Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal. Its only social justice warriors like you with their pitchforks that want to stretch the law to what they personally don't approve of.. unless we are talking about tax arrangements of prominent left wing donors, causes or newspapers which are apparently different.
Social justice warriors like Cameron ("cutting down on avoidance is one of the UK's priorities")?
or Osborne? (“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.")
There's cross-party consensus about roughly what avoidance is, about the fact that it's legal, and the desire to attack it. Cameron at PMQs this week, with some justification, attacked Labour for being softer on avoidance than the current government.
....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?
Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal.
Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.
And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.
A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.
Morning all.
A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.
oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.
IMO there are only two ways to reduce your tax bill, lawfully, and unlawfully, there shouldn't be any middle ground, the fact that there is, is because politicians are too lazy to frame laws with clear boundaries and amend laws to remove inadvertent loopholes, because the whole thing is monstrously too complicated, and because HMRC are incentivized on revenue collection so its in their interests to try and push the boundaries of what the law lets you get away towards the minimum possible.
Quite agree wrt to complexity; I could be wrong, but I don’t think it is entirely down to ‘laziness’ however – for parliament to enact Tax laws that cover every conceivable eventually, would be just too cumbersome, time consuming and probably self-defeating. – Keep it simple, then tidy up any glaring loop holes later.
If a certain G Brown Esq didn't spend years churning out Finance Acts with over a 1000 pages in it we might be in a better place. Endless wheezes by Chancellors trying to social engineer, or raise taxes without looking like they are raising taxes, and trying to target very small groups for tax rises in the hopes of not pissing off too many voters has left us with a monstrously complicated tax system that is so hard to understand that even HMRC fail to produce an accurate assessment.
Tax authorities around the world tend to split into two groups when it comes to acting against extreme tax avoidance.
The 'sniper' approach attempts to pick off individual unwelcome practices through specific, detailed legislation. The 'blunderbuss' approach simply asserts that if the Government doesn't like it, it's out. The 'Government' in such cases tends to be an Anti-Avoidance Unit that rules on a pretty ad hoc basis.
Brown was a sniper, hence the length of his Finance Acts.
Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal. Its only social justice warriors like you with their pitchforks that want to stretch the law to what they personally don't approve of.. unless we are talking about tax arrangements of prominent left wing donors, causes or newspapers which are apparently different.
Social justice warriors like Cameron ("cutting down on avoidance is one of the UK's priorities")?
or Osborne? (“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.")
There's cross-party consensus about roughly what avoidance is, about the fact that it's legal, and the desire to attack it. Cameron at PMQs this week, with some justification, attacked Labour for being softer on avoidance than the current government.
Indeed. When they change the law so it is unlawful then people should stop doing it, until then people should be entitle to do what the law permits without a lot of judgemental teeth sucking. Its pretty unedifying to stand there scowling at people for making arrangements the law permits whilst doing nothing of substance about it. I think you are optimistic about the consensus, Labour did damn all about most of these sorts of arrangements while they were in office last time.
Teflon Ed will be just fine I think. The public seem quite receptive to people avoiding inheritance tax - that's presumably why Dave and George focused on it. Don't people remember George's 'masterstroke' in 2007, the moment he destroyed Gordon's election that wasn't? At the same time look at the opprobrium that was poured on Jimmy Carr for his unusual tax arrangements.
Like it or not, fair or inconsistent, it is fairly clear where the British public stand on tax avoidance. Ed could be playing a dangerous game but he's on solid ground right now. I suspect the attack in The Mail will be about as successful as their one on the Thornberry set last year.
The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
This is what the Labour Party said in 1994
"It is not the very wealthy who pay most of the Inheritance Tax, they are very effective at exploiting loopholes to avoid it. Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation."
And most GAAR systems include an 'Advance Ruling' procedure. If you are not sure about your proposed scheme, you can submit details to the Authority and if they OK it, you are safe.
This is true enough, but there are limits to the doctrine. The approval is only a matter of evidence in favour of the proposition that the scheme is not abusive (Finance Act 2013, s. 207(5)). It is not determinative of the fact in law. If the approval is flawed in public law, and it is consistent with HMRC's statutory duty of "good management" of the Crown's revenues, there will be nothing stopping the Revenue counteracting a tax advantage under the Finance Act 2013 that it has previously approved (see R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (HL); & R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545 (DC)).
"You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."
One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)
The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.
I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.
Well said. The sad thing is that it apparently needed to be said at all, given how common-sense it is. The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
Who said, "It is not the very wealthy who pay most of the Inheritance Tax, they are very effective at exploiting loopholes to avoid it. Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation."?
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
The taxpayers have won in the court of appeal but hmrc has received consent to appeal to the supreme court.
The tax arrangements in question relate to transactions over 10 years ago, and the legislation has changed since and the planning would not be effective today. Indeed this is an arrangement would be caught by the GAAR if implemented today.
....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?
Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal.
Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.
And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.
Don't look at me. I must be completely unethical by virtue of not paying UK tax on any of my income..... leaving aside the minor detail that I am neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the UK and pay my taxes in a foreign country... rather like Mr Pessina one imagines, only rather less successful!
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
I suggest you you are being entirely and intentionally dim about the subject of hypocrisy. Ed is a hypocrite , pure and simple.
"You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."
One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)
The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.
I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.
Well said. The sad thing is that it apparently needed to be said at all, given how common-sense it is. The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
You mean its nice lefty tax avoidance ? See nice lefty cuts, nice lefty wars, nice lefty dodgy dossiers, nice lefty whistleblower bullying, nice lefty cash for honours etc etc etc..
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
Absolutely, labour's core vote in the industrial heartlands think nothing of executing these Deeds on a weekly basis. I am sure Unite publishes guidance for its members on the correct procedure, along with its guide to the best public schools and where to shoot grouse.
We have all known about Ed the Avoider for ages. Then again, Ratner had been making his "crap" speech for years before it blew up in his face.
I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.
Rather like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean (nothing more, and nothing less)... but that definition would differ from how the government and all major parties, HMRC, and the tax profession would use the term "avoidance". They'd call it legitimate tax planning.
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
Off thread Re 50 shades of Gray.. the Fire brigade are expecting a spike in callouts
Since April 2013 the capital's fire crews have: Attended 28 incidents involving people being trapped in handcuffs Removed 293 rings, including seven from male genitalia Attended other incidents, including releasing men's genitals from toasters or vacuum cleaners
Use silk scarves. The benefits are numerous: can be easily cut through if knots cannot be undone won't damage the skin nearly as much if, er, vigorous activity occurs can be worn as a fashionable accessory quite openly, whereas handcuffs are a bit more conspicuous
Or so I hear.
Also, anyone shoving their todger in a toaster deserves roast nuts.
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
That maybe the case, but since this isn't AccountancyBetting or TaxAdviceBetting, the question is how it will play with the man on the Clapham Omnibus, will he "understand" what EdM has done, will it seem reasonable to him, or will he think its the sort of wheeze those "rich" people get up to, and will they think he is a hypocrite for doing this and then criticising other peoples arrangements.
Dan Hodges..Just to be clear..When Gordon Brown said Deeds of Variation were Tax Abuse..he didn't mean Eds Deed of Variation..just all the others. Sort of sums it up really.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I think you mean "at the time, how much did they think they were saving as a result of this Deed" surely?
Just under £100K according to figures published by The Guardian.
'Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.'
I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.
Rather like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean (nothing more, and nothing less)... but that definition would differ from how the government and all major parties, HMRC, and the tax profession would use the term "avoidance". They'd call it legitimate tax planning.
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
Of course. In the same way that one calls dead civilians collateral damage.
Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.
If it wasn't an artificial method designed to reduce a potential future tax liability, why didn't Mrs Miliband simply make a declaration of trust or an equitable assignment of the beneficial interest she took under the will to the children? That would have been far more mundane, especially as it would not have had to be served on the Board of the Inland Revenue under the Inheritance Act Act 1984, s. 142(2) as the deed of variation had to be? Nor would such a declaration or assignment have had to be made by deed (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 53(1)). Let's face it. This was a legitimate and sensible tax avoidance scheme, which I wouldn't criticise the Miliband's for for a second, but for the Leader of the Opposition's preposterous faux outrage about people doing the same thing.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I think you mean "at the time, how much did they think they were saving as a result of this Deed" surely?
They could not know what they were saving, other than "we might save something."
At the time they saved nothing... Subsequently they have saved nothing... If Mrs Miliband has been well-advised over the past 20 years, they will have saved nothing...
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
That maybe the case, but since this isn't AccountancyBetting or TaxAdviceBetting, the question is how it will play with the man on the Clapham Omnibus, will he "understand" what EdM has done, will it seem reasonable to him, or will he think its the sort of wheeze those "rich" people get up to, and will they think he is a hypocrite for doing this and then criticising other peoples arrangements.
I agree that is the political question.
I think the reminder that he lives in a £2m+ house like the rest of the political elite is more damaging. "Politicians are all the same. That's why I'm voting UKIP/Green or whatever."
The general public are not experts in tax law (and neither am I). When I hear talk about tax avoidance I do not think about things like ISAs, or duty free booze. I think about expensive tax lawyers creating bureaucratic fictions that enable wealthy people to access a different tax system to me, one that bypasses the normal rules on income tax, inheritance tax, etc, that I cannot escape.
The impression has been created that these paper fictions are a way for the wealthy to chest the normal system. What I can't understand is why the public debate is about the morality of using these tax avoidance schemes, rather than simply shutting them down.
Under PAYE the system is pretty simple. Receive an income - then pay tax on it. I don't see why this should be any different if your income is £millions. The same applies for IHT. Seems like the situation now is that if the estate is worth a few hundred thousand you end up paying 40% on the amount over the threshold, but if the estate is worth several million then it ends up in a series of trust funds and no tax at all is paid.
All I want is for everyone to play by the same rules.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
OSM..Could you explain that to the Wedgewood Benns..nowt paid when dear old Wedgie popped off..on a 5 mil estate..Nowt like socialism for the top socialists
Dan Hodges..Just to be clear..When Gordon Brown said Deeds of Variation were Tax Abuse..he didn't mean Eds Deed of Variation..just all the others. Sort of sums it up really.
Indeed. I applaud Ed for signing up to this deed of variation. It's his abusing others for following the same path as him that is so ridiculous.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
Zero.
Lefties deliberately desperately missing the point.... see my more pertinent question... all tax planning is done based on the rules as you know them at the time.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.
As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
Again, from 1994...
Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation.
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
A simple test for Tax Avoidance:
Was the method used created by Parliament ? If YES, then it is NOT Tax Avoidance
A simpler method; 'Did it avoid tax'?
That's not the definition of tax avoidance. There is a definition laid out in law.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
Zero.
Lefties deliberately desperately missing the point.... see my more pertinent question... all tax planning is done based on the rules as you know them at the time.
Yes the hypocrisy is stunning they want a mansion tax on unearned wealth but not a Miliband tax on unearned Miliband houses.
it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.
Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
OSM..Could you explain that to the Wedgewood Benns..nowt paid when dear old Wedgie popped off..on a 5 mil estate..Nowt like socialism for the top socialists
This is precisely the problem. This issue should not have anything to do with individual morality. If everyone has to pay tax under the same rules then morality doesn't come into it - but at the moment the rules appear to be very different on a £5million estate and a £500k estate.
That is what stinks. I note that Labour appear not to be suggesting any remedies to this situation. They're happy to play the morality game because they know the other side has more rich people, and so will come off looking just slightly worse - and that's good enough for them.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.
As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
There are probably thousands of people with questionable tax affairs. One would expect Ed Miliband to focus specifically only on those in the political world. That may include Labour MPs or donors. His brother's affairs are no more a political matter than Cameron's brother.
it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.
Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
I think you need to speak to an IFA old fruit....
Are you suggesting I ask my boss to pay my salary to a company in Bermuda, and then take a loan on this money to myself ?
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
40% of whatever the nil rate threshold will be on his mother's death (the current saving would be £130,000).
There is nothing at all unethical about this arrangement.
That assumes his Mother will let Ed or ED and David inherit the property. Too many assumptions are being made here.
Even if she doesn't there's still a big future tax saving.
No there's not. She sold it to DavidM a few years back and Ed paid CGT on his share of the money.
When Mrs. Milliband dies, the sum that was the subject of the D o V won't be subject to IHT. I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
How many people does his firm employ in the Uk - would you prefer it if they moved their HQ elsewhere ?
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
How many people does his firm employ in the Uk - would you prefer it if they moved their HQ elsewhere ?
Boots customers going to run off somewhere are they?
it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.
Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
I interpret those schemes as aggressive tax avoidance and would never touch them. GAAR helps on this... unless the claim is now that tax avoidance is as illegal as tax evasion and thus the same word could be used for both? Is that the claim?
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.
As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
You give the Tory leadership too much credit. They should have kept the 50% income tax and raised IHT allowance, they did the opposite.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
40% of whatever the nil rate threshold will be on his mother's death (the current saving would be £130,000).
That's not accurate. If they had not executed the DOV, the Finance Act 2008 would ride to the rescue.
There is only one notional saving, in fact, although it is remote.
The nil-rate band has not kept pace with inflation, and certainly not with London house-price inflation.
Therefore, by removing shares in the property in 1994 from the scope of IHT, their position is more favourable now than it would be by simply using two nil rate bands under the provisions of the FA 2008.
But
i) they could not have known that in 1994 ii) all these pseudo calculations are based on the assumption that Mrs Miliband has done nothing to further mitigate her liability.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.
Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
Is this attack on foreigners and citizens having the temerity to work abroad a feeble attempt by the left to shore up the Kipper vote ?
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
I think you need to speak to an IFA old fruit....
Are you suggesting I ask my boss to pay my salary to a company in Bermuda, and then take a loan on this money to myself ?
I'm suggesting for example if any relatives have an IHT problem, perhaps they might like to pay in to a pension for you .... if you are in the £50k to £60k income bracket & also losing child benefit, then that's a very nice bit of tax planning.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
How many people does his firm employ in the Uk - would you prefer it if they moved their HQ elsewhere ?
Boots customers going to run off somewhere are they?
They could all go to Superdrug (Ultimate owners Hutchison Whampoa, headquartered in Hong Kong).
Out there a few thousand Mail readers are scratching their heads thinking:
"I signed a deed of variation the other day. Just wanted to tie up loose ends from a dearly departed loved one's will. Didn't know I was a major hypocrite indulging in high flying tax avoidance."
(Don't worry you're not - the Mail and all the other Tories dragging this up are just smarting from the drubbing they got yesterday after Fink backed down and are flinging mud all over the place in the hope some if it sticks).
"How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?"
A very strange tactic from the Tories. The public don't believe Ed to be a tax avoider. So there is no narrative to build on. By contrast the the Tories and their supporters at the Mail are believed to be unscrupulous mud slingers and this actually builds on the narrative.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
40% of whatever the nil rate threshold will be on his mother's death (the current saving would be £130,000).
There is nothing at all unethical about this arrangement.
That assumes his Mother will let Ed or ED and David inherit the property. Too many assumptions are being made here.
Even if she doesn't there's still a big future tax saving.
No there's not. She sold it to DavidM a few years back and Ed paid CGT on his share of the money.
When Mrs. Milliband dies, the sum that was the subject of the D o V won't be subject to IHT. I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
I think you need to speak to an IFA old fruit....
Are you suggesting I ask my boss to pay my salary to a company in Bermuda, and then take a loan on this money to myself ?
I'm suggesting for example if any relatives have an IHT problem, perhaps they might like to pay in to a pension for you .... if you are in the £50k to £60k income bracket & also losing child benefit, then that's a very nice bit of tax planning.
Not in that income bracket and no kids, my tax affairs are about as simple as can be tbh
I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.
And everyone agrees with you. Except Ed.
That is dynamite. I cannot believe that Ed has said that deeds of variation are disreputable tax avoidance schemes that should not be allowed or indulged in. Blimey - do you have the link?
it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.
Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
I interpret those schemes as aggressive tax avoidance and would never touch them. GAAR helps on this... unless the claim is now that tax avoidance is as illegal as tax evasion and thus the same word could be used for both? Is that the claim?
Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
Government policy will have no impact on his business in the UK? Not sure many people would agree with you.
That is dynamite. I cannot believe that Ed has said that deeds of variation are disreputable tax avoidance schemes that should not be allowed or indulged in. Blimey - do you have the link?
Gordon Brown said that, but that's not what I said.
Ed doesn't agree he engaged in legitimate tax avoidance.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it. b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
I think you need to speak to an IFA old fruit....
Are you suggesting I ask my boss to pay my salary to a company in Bermuda, and then take a loan on this money to myself ?
I'm suggesting for example if any relatives have an IHT problem, perhaps they might like to pay in to a pension for you .... if you are in the £50k to £60k income bracket & also losing child benefit, then that's a very nice bit of tax planning.
Not in that income bracket and no kids, my tax affairs are about as simple as can be tbh
No rich rellies with IHT problems as it still works even in your 'simple' position?
So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.
Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
Is this attack on foreigners and citizens having the temerity to work abroad a feeble attempt by the left to shore up the Kipper vote ?
Possibly. Still fun to watch them twisting themselves in more knots than a barrel full of angry pythons.
The next challenge is to ask them to examine the morality of John Mills share donation to Labour, and the structure that Party advisers knocked up to save him £1.5 million.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21176992
or Osborne? (“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.")
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9194558/George-Osborne-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html
There's cross-party consensus about roughly what avoidance is, about the fact that it's legal, and the desire to attack it. Cameron at PMQs this week, with some justification, attacked Labour for being softer on avoidance than the current government.
And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.
The 'sniper' approach attempts to pick off individual unwelcome practices through specific, detailed legislation. The 'blunderbuss' approach simply asserts that if the Government doesn't like it, it's out. The 'Government' in such cases tends to be an Anti-Avoidance Unit that rules on a pretty ad hoc basis.
Brown was a sniper, hence the length of his Finance Acts.
Like it or not, fair or inconsistent, it is fairly clear where the British public stand on tax avoidance. Ed could be playing a dangerous game but he's on solid ground right now. I suspect the attack in The Mail will be about as successful as their one on the Thornberry set last year.
Interestingly, the same article goes on to use the phrase: "Many of these plain vanilla plans".
Sheer coincidence?
Disasters this week (PB Tory Index)
Pinkgate
Finkgate
Nungate
Disasters this week (Real World Index)
N/A
http://www.lbc.co.uk/anonymous-hackers-to-expose-child-sex-abusers-104838
The taxpayers have won in the court of appeal but hmrc has received consent to appeal to the supreme court.
The tax arrangements in question relate to transactions over 10 years ago, and the legislation has changed since and the planning would not be effective today. Indeed this is an arrangement would be caught by the GAAR if implemented today.
10s of millions are on PAYE for regular income....
Care fees avoidance.
We have all known about Ed the Avoider for ages. Then again, Ratner had been making his "crap" speech for years before it blew up in his face.
Rather like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean (nothing more, and nothing less)... but that definition would differ from how the government and all major parties, HMRC, and the tax profession would use the term "avoidance". They'd call it legitimate tax planning.
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
Main news page?
Not even a top story in the business section....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/
Since April 2013 the capital's fire crews have:
Attended 28 incidents involving people being trapped in handcuffs
Removed 293 rings, including seven from male genitalia
Attended other incidents, including releasing men's genitals from toasters or vacuum cleaners
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31428072
A majority of the population knew nothing about Deeds of Variation until this morning. Now they do.
Trading bet - NZ to win at 5/1 or longer. Nailed on for semis and potentially the final.
If you want to back England - who aren't without a shout of last 4 - back half now then wait until after they lost to Oz tomorrow then average up.
Use silk scarves. The benefits are numerous:
can be easily cut through if knots cannot be undone
won't damage the skin nearly as much if, er, vigorous activity occurs
can be worn as a fashionable accessory quite openly, whereas handcuffs are a bit more conspicuous
Or so I hear.
Also, anyone shoving their todger in a toaster deserves roast nuts.
Sort of sums it up really.
a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it.
b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.
They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
'Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.'
One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
Of course. In the same way that one calls dead civilians collateral damage.
And the answer is no.
At the time they saved nothing...
Subsequently they have saved nothing...
If Mrs Miliband has been well-advised over the past 20 years, they will have saved nothing...
There is nothing at all unethical about this arrangement.
I think the reminder that he lives in a £2m+ house like the rest of the political elite is more damaging. "Politicians are all the same. That's why I'm voting UKIP/Green or whatever."
The impression has been created that these paper fictions are a way for the wealthy to chest the normal system. What I can't understand is why the public debate is about the morality of using these tax avoidance schemes, rather than simply shutting them down.
Under PAYE the system is pretty simple. Receive an income - then pay tax on it. I don't see why this should be any different if your income is £millions. The same applies for IHT. Seems like the situation now is that if the estate is worth a few hundred thousand you end up paying 40% on the amount over the threshold, but if the estate is worth several million then it ends up in a series of trust funds and no tax at all is paid.
All I want is for everyone to play by the same rules.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html
As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
That is what stinks. I note that Labour appear not to be suggesting any remedies to this situation. They're happy to play the morality game because they know the other side has more rich people, and so will come off looking just slightly worse - and that's good enough for them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372502/Tempted_by_Tax_Avoidance.pdf
Like saying I drove home drunk without hitting anyone so it doesn't matter.
Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
'That assumes his Mother will let Ed or ED and David inherit the property. Too many assumptions are being made here.'
Yes, that's a massive assumption that two sons would inherit their mother's property.
Pure comedy gold watching the PB Kinnocks trying to defend Ed.
There is only one notional saving, in fact, although it is remote.
The nil-rate band has not kept pace with inflation, and certainly not with London house-price inflation.
Therefore, by removing shares in the property in 1994 from the scope of IHT, their position is more favourable now than it would be by simply using two nil rate bands under the provisions of the FA 2008.
But
i) they could not have known that in 1994
ii) all these pseudo calculations are based on the assumption that Mrs Miliband has done nothing to further mitigate her liability.
Any lefty hypocrites got an answer to that?
"I signed a deed of variation the other day. Just wanted to tie up loose ends from a dearly departed loved one's will. Didn't know I was a major hypocrite indulging in high flying tax avoidance."
(Don't worry you're not - the Mail and all the other Tories dragging this up are just smarting from the drubbing they got yesterday after Fink backed down and are flinging mud all over the place in the hope some if it sticks).
"How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?"
A very strange tactic from the Tories. The public don't believe Ed to be a tax avoider. So there is no narrative to build on. By contrast the the Tories and their supporters at the Mail are believed to be unscrupulous mud slingers and this actually builds on the narrative.
Ed doesn't agree he engaged in legitimate tax avoidance.
The next challenge is to ask them to examine the morality of John Mills share donation to Labour, and the structure that Party advisers knocked up to save him £1.5 million.
That would pay for a few nurses!