Tax avoidance shouldnt be prosecuted

Tax avoidance would be defined as legally avoiding tax in a way the law did not intend. So it does not include ISAs.

HMRC is perfectly entitled to challenged the legality of any tax avoidance scheme if they believe they are not sound. Just as taxpayers are entitled to legally challenge HMRC if they believe a tax has been levied without the proper legal authority.

They won't touch anything where they don't believe they have a reasonable chance of succeeding as it would be an expensive failure. They barely touch the main avoidance scheme for corporation tax (transfer pricing) precisely because of this.

As for the legal avoidance schemes, it is the responsibility of our government to remove any loophole. It's beyond HMRC's remit.

You can't use a 'What I said is not what I meant' mentality with legislation. If it is failing to do what the law makers intended it to do because it was poorly written and failed to cover that situation then it will need amending.

Intent can not be different to actual effect

unforeseen wrote: »

You can't use a 'What I said is not what I meant' mentality with legislation. If it is failing to do what the law makers intended it to do because it was poorly written and failed to cover that situation then it will need amending.

Intent can not be different to actual effect

Not entirely true. If a literal meaning isn't clear, a judge may interpret a law based on what the written statute was attempting to do. It's known as the mischief rule of interpretation.

polymaff wrote: »

What judges tend to say is "if that is what you intended, then pass unambiguous legislation to that intent"

Then they get criticised by totalitarian bigots - and their favourite newspapers - as in the recent Brexit case.

Well, that's your interpretation based on a single example (which you've slightly distorted). You're attempting to make a political point which I don't disagree with, but is nonetheless irrelevant. I'm proud our judiciary can tell our government to go f**K itself if it tries to say law A meant law B. That'surely all that matters.