big accountancy firms.

Though we know from the Russian Oligarchs fiasco how blind eyes have been turned, with politicians and other members of the establishment in cahoots with each other.. Private Eye must be lapping it all up.  

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Jerome Razoir said

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Carlos Tax avoidance was a crime in the 70s, prople went to prison for it. The Tories under Thatcher made it legimate. It is still technically a crime but the HMRC don’t act Upon it.

Just so we know what we are talking about, avoidance is not using legal forms of tax efficiency but using tax law in a way it wasn’t intended. The first accountants to do this were the accountats of the Beatles and they ended up in prison. This is why the Stones ended up im France in tax exile because was the only way to avoid tax.

Osborne in the 10s then effectively gave tax evaders amnesties and sweetheart deals claiming HMRC would get more money that way. Other European countries prosecute and imprison tax evaders, the UK treats it as less than a parking fine. It’s like complimenting thieves on their thievery.

An ordinary person diddling the state of a few hundred quid would have their faces hit the back wall of a prison cell. Rob the state of millions and you are a hero. It’s no wonder this government flaunts its corruption and seems rather proud of it.

Edited by K-arl

Sorry but you are completely wrong.  I am legally trained (so in this case IAAL!) and am a Chartered Accountant.  Tax AVOIDANCE has never, repeat never, been a criminal offence.  As I have already said TAX EVASION is the criminal act, always has been always will be.

Successive governments….not just the Tories (though your obvious prejudices might think wrongly differently) but Labour as well have changed the tax rules over years allowing or preventing avoidance (ie legal) schemes and making or stopping certain others being regarded as evasion (ie illegal).  This is the LAW….and I have spent my career dealing with it.

If you are talking about morality then that is different.  I may agree with you that certain perfectly legal avoidance schemes should be made illegal, but while the law is as it is they are not.  You may believe that certain illegal evasion schemes should be punished more severely, and I might agree with you but the law is the law.

Anyway why do you care, you live in Netherlands, where I’m sure have their fair share of tax avoiders and evaders but in different ways?  Maybe you should focus on your governments foibles…..eh?

Edited by Carlos

I am not wrong. My wife was a personal wealth accountant at E&Y in the City of London for part of her 20 year employment and she worked in a team for seriously rich of the time. But we can be pedantic about it, various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, all of which could, if HMRC desired, end up in prosecutions. Since the 80s there has been a convention that many forms of tax avoidance won't be pursued. However, when Arthur Andersen went down all the large accountant companies were in fear because of there but for the grace of good. They expected the government to start imposing laws that were by convention ignored. 

I am sure the courts didn't send accountants to prison in the 70s for none tax avoidance.

Edited by K-arl

You really do need to read more carefully.

The aamout of nosense in this post that appears to be down to sloppy readin (or sloppy understanding?)is staggering.

" various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, " NO. If it is AVOIDANCE IT IS LAWFUL. IF IT IS UNLAWFUL IT IS EVASION.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I do broadly agree that Thatcher has a lot to answer for, her "Greed is good" attitude was an attack on decency but she is certainly not alone in tweaking the law to suit the rich.

I had to shoot off to deal family matters but this puts the point I was making succinctly.  Is tax avoidance legal.  

Let me quote. In 2013, a senior official at a Big Four accounting firm testified to the UK’s Public Accounts Committee, a government watchdog, that they would sell tax schemes, ie tax “avoidance” structures, to clients even if they thought there was only a 25 per cent chance they would survive a court challenge.

This quote is exactly what I said my wife was saying and she worked for one of the big four, E&Y to be exact and she said a lot of avoidance borders on illegal and probably is illegal. 

Boy you still don’t get it do you.  You are proving my point.  (Oh, and by the way I was a Principal in a ‘big Four’ practice when they were the ‘big eight’ and so made decisions concerning just these points.)

Our tax department would create and sell avoidance schemes that in their view were completely legal, because that is what avoidance is ….COMPLETELY LEGAL.  They would however point out to clients that this was our interpretation only and that the Revenue might take a completely different view.  They would also point out that should that be the case there would be a Revenue challenge which we would fight.  If we win the challenge the avoidance scheme stays exactly what it is….a tax avoidance scheme and COMPLETELY LEGAL.  If we lose the client must be clear that the scheme ceases immediately to be tax avoidance and becomes TAX EVASION as the scheme is now ILLEGAL.

There is no such thing as an illegal tax avoidance scheme.  If any scheme which started out as an attempt at avoidance is found to be illegal it is tax evasion ….QED.

I'm not talking about your tax department. I'm talking about the top four accountancy firms, as mentioned in the Parliamentary report!  One my ex wife used to work for, E&Y and she said, (if you reread what I wrote she said in the thread) what the Big Four accountancy official said in the parliamentary report, not everything they do is known to be legal and is probably illegal but because it's not tested in court by HMRC, they do it. In the 90s and 00s HMRC were notorious about sweetheart deals and this was seen as HMRC giving tax firms a nod and a wink. Don't flag something by asking if something is legal was the culture. This was why when Arthur Andersen went down (for other reasons with ENRON) the large accountancy firms were crapping themselves. I suggest you read the parliamentary report.

 

Edited by K-arl

OFF sake.  F the parliamentary report.  Anyone who knows anything about the accountancy profession knows that the firms have always been known as the ‘big x’.  In my day there were 8: PriceWaterhouse, Coopers Lybrand, Ernsts, Arthur Young McLelland Moores, Deloittes, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, Anderson’s (they always paid top dollar for recruits), and another I forget.  With mergers you get the big 4: PwC, E&Y, Deloittes, KPMG….always the also-ran of the group.  My tax department was in won of the firms of the big 8 that went in to the big 4 so my comments are completely relevant,

None of what you have said above contradicts the point I have been making all along but you seen to be too dense to take on board.  Tax avoidance schemes always take tax law to the wire….otherwise why do them..they are costly and complicated and take mega brains to work out.  So by definition (QED) they may well step over the line into illegality.  But at that point they cease to be avoidance they become evasion.  So they start out as a ‘to get tested’ avoidance scheme and legal.  Once tested and found wanting they are NOT an illegal avoidance scheme…they are an evasion scheme and as such inherently illegal.

In the UK - unlike (say) Germany - something is legal until it is ruled illegal.  For gawd’s sake that’s how accountancy firms make their money….testing the tax laws to their clients benefit.  Devising something and offering it to your client while knowing that there is a chance that it might turn out to be illegal - if challenged - is what accountancy firms do day in day out - it’s their job description.  They are there to test the boundaries of the law and the Revenues to re-enforce those boundaries.  You may not like it but it is how the world turns.  In (say) Germany for example this would not be the case as everything is illegal unless it is explicitly stated to be legal.  You don’t live in Germany do you? That would explain your obvious deep confusion.

As to sweetheart deals I don’t like them any more than you do but they are a Government (of any hue) and HMRC issue not one of accountancy.

Finally on Anderson’s you really shouldn’t talk about things you know nothing about.  Everyone in the profession knew they were building to a spectacular fall….but their avoidance schemes were not a major part of it so not relevant to this discussion….if that’s what teaching you tax law is.

K-arl said

A little off topic but another illustration of how the system works for the rich.  It really is worth giving the Public Accounts Committee a read.

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers have provided the government with expert accountants to draw up tax laws. But the firms went on to advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write, the public accounts committee (PAC) found.

Which again backs up what my ex said about the big accountancy firms.

Though we know from the Russian Oligarchs fiasco how blind eyes have been turned, with politicians and other members of the establishment in cahoots with each other.. Private Eye must be lapping it all up.  

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Gamekeepers always have become poachers in every profession.  Public prosecutors become high priced defence lawyers, high flyer civil servants become high priced lobbyists, high priced lobbyists become SpAds, Ministers become PLC Board members and PLC Board Members become Ministers.  Experts are not mono-dimensional.  When as I did, you work intensely on one side of the fence, to be effective you have to understand how the other side works and..you hope..fails.  If you should be interested and approached to go to the other side (I was but actual party politics was never my thing, I was business through and through) you are all geared up to screw them with all the tactics you learnt on the other side.

This is not just about ‘the rich’…it happens in all walks of life.  The ex-planning department guy working for an architect.  The ex-social worker helping a parent get custody of her children.  The ex-traffic warden helping motorists appeal their tickets….and so on and so on.

Even if the big four had not seconded their guys and gals to help write the tax laws (completely different people from those simultaneously trying to bust them btw) IT IS IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION TO FIND AND EXPLOIT LOOPHOLES IN NEW TAX LEGISLATION WHOMSOEVER WROTE THE BLOODY STUFF…THATS WHAT THEY DO!  I’ve never been a fan of the PAC especially under the sainted Margaret but in this case it seems that they spent the proverbial “2 years and £200k to find their way to the nearest brothel”.  I can’t believe this is what we pay our taxes for.  Give me strength.

Carlos said

K-arl said

A little off topic but another illustration of how the system works for the rich.  It really is worth giving the Public Accounts Committee a read.

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers have provided the government with expert accountants to draw up tax laws. But the firms went on to advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write, the public accounts committee (PAC) found.

Which again backs up what my ex said about the big accountancy firms.

Though we know from the Russian Oligarchs fiasco how blind eyes have been turned, with politicians and other members of the establishment in cahoots with each other.. Private Eye must be lapping it all up.  

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Gamekeepers always have become poachers in every profession.  Public prosecutors become high priced defence lawyers, high flyer civil servants become high priced lobbyists, high priced lobbyists become SpAds, Ministers become PLC Board members and PLC Board Members become Ministers.  Experts are not mono-dimensional.  When as I did, you work intensely on one side of the fence, to be effective you have to understand how the other side works and..you hope..fails.  If you should be interested and approached to go to the other side (I was but actual party politics was never my thing, I was business through and through) you are all geared up to screw them with all the tactics you learnt on the other side.

This is not just about ‘the rich’…it happens in all walks of life.  The ex-planning department guy working for an architect.  The ex-social worker helping a parent get custody of her children.  The ex-traffic warden helping motorists appeal their tickets….and so on and so on.

Even if the big four had not seconded their guys and gals to help write the tax laws (completely different people from those simultaneously trying to bust them btw) IT IS IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION TO FIND AND EXPLOIT LOOPHOLES IN NEW TAX LEGISLATION WHOMSOEVER WROTE THE BLOODY STUFF…THATS WHAT THEY DO!  I’ve never been a fan of the PAC especially under the sainted Margaret but in this case it seems that they spent the proverbial “2 years and £200k to find their way to the nearest brothel”.  I can’t believe this is what we pay our taxes for.  Give me strength.

It shows governments turn blind eyes. We all know about the revolving door and how the rich and politicians use it with impunity. As I said at the beginning, one law for the rich, another for the poor. 

Edited by K-arl

Carlos said

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Jerome Razoir said

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Carlos Tax avoidance was a crime in the 70s, prople went to prison for it. The Tories under Thatcher made it legimate. It is still technically a crime but the HMRC don’t act Upon it.

Just so we know what we are talking about, avoidance is not using legal forms of tax efficiency but using tax law in a way it wasn’t intended. The first accountants to do this were the accountats of the Beatles and they ended up in prison. This is why the Stones ended up im France in tax exile because was the only way to avoid tax.

Osborne in the 10s then effectively gave tax evaders amnesties and sweetheart deals claiming HMRC would get more money that way. Other European countries prosecute and imprison tax evaders, the UK treats it as less than a parking fine. It’s like complimenting thieves on their thievery.

An ordinary person diddling the state of a few hundred quid would have their faces hit the back wall of a prison cell. Rob the state of millions and you are a hero. It’s no wonder this government flaunts its corruption and seems rather proud of it.

Edited by K-arl

Sorry but you are completely wrong.  I am legally trained (so in this case IAAL!) and am a Chartered Accountant.  Tax AVOIDANCE has never, repeat never, been a criminal offence.  As I have already said TAX EVASION is the criminal act, always has been always will be.

Successive governments….not just the Tories (though your obvious prejudices might think wrongly differently) but Labour as well have changed the tax rules over years allowing or preventing avoidance (ie legal) schemes and making or stopping certain others being regarded as evasion (ie illegal).  This is the LAW….and I have spent my career dealing with it.

If you are talking about morality then that is different.  I may agree with you that certain perfectly legal avoidance schemes should be made illegal, but while the law is as it is they are not.  You may believe that certain illegal evasion schemes should be punished more severely, and I might agree with you but the law is the law.

Anyway why do you care, you live in Netherlands, where I’m sure have their fair share of tax avoiders and evaders but in different ways?  Maybe you should focus on your governments foibles…..eh?

Edited by Carlos

I am not wrong. My wife was a personal wealth accountant at E&Y in the City of London for part of her 20 year employment and she worked in a team for seriously rich of the time. But we can be pedantic about it, various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, all of which could, if HMRC desired, end up in prosecutions. Since the 80s there has been a convention that many forms of tax avoidance won't be pursued. However, when Arthur Andersen went down all the large accountant companies were in fear because of there but for the grace of good. They expected the government to start imposing laws that were by convention ignored. 

I am sure the courts didn't send accountants to prison in the 70s for none tax avoidance.

Edited by K-arl

You really do need to read more carefully.

The aamout of nosense in this post that appears to be down to sloppy readin (or sloppy understanding?)is staggering.

" various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, " NO. If it is AVOIDANCE IT IS LAWFUL. IF IT IS UNLAWFUL IT IS EVASION.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I do broadly agree that Thatcher has a lot to answer for, her "Greed is good" attitude was an attack on decency but she is certainly not alone in tweaking the law to suit the rich.

I had to shoot off to deal family matters but this puts the point I was making succinctly.  Is tax avoidance legal.  

Let me quote. In 2013, a senior official at a Big Four accounting firm testified to the UK’s Public Accounts Committee, a government watchdog, that they would sell tax schemes, ie tax “avoidance” structures, to clients even if they thought there was only a 25 per cent chance they would survive a court challenge.

This quote is exactly what I said my wife was saying and she worked for one of the big four, E&Y to be exact and she said a lot of avoidance borders on illegal and probably is illegal. 

Boy you still don’t get it do you.  You are proving my point.  (Oh, and by the way I was a Principal in a ‘big Four’ practice when they were the ‘big eight’ and so made decisions concerning just these points.)

Our tax department would create and sell avoidance schemes that in their view were completely legal, because that is what avoidance is ….COMPLETELY LEGAL.  They would however point out to clients that this was our interpretation only and that the Revenue might take a completely different view.  They would also point out that should that be the case there would be a Revenue challenge which we would fight.  If we win the challenge the avoidance scheme stays exactly what it is….a tax avoidance scheme and COMPLETELY LEGAL.  If we lose the client must be clear that the scheme ceases immediately to be tax avoidance and becomes TAX EVASION as the scheme is now ILLEGAL.

There is no such thing as an illegal tax avoidance scheme.  If any scheme which started out as an attempt at avoidance is found to be illegal it is tax evasion ….QED.

I'm not talking about your tax department. I'm talking about the top four accountancy firms, as mentioned in the Parliamentary report!  One my ex wife used to work for, E&Y and she said, (if you reread what I wrote she said in the thread) what the Big Four accountancy official said in the parliamentary report, not everything they do is known to be legal and is probably illegal but because it's not tested in court by HMRC, they do it. In the 90s and 00s HMRC were notorious about sweetheart deals and this was seen as HMRC giving tax firms a nod and a wink. Don't flag something by asking if something is legal was the culture. This was why when Arthur Andersen went down (for other reasons with ENRON) the large accountancy firms were crapping themselves. I suggest you read the parliamentary report.

 

Edited by K-arl

OFF sake.  F the parliamentary report.  Anyone who knows anything about the accountancy profession knows that the firms have always been known as the ‘big x’.  In my day there were 8: PriceWaterhouse, Coopers Lybrand, Ernsts, Arthur Young McLelland Moores, Deloittes, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, Anderson’s (they always paid top dollar for recruits), and another I forget.  With mergers you get the big 4: PwC, E&Y, Deloittes, KPMG….always the also-ran of the group.  My tax department was in won of the firms of the big 8 that went in to the big 4 so my comments are completely relevant,

None of what you have said above contradicts the point I have been making all along but you seen to be too dense to take on board.  Tax avoidance schemes always take tax law to the wire….otherwise why do them..they are costly and complicated and take mega brains to work out.  So by definition (QED) they may well step over the line into illegality.  But at that point they cease to be avoidance they become evasion.  So they start out as a ‘to get tested’ avoidance scheme and legal.  Once tested and found wanting they are NOT an illegal avoidance scheme…they are an evasion scheme and as such inherently illegal.

In the UK - unlike (say) Germany - something is legal until it is ruled illegal.  For gawd’s sake that’s how accountancy firms make their money….testing the tax laws to their clients benefit.  Devising something and offering it to your client while knowing that there is a chance that it might turn out to be illegal - if challenged - is what accountancy firms do day in day out - it’s their job description.  They are there to test the boundaries of the law and the Revenues to re-enforce those boundaries.  You may not like it but it is how the world turns.  In (say) Germany for example this would not be the case as everything is illegal unless it is explicitly stated to be legal.  You don’t live in Germany do you? That would explain your obvious deep confusion.

As to sweetheart deals I don’t like them any more than you do but they are a Government (of any hue) and HMRC issue not one of accountancy.

Finally on Anderson’s you really shouldn’t talk about things you know nothing about.  Everyone in the profession knew they were building to a spectacular fall….but their avoidance schemes were not a major part of it so not relevant to this discussion….if that’s what teaching you tax law is.

So you admit I'm right, you are just rationalising. Thank you. No one was talking about your department, only you were. You said what my ex wife said was wrong but what was said to the parliamentary committee shows what she said was the truth. The big four sale close to the wind and in their own words are probably selling illegal packages in tax avoidance, which is what I said way up the thread.

My simple point at the beginning of the thread was that there was one rule for the rich and one for everyone else and now Boris Becker is just one of the crowd and has to pay accordingly. Not many rich criminals end up in prison, possible in the US, even Germany and France, highly unlikely in the UK.

I WAS MAKING A SIMPLE POINT BEFORE IT GOT TAKEN AROUND THE HOUSES AND ON THAT SIMPLE POINT I AM 100% RIGHT.

Edited by K-arl

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Jerome Razoir said

K-arl said

Carlos said

K-arl said

Carlos Tax avoidance was a crime in the 70s, prople went to prison for it. The Tories under Thatcher made it legimate. It is still technically a crime but the HMRC don’t act Upon it.

Just so we know what we are talking about, avoidance is not using legal forms of tax efficiency but using tax law in a way it wasn’t intended. The first accountants to do this were the accountats of the Beatles and they ended up in prison. This is why the Stones ended up im France in tax exile because was the only way to avoid tax.

Osborne in the 10s then effectively gave tax evaders amnesties and sweetheart deals claiming HMRC would get more money that way. Other European countries prosecute and imprison tax evaders, the UK treats it as less than a parking fine. It’s like complimenting thieves on their thievery.

An ordinary person diddling the state of a few hundred quid would have their faces hit the back wall of a prison cell. Rob the state of millions and you are a hero. It’s no wonder this government flaunts its corruption and seems rather proud of it.

Edited by K-arl

Sorry but you are completely wrong.  I am legally trained (so in this case IAAL!) and am a Chartered Accountant.  Tax AVOIDANCE has never, repeat never, been a criminal offence.  As I have already said TAX EVASION is the criminal act, always has been always will be.

Successive governments….not just the Tories (though your obvious prejudices might think wrongly differently) but Labour as well have changed the tax rules over years allowing or preventing avoidance (ie legal) schemes and making or stopping certain others being regarded as evasion (ie illegal).  This is the LAW….and I have spent my career dealing with it.

If you are talking about morality then that is different.  I may agree with you that certain perfectly legal avoidance schemes should be made illegal, but while the law is as it is they are not.  You may believe that certain illegal evasion schemes should be punished more severely, and I might agree with you but the law is the law.

Anyway why do you care, you live in Netherlands, where I’m sure have their fair share of tax avoiders and evaders but in different ways?  Maybe you should focus on your governments foibles…..eh?

Edited by Carlos

I am not wrong. My wife was a personal wealth accountant at E&Y in the City of London for part of her 20 year employment and she worked in a team for seriously rich of the time. But we can be pedantic about it, various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, all of which could, if HMRC desired, end up in prosecutions. Since the 80s there has been a convention that many forms of tax avoidance won't be pursued. However, when Arthur Andersen went down all the large accountant companies were in fear because of there but for the grace of good. They expected the government to start imposing laws that were by convention ignored. 

I am sure the courts didn't send accountants to prison in the 70s for none tax avoidance.

Edited by K-arl

You really do need to read more carefully.

The aamout of nosense in this post that appears to be down to sloppy readin (or sloppy understanding?)is staggering.

" various forms of tax avoidance breaks various laws, " NO. If it is AVOIDANCE IT IS LAWFUL. IF IT IS UNLAWFUL IT IS EVASION.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I do broadly agree that Thatcher has a lot to answer for, her "Greed is good" attitude was an attack on decency but she is certainly not alone in tweaking the law to suit the rich.

I had to shoot off to deal family matters but this puts the point I was making succinctly.  Is tax avoidance legal.  

Let me quote. In 2013, a senior official at a Big Four accounting firm testified to the UK’s Public Accounts Committee, a government watchdog, that they would sell tax schemes, ie tax “avoidance” structures, to clients even if they thought there was only a 25 per cent chance they would survive a court challenge.

This quote is exactly what I said my wife was saying and she worked for one of the big four, E&Y to be exact and she said a lot of avoidance borders on illegal and probably is illegal. 

Boy you still don’t get it do you.  You are proving my point.  (Oh, and by the way I was a Principal in a ‘big Four’ practice when they were the ‘big eight’ and so made decisions concerning just these points.)

Our tax department would create and sell avoidance schemes that in their view were completely legal, because that is what avoidance is ….COMPLETELY LEGAL.  They would however point out to clients that this was our interpretation only and that the Revenue might take a completely different view.  They would also point out that should that be the case there would be a Revenue challenge which we would fight.  If we win the challenge the avoidance scheme stays exactly what it is….a tax avoidance scheme and COMPLETELY LEGAL.  If we lose the client must be clear that the scheme ceases immediately to be tax avoidance and becomes TAX EVASION as the scheme is now ILLEGAL.

There is no such thing as an illegal tax avoidance scheme.  If any scheme which started out as an attempt at avoidance is found to be illegal it is tax evasion ….QED.

I'm not talking about your tax department. I'm talking about the top four accountancy firms, as mentioned in the Parliamentary report!  One my ex wife used to work for, E&Y and she said, (if you reread what I wrote she said in the thread) what the Big Four accountancy official said in the parliamentary report, not everything they do is known to be legal and is probably illegal but because it's not tested in court by HMRC, they do it. In the 90s and 00s HMRC were notorious about sweetheart deals and this was seen as HMRC giving tax firms a nod and a wink. Don't flag something by asking if something is legal was the culture. This was why when Arthur Andersen went down (for other reasons with ENRON) the large accountancy firms were crapping themselves. I suggest you read the parliamentary report.

 

Edited by K-arl

OFF sake.  F the parliamentary report.  Anyone who knows anything about the accountancy profession knows that the firms have always been known as the ‘big x’.  In my day there were 8: PriceWaterhouse, Coopers Lybrand, Ernsts, Arthur Young McLelland Moores, Deloittes, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, Anderson’s (they always paid top dollar for recruits), and another I forget.  With mergers you get the big 4: PwC, E&Y, Deloittes, KPMG….always the also-ran of the group.  My tax department was in won of the firms of the big 8 that went in to the big 4 so my comments are completely relevant,

None of what you have said above contradicts the point I have been making all along but you seen to be too dense to take on board.  Tax avoidance schemes always take tax law to the wire….otherwise why do them..they are costly and complicated and take mega brains to work out.  So by definition (QED) they may well step over the line into illegality.  But at that point they cease to be avoidance they become evasion.  So they start out as a ‘to get tested’ avoidance scheme and legal.  Once tested and found wanting they are NOT an illegal avoidance scheme…they are an evasion scheme and as such inherently illegal.

In the UK - unlike (say) Germany - something is legal until it is ruled illegal.  For gawd’s sake that’s how accountancy firms make their money….testing the tax laws to their clients benefit.  Devising something and offering it to your client while knowing that there is a chance that it might turn out to be illegal - if challenged - is what accountancy firms do day in day out - it’s their job description.  They are there to test the boundaries of the law and the Revenues to re-enforce those boundaries.  You may not like it but it is how the world turns.  In (say) Germany for example this would not be the case as everything is illegal unless it is explicitly stated to be legal.  You don’t live in Germany do you? That would explain your obvious deep confusion.

As to sweetheart deals I don’t like them any more than you do but they are a Government (of any hue) and HMRC issue not one of accountancy.

Finally on Anderson’s you really shouldn’t talk about things you know nothing about.  Everyone in the profession knew they were building to a spectacular fall….but their avoidance schemes were not a major part of it so not relevant to this discussion….if that’s what teaching you tax law is.

So you admit I'm right, you are just rationalising. Thank you. No one was talking about your department, only you were. You said what my ex wife said was wrong but what was said to the parliamentary committee shows what she said was the truth. The big four sale close to the wind and in their own words are probably selling illegal packages in tax avoidance, which is what I said way up the thread.

My simple point at the beginning of the thread was that there was one rule for the rich and one for everyone else and now Boris Becker is just one of the crowd and has to pay accordingly. Not many rich criminals end up in prison, possible in the US, even Germany and France, highly unlikely in the UK.

I WAS MAKING A SIMPLE POINT BEFORE IT GOT TAKEN AROUND THE HOUSES AND ON THAT SIMPLE POINT I AM 100% RIGHT.

 

Edited by K-arl

What happened to the very rich people I locked up?
Were they holograms of themselves or clones?

I spent eighten and a half years in HM Prison service and I locked up quite few millionaires.
Generally very pissed off when they find they have to clean their cell themselves and can only get a job as a lavatory cleaner.

ALSO, you really do need to learn to read with more care. You tell another poster that you are not interested in "his tax department" because you are talking about the "big 4" when he tells you in the post you are rejecting that he was working for one of them.

He also makes the difference between avoidance and evasion very clear. A muppet could understand it.

A is lawful.

E is criminal.

After testing in court a specific exampe of A MIGHT become E.

As MOST English law is not retrospective, the revenue would have a job prosecuting for what was done before the ruling made the activity unlawful but would have no problem if the practise was continued.

Ah - I wondered why this thread was still going.  Another for the pointless bickering group ...  :-(

Jerome Razoir .  Thanks again for confirming that I was framing my arguments correctly.  I hate to let him get away with his nonsense, but I have to give up now for my own sanity.  Apologies.

Gothic Image said

Ah - I wondered why this thread was still going.  Another for the pointless bickering group ...  :-(

You have my sympathy amd apolgies for my partin it all.

I will say, however, that when some one asserts that the moon is green, it is very difficult not to try and correct them!