Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..

[Alpinestars]

Eric Mc said:

No - but with some penalties equal to the tax liability - they will definitely hurt.

Whilst not law yet, the proposal is 100% of fees. It would have been crazy for HMRC to succeed on a tax saved basis as originally proposed.

[Eric Mc]

It keeps changing. HMRC seem intent on creating uncertainty about everything they plan to do.

[Murph7355]

Eric Mc said:

It keeps changing. HMRC seem intent on creating uncertainty about everything they plan to do.

It suits them as it means they can make things up as they go along.

IMO if their legislation and rules are ambiguous, and they have neither the resource, skill nor inclination to tighten it up then their ability to go after avoidance retrospectively should be removed.

On adjusting avoidance to be evasion the scheme should simply be listed, no tax allowed to be evaded from that point on and, if appropriate, the case used to update the rules/legislation.

The current situation is poor and encourages the holier than though arrogance that too many HMRC employees exhibit.

[Alpinestars]

Eric Mc said:

It keeps changing. HMRC seem intent on creating uncertainty about everything they plan to do.

The initial consultation document led with a penalty equal to the tax - which is nuts.

There was an alternative suggestion that it should be up to the fee amount. That's what I think will make it into law, as that's what's in the current draft of the law.

[johnfm]

V8 Fettler said:

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...

This is the issue - tax advisos who design nd promote schemes are "working to the letter (but not the spirit) of the relevant regulations'. That is their entire raison d'etre - the regulations are (in places) vague or silent on certain approaches. So they design schemes using these approaches to reduce a taxpayer's liability to pay tax.

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.

The caveats will most probably form part of the contract; as previously mentioned that contract 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. Therefore the caveats do not provide absolute protection against being sued.

Not sure anybody has said 'caveats provide absolute protections against being sued'. You're being a bit 'dog with a bone' here. The caveats do form part of an engagement. Unless the caveats seeks to exclude liabilities that cannot be excluded under statute (losses due to fraud - lets ignore death or personal injury in this case, as it is unlikely) or they are unreasonable, UCTA wouldn't apply and a court is unlikely to rectify it in a dispute brought under breach of contract.

So it boils down to whether a caveat along the lines of "HMRC may review their position on this, the law may change or a court may decide that this scheme is naughty" is unreasonable. It doesn't seem on the face of it unreasonable.

[V8 Fettler]

Alpinestars said:

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.

Do you not understand that - in the UK - a contract can be amended by adjudication, regulatory body or a court?

[V8 Fettler]

johnfm said:

V8 Fettler said:

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...

This is the issue - tax advisos who design nd promote schemes are "working to the letter (but not the spirit) of the relevant regulations'. That is their entire raison d'etre - the regulations are (in places) vague or silent on certain approaches. So they design schemes using these approaches to reduce a taxpayer's liability to pay tax.

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.

The caveats will most probably form part of the contract; as previously mentioned that contract 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. Therefore the caveats do not provide absolute protection against being sued.

Not sure anybody has said 'caveats provide absolute protections against being sued'. You're being a bit 'dog with a bone' here. The caveats do form part of an engagement. Unless the caveats seeks to exclude liabilities that cannot be excluded under statute (losses due to fraud - lets ignore death or personal injury in this case, as it is unlikely) or they are unreasonable, UCTA wouldn't apply and a court is unlikely to rectify it in a dispute brought under breach of contract.

So it boils down to whether a caveat along the lines of "HMRC may review their position on this, the law may change or a court may decide that this scheme is naughty" is unreasonable. It doesn't seem on the face of it unreasonable.

Are we not therefore agreed that a caveat (contract clause) can be amended without the consent of the adviser by adjudication, regulatory body or court?

[Alpinestars]

V8 Fettler said:

Alpinestars said:

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.

Do you not understand that - in the UK - a contract can be amended by adjudication, regulatory body or a court?

Tax examples please.

[V8 Fettler]

Alpinestars said:

V8 Fettler said:

Alpinestars said:

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.

Do you not understand that - in the UK - a contract can be amended by adjudication, regulatory body or a court?

Tax examples please.

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

[Alpinestars]

V8 Fettler said:

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

Examples please.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

Just out of interest, is your expertise on this topic sourced from Google?

[basherX]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

Just out of interest, is your expertise on this topic sourced from Google?

Alta Vista

[V8 Fettler]

Alpinestars said:

V8 Fettler said:

Being wilful, I'm hardly likely to leaf through historical rulings at your behest.

Assuming you're based in England, does not your standard contract refer to "laws of England", "English law" or similar?

Examples please.

Example of a contract clause from a financial adviser's letter of engagement that recognises that the law has precedence over the contract:



AAT template letter of engagement

[Alpinestars]

V8 Fettler said:

Example of a contract clause from a financial adviser's letter of engagement that recognises that the law has precedence over the contract:



AAT template letter of engagement

[KrissKross]

basherX said:

Alta Vista

Wow I remember using that.. (not for tax advice though)

[AW111]

Alpinestars said:

OT, but if I read that right, you can buy 2 x 1 tin @ 90p, for a total of £1.80, or 2 for £2?

[loafer123]

AW111 said:

Alpinestars said:

OT, but if I read that right, you can buy 2 x 1 tin @ 90p, for a total of £1.80, or 2 for £2?

No, I don't think so.

The 90p is for 1x125g tin.

Tesco do stuff like this all the time. I have taught my kids to do the calculations themselves on all multibuys as they are frequently a con. It also helps with their maths skills!

[Alpinestars]

loafer123 said:

AW111 said:

Alpinestars said:

OT, but if I read that right, you can buy 2 x 1 tin @ 90p, for a total of £1.80, or 2 for £2?

No, I don't think so.

The 90p is for 1x125g tin.

Tesco do stuff like this all the time. I have taught my kids to do the calculations themselves on all multibuys as they are frequently a con. It also helps with their maths skills!

You sure?

I agree with loafer.

[AW111]

loafer123 said:

No, I don't think so.

The 90p is for 1x125g tin.

Tesco do stuff like this all the time. I have taught my kids to do the calculations themselves on all multibuys as they are frequently a con. It also helps with their maths skills!

If the 90p is for 1x125g tin, which I think we agree on, what tins is the 2 for £2 offer? Unless there's missing info, it appears to be the same 125g tins.

[Jobbo]

V8 Fettler said:

Example of a contract clause from a financial adviser's letter of engagement that recognises that the law has precedence over the contract:



AAT template letter of engagement

It doesn't say that the law takes precedence - it simply states which country's law applies.