The changing view of tax

By MoneyWeek editor-in-chief Merryn Somerset Webb Jun 21, 2012

Merryn Somerset-Webb

Share with
friends:

Comments (7) Print this article

Is it OK to avoid tax? Not long ago the majority of people might have agreed that it was. After all, as along as you aren’t doing anything illegal (ie, evading tax), what business is it of anyone else’s?

That view is changing. In his budget, George Osborne said he regarded “aggressive tax avoidance” as “morally repugnant”. He then made a brave attempt (since failed) to force Britain into a minimum universal income tax rate by capping the level of tax reliefs any one person can claim. The press then picked up on the scandal of public-sector employees avoiding national insurance and cutting their overall tax bills by having their salaries paid via companies.

This week things have moved further, with a cover story series in The Times headlined 'The Tax Avoiders'. The paper claims that avoidance costs Britain £4.5bn a year; exposes a particularly aggressive scheme apparently used by comedian Jimmy Carr to make his income-tax liability vanish; and has a go at the tax affairs of Take That too. I’m with The Times on this one. Why should Carr be allowed to channel his income via Jersey to avoid taxes when he lives, works in and benefits from Britain?

Why should pop stars get away with using partnership structures as tax shelters while the rest of us finance the infrastructure around them? Surely, whatever you feel about how the state spends our money, it doesn’t make sense that, as The Times claims, “thousands of wealthy people in Britain pay as little as 1% income tax using below-the-radar accounting methods”?


Want a fast way to hunt big dividend paying stocks?

Performance table

Easily compare UK shares by sector or index using our free performance tool.

From the FTSE 100 to penny stocks – easily find out here


So it should be good news that not only is HMRC clamping down on evasion via its various tax amnesties, but that in his budget Osborne also said he was to start consulting on a 'general anti-avoidance rule' (GAAR). I’d liked the sound of that, in that it suggested a blanket ruling out of all kinds of obvious avoidance: so anyone running a charity for their own purposes could perhaps be forced to pay up just as much as someone in a Carr-type Jersey scheme.

Sadly, it isn’t going to be quite like that. The consultation is now not for a general scheme, but one covering “abusive schemes”. Why? Because anything wider would also affect “responsible tax planning”. But why is tax planning different to tax avoidance? They are surely the same thing – efforts not to pay the same tax as everyone else. If Osborne could bring himself to ignore the vested interests around him he might find this less complicated.

He needs to simplify the system, knock out all confusion, then introduce a proper GAAR that prevents the entire spectrum of what accountants like to call tax planning and we call “landing the rest of us with the bill”. Having done that, he can then use the savings to cut overall tax rates. If history is anything to go by, that will pretty much instantly raise his revenues. How hard can it actually be?

Comments (7)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Alan IOM

    (21 June 2012, 06:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    I was a civil servant for 3 years then a policeman for 30. I now have a police pension taxed before I get it. I have never had the chance to 'avoid' tax and therefore, as well as paying my dues to my country, I have helped support the lazy, the prostitutes, drug dealers and all of the others who live life to the full on my hard earned money. I hasten to add that I am more than happy to support the ill, infirm, aged etc as I see it as my public duty.
    What a cheek Osbourne has. Not only has he (and those before him) frittered away all MY money, he has left me with a debt of 3 Trillion £.
    Tax avoidance? Bring it on!! I envy those who can do it.

  • 2. David Woodhead

    (21 June 2012, 06:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance in general and of Jimmy Carr's scheme in particular, there is a huge problem here for David Cameron. This is the activities of his father, whose business was setting up offshore tax avoidance schemes in order to minimise tax liabilities for UK taxpayers. The best summary can probably be found here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

    This is a massive subject, much of which revolves around semantics and morality. One man's legal tax minimisation is another man's tax avoidance. ISAs good; offshore trusts bad. Whichever view you take, Cameron cannot possibly give a disinterested view on this as he has been the beneficiary of his father's business model which was based around providing offshore tax avoidance shemes for UK taxpayers.

  • 3. Ellen

    (21 June 2012, 07:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    The tax system we live under is far too complicated and is designed to catch those paying through the PAYE and those who do now employ accountants to deal with their tax affairs. Combine this with the exorbitant amount of tax the UK government want to collect and they invite this type of tax avoidance.

    Exposing the individual for taking advantage of one of these loopholes is very unfair and I expect there are many of our public representatives, including people very close to Cameron, using similar avoidance schemes.

  • 4. postman pat

    (22 June 2012, 04:35AM)  Complain about this comment

    Sorry Merryn, I am with jimmy Carr. As usual, an innocent person is hounded for doing nothing illegal.

    Despite being. Tory myself, I find the comments from Govt repugnant.

    They squander and waste what they extort from us, so why shouldn't you seek to keep money from their clutches.

    If you disagree with this then why not just agree to 100% tax? The Govt would find this acceptable and anyone left with any money would obviously be avoiding or evading.

    Why did they try and ax pasties, someone's lunch? Is that not morally repugn ant?

    Why do we have the highest fuel duty, thus restricting people movements by denying them access to fuel?

    Why do we have to pay OUR hard earned cash to support other countries plus the waifs and strays from around the world that sponge from OUR system?

    Good on Jimmy Carr and the others. If I could do the same,I would.

    Cameron et al need to look closer to home before they start throwing stones at us.

  • 5. postman pat

    (22 June 2012, 05:40AM)  Complain about this comment

    Addition to my above comment....

    The only ones left with any money would be those avoiding or evading and of course, those on benefits and millions of foreigners who get to spend what we are forced to hand over to them.

    The Tories have tried to outdo the masters of spin, Liebour, on this one. Who would have thought there would be a campaign to paint HMRC as a bunch of lovely people here to help you???

    Are the sheep going to fall for this too!!!

    Do us a favour Merryn and report just how much of our tax is given away to the unwashed, undeserving, the EU, ALL foreign aid and every other so called 'deserving cause'.

  • 6. Paul

    (23 June 2012, 12:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    Two recent avoidance test cases (Drummond; Mayes) saw opposite results despite the fact that both were blatant tax avoidance schemes . One looked at the 'purpose' of the planning; the other looked strictly at the wording of the legislation. If 'purpose' is used then surely all ISAs are tax avoidance because you don't pay tax on one and this was your 'intention' when you bought it.

  • 7. Stephen Anson

    (26 June 2012, 03:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    I am surprised to find the Editor uttering high-minded sanctimonious drivel such as she has in this leader, and aligning herself with the present left-wing government in doing so.

    I submit that we must all minimise the taxes we pay by whatever methods are legally possible, because:

    1. Governments are wasteful and atrociously bad at allocating resources.

    2. An attitude is developing in Britain, as elsewhere, that if an individual earns money, it is good of the Government to let him keep some of it. Be forewarned that if we do not do everything possible to resist this, it will not be long before the State has successfully bullied society into accepting it as the norm.

    On the other hand, was the leader merely a bad attack of "sour grapes"?

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>