Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..
Discussion
RYH64E said:
johnfm said:
We carry PI cover for the same reason architects or engineers or accountants do. While professional services providers endeavour to provide services with good and reasonable care or with good industry practice (or whatever the threshold of the contract may be) there will be times when that service falls short and a client MAY have a cause of action. That's not to say that there is always a cause of action when advice doesn't prove to be correct.
Architects, engineers and accountants typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation, if something goes wrong it's because there's been a major cock up. If tax advisors worked in the same way the advice would be pretty much get an ISA, top up your pension, and pay tax on the rest...V8 is flogging a dead horse if he thinks that a service provider can give caveated advice, set out those caveats clearly and then get sued for losses arising from circumstances specifically set out in the caveats.
Alpinestars said:
V8 Fettler said:
My stance is that professional advisers who charge a fee for providing professional advice should take responsibility for that advice.
Again, your view is that the engagement letter is the contract and cannot be amended, My view is that it's just another contract and can be amended by various means with or without the consent of the professional adviser e.g. by a regulatory body, adjudication or court action.
Where have I taken professional advice from other contributors to this thread? Other contributors have made observations, for which they've not extracted a fee as far as I am aware. Or do anonymous forum posts count as professional advice in your world?
What happens if the advice is that there is a chance you will get a deduction for a cost if you do the following, but there is a risk that it will be successfully challenged by HMRC and potentially fail in Court? That's the broad tenor of advice when looking at schemes. No professional tax advisor worth his salt would guarantee a scheme to work where there is some risk - and if he does guarantee it, he'd be quite rightly sued. There is nearly always some risk when applying the tens of thousands of pages of tax law to a client's position.Again, your view is that the engagement letter is the contract and cannot be amended, My view is that it's just another contract and can be amended by various means with or without the consent of the professional adviser e.g. by a regulatory body, adjudication or court action.
Where have I taken professional advice from other contributors to this thread? Other contributors have made observations, for which they've not extracted a fee as far as I am aware. Or do anonymous forum posts count as professional advice in your world?
Very often with "schemes", advisors will take their own advice from a QC, and depending on what the QC says, they will apply it to clients. Those same QCs can end up in Court, defending the technicalities of the advice, and can fail to convince a Court. That's not bad tax advice, that's just the way tax law works, boundaries are pushed and retracted all the time, and new common law is established as a result. it's an art, not a science, which is the point you are wilfully missing.
The professional advice bit relates to people who know how it works, ie deal with the issue day to day, have told you how it works. You can take a horse to water etc etc.
Do you seriously believe that posting anonymous comments and observations on a forum with no fee extracted could be interpreted as professional advice? Are you really involved in the sale of financial products?
johnfm said:
RYH64E said:
johnfm said:
We carry PI cover for the same reason architects or engineers or accountants do. While professional services providers endeavour to provide services with good and reasonable care or with good industry practice (or whatever the threshold of the contract may be) there will be times when that service falls short and a client MAY have a cause of action. That's not to say that there is always a cause of action when advice doesn't prove to be correct.
Architects, engineers and accountants typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation, if something goes wrong it's because there's been a major cock up. If tax advisors worked in the same way the advice would be pretty much get an ISA, top up your pension, and pay tax on the rest...V8 is flogging a dead horse if he thinks that a service provider can give caveated advice, set out those caveats clearly and then get sued for losses arising from circumstances specifically set out in the caveats.
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
As previously, an unsophisticated consumer cannot sign away their rights to a fair contract, FSA: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf
Where an investor employs a professional adviser to do the homework, should not the professional adviser take responsibility if that homework is subsequently marked as D minus ?
Hasn't this already been addresssed?Where an investor employs a professional adviser to do the homework, should not the professional adviser take responsibility if that homework is subsequently marked as D minus ?
You're missing the difference between a sophisticated investor and an unsophisticated one!!
You'll find that I introduced reference to unsophisticated / sophisticated investors earlier in this thread in an attempt to avoid confusion by others as the thread drifted.
desolate said:
V8 Fettler said:
Are you stating that tax advisers do not typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation?
That's the whole point of these schemes.They seek to exploit the letter of th law, not the spirit of it.
bga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Within the context of this thread, you need to differentiate between an opinion and professional advice, also to recognise the difference between a sophisticated consumer who can make informed decisions without professional advice and an unsophisticated consumer (who should be able to rely upon professional advice as a basis to reach an informed decision).
Agree, very generally the consumer is considered unsophisticated but a corporate is always considered to be sophisticated/educated. 316Mining said:
Lets face it, most of the 'celebs' involved in such schemes are going to be unsophisticated investors.
However, they are probably putting their trust in investment professionals under their employment, either structured or casual, who advise them. However, that advice is likely to be highly weighted on whether that 'trusted' professional is making money from the scheme themselves. It isn't going to be true impartial advice, is it?
The celeb 'wants' to avoid tax.
the advisor 'wants' too help them avoid tax too, and make a commission or sale.
undoubtedly the advisor will mention in passing a risk, but will also in the same sentence probably downplay it, thus covering themselves....
If the adviser is receiving a fee then he is not covering himself by downplaying the risk, particularly if weasel words are used. However, they are probably putting their trust in investment professionals under their employment, either structured or casual, who advise them. However, that advice is likely to be highly weighted on whether that 'trusted' professional is making money from the scheme themselves. It isn't going to be true impartial advice, is it?
The celeb 'wants' to avoid tax.
the advisor 'wants' too help them avoid tax too, and make a commission or sale.
undoubtedly the advisor will mention in passing a risk, but will also in the same sentence probably downplay it, thus covering themselves....
RYH64E said:
V8 Fettler said:
Are you stating that tax advisers do not typically work to the letter and spirit of the relevant regulations and legislation?
Do you think that they do? If they did, the advice would be to just pay up, that's the intention of the legislation after all.V8 Fettler said:
Perhaps that's one of the primary issues; tax law should be written with the aid of flow charts and Venn diagrams to eliminate the wishy-washy artiness. I've regarded the description "wilful" as a compliment for several decades now, thanks.
Do you seriously believe that posting anonymous comments and observations on a forum with no fee extracted could be interpreted as professional advice? Are you really involved in the sale of financial products?
Advice can be pro bono....Do you seriously believe that posting anonymous comments and observations on a forum with no fee extracted could be interpreted as professional advice? Are you really involved in the sale of financial products?
Maybe you should put your mind to rewriting tax law. The people who have tried in the past clearly don't have your vision.
Or maybe aren't internet experts.
Edited by Alpinestars on Wednesday 7th December 08:53
Alpinestars said:
V8 Fettler said:
Perhaps that's one of the primary issues; tax law should be written with the aid of flow charts and Venn diagrams to eliminate the wishy-washy artiness. I've regarded the description "wilful" as a compliment for several decades now, thanks.
Do you seriously believe that posting anonymous comments and observations on a forum with no fee extracted could be interpreted as professional advice? Are you really involved in the sale of financial products?
Advice can be pro bono....Do you seriously believe that posting anonymous comments and observations on a forum with no fee extracted could be interpreted as professional advice? Are you really involved in the sale of financial products?
Maybe you should put your mind to rewriting tax law. The people who have tried in the past clearly don't have your vision.
Or maybe aren't internet experts.
Edited by Alpinestars on Wednesday 7th December 08:53
Professional advice should generally create income (perhaps as a fee) to justify the risk to PI cover, although there are exceptions.
V8 Fettler said:
The corporate may well be regarded as sophisticated, but can still employ a professional adviser to transfer risk.
You only transfer the risk if the provider accepts liability for a negative outcome or there is insurance policy covering the event. Using a professional adviser can demonstrate that a company exercised due diligence and made a decision fully aware of the risks. Only if the advisor failed in the latter then there would likely be recourse. V8 Fettler said:
You're very kind, is there a fee available? Although don't we already pay substantial amounts of tax to MPs and civil servants to get the legislation right?
Professional advice should generally create income (perhaps as a fee) to justify the risk to PI cover, although there are exceptions.
Perhaps it's a bit too complicated for them eh?Professional advice should generally create income (perhaps as a fee) to justify the risk to PI cover, although there are exceptions.
Step up Mr Fettler. Not only would you put the world to rights, you'd make many gold sovereigns doing it. And you'd go down in history as the man who wrote laws that were simple and undefeatable.
bga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The corporate may well be regarded as sophisticated, but can still employ a professional adviser to transfer risk.
You only transfer the risk if the provider accepts liability for a negative outcome or there is insurance policy covering the event. Using a professional adviser can demonstrate that a company exercised due diligence and made a decision fully aware of the risks. Only if the advisor failed in the latter then there would likely be recourse. Alpinestars said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're very kind, is there a fee available? Although don't we already pay substantial amounts of tax to MPs and civil servants to get the legislation right?
Professional advice should generally create income (perhaps as a fee) to justify the risk to PI cover, although there are exceptions.
Perhaps it's a bit too complicated for them eh?Professional advice should generally create income (perhaps as a fee) to justify the risk to PI cover, although there are exceptions.
Step up Mr Fettler. Not only would you put the world to rights, you'd make many gold sovereigns doing it. And you'd go down in history as the man who wrote laws that were simple and undefeatable.
V8 Fettler said:
Again, the financial adviser may attempt to use weasel words within the contract to avoid responsibility in the event of poor advice, but the contract can be amended with or without the consent of the financial adviser.
Give some examples of where that's happened in tax. Otherwise, we can all use weasel talk to "prove" our point.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff