Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

JayScottGreenspan

From the Green Book on expenses:

Use of Parliamentary allowances

It is your responsibility to satisfy yourself when you
submit a claim, or authorise payments from your
staffing allowance, that any expenditure claimed
from the allowances has been wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing
your Parliamentary duties.

Generali

To be fair, the porno thing is probably an admin !!!!-up. I've done people's expenses and the usual form is you get a massive pile of receipts and get told to pick the nuts out of it.

There's always going to be the odd family meal that gets claimed (and conversely the odd business lunch that goes unclaimed).

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

To Generali: The difference between a loophole and tax break is that the former is an unintended mistake and the latter is intended policy. I am sure you understand that really.

Apart from your tendency to call people "silly boy", or to be messianically superior, you just don't get it do you Sir Humphrey?

To understand your definition is one thing. However how can I "know" whether it's intended policy or a mistake? I can guess, or assume, but how can I "know"? Indeed a few years ago the government introduced the rather ridiculous laws forcing accountants to let the government know of any potential loop-holes they might be taking advantage of. Which recognises that even the accountants don't know what is intentional and what not.

The best way to reduce tax avoidance is to have simple tax laws so that there are no loopholes. This has the added benefit of reducing the amount of civil servants, which is a good thing, and reducing the advantage of insiders with access to clever accountants, which is also a good thing. Sadly we do require an element of complexity - after all you wouldn't like everyone taxed at the same rate, or even amount, would you?

The next best way to reduce tax avoidance is to have a common purpose; built on trust and decency. Which, incidentally is why the tax avoidance by MPs (especially those ministers playing it twice with their grace and favour homes) is so despicable. It's about leadership. Moral courage. Or absence thereof.

Does the government really think they can say they are right to lead this country, despite (and this is their DEFENCE) claiming that they are taking legal advantage of the loopholes, while suggesting that such behaviour is unacceptable for others? The hypocrisy is breath-taking.

JayScottGreenspan

Generali wrote: »

I still don't understand what you mean by 'loopholes'. They're just tax laws.

A loophole is an unintended gap in the law.

Check out what Barclay's Structured Capital Markets division was up to:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank_gags_Guardian_over_leaked_memos_detailing_offshore_tax_scam,_16_Mar_2009
It's an absolute disgrace.

If there was an easy way for the lawmakers to stop this soprt of thing, they would. Quite different from ISAs, which were specifically legislated for.

JayScottGreenspan

nickmason wrote: »

To understand your definition is one thing. However how can I "know" whether it's intended policy or a mistake? I can guess, or assume, but how can I "know"?

But who cares what you think?

It's quite clear to legislators and 99.9% of interested parties that things like the Barclays SCM affair are exploiting unintended mistakes. They should try to close the loopholes.

The most important thing is that they close the loopholes as they perceive them, regardless of your ability to "know" which ones those may be.

JayScottGreenspan

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, the porno thing is probably an admin !!!!-up. I've done people's expenses and the usual form is you get a massive pile of receipts and get told to pick the nuts out of it.

There's always going to be the odd family meal that gets claimed (and conversely the odd business lunch that goes unclaimed).

Wonder what would happen if I put a load of !!!!!! or expensive fixtures and fittings down as tax deductible on my tax return.

Would it be approved by the inland revenue? If they subsequently smelt a fish, would they just let me pay it back? Or would I be prosecuted?

Lock 'em up, I say!

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

So a stone sink is justified and necessary expense incurred in order to fulfill parliamentary or constituency duties?

I agree it is wrong and an abuse of the rules. I am simply pointing out the moral equivalence of that bad behaviour and that of companies.

To Nick Mason. Silly boy is a euphemism "x is talking b0llux" which whilst still rude is not crude like the latter. In the case of Wookster in that case I claim fair comment.

The difference between a tax break and a loophole is completely obvious, so stop these pathetic obfuscations.

nickmason

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

But who cares what you think?

Cheers

It's quite clear to legislators and 99.9% of interested parties that things like the Barclays SCM affair are exploiting unintended mistakes. They should try to close the loopholes.

The most important thing is that they close the loopholes as they perceive them, regardless of your ability to "know" which ones those may be.

Agreed - and once closed, then to continue would be tax evasion, and illegal. Before that, it seems ridiculous for the servants of the people to put an impossible burden (of determination of intended legality) on the people for the people's sake.

bluey890

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The difference between a tax break and a loophole is completely obvious, so stop these pathetic obfuscations.

It is a Tax break when it applies to MPs.
It is a Tax loophole when it applies to anyone else.

Correct!?

JayScottGreenspan

nickmason wrote: »

Cheers

I just re-read that. Glad you took it in a good-humoured way, as it was intended!

I agree, simpler tax rules would seem like a good idea, both administratively and in terms of leaving fewer loopholes.