Free Jimmy Carr

[Trader333]

I was not referring to government as I agree they are no better in many ways and their policies do little to address taxation issues and probably make it worse. It was more a personal morality issue which has a lot to do with greed. We could learn a lot about taxation from the way it is administered in Hong Kong in my view.

 

[rsh01]

I think his error in judgment is more to do with having a go at "Fat Cat Bankers" and then doing the very same thing. Also the issue is one of morality and not legality and iirc he pays around 1% in tax. If everyone in the uk adopted the same approach we would be in an infinitely worse situation than even Greece is in. In my view it is about being greedy and it will probably come back to haunt him as he will now become the target of all those anti -tax avoidance protesters which could make his life an utter misery.

I suppose if you have private health cover, pay for private education, pay road tax, have been a victim of police incompetence eg when you get burgled noone gives a monkeys, you may wonder exactly what your 50% tax bill is spent on. Waste collection?

Also if everyone paid similar amount of tax to carr they wld have considerably more money to spend, invest etc, which I guess wld be good for the economy. Perhaps they cld pay for their own refuse collectors. There wld however be a few politicians and bureaucrats out of work.

Re scose's comments - this is correct. Its a 'recallable' loan which never gets recalled.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

I found out before that he paid 3 and a half bags in tax lol.

@rsh01 don't forget that interest accrued - which is why the nonsense is allowed in the first place - is never paid either

 

[barjon]

Just dug up one of my old text books.

The key case was MacNiven Vs Westmoreland Investments (2001), which established that tax avoidance, even if legal, was not necessarily acceptable or effective for the purposes intended.

The principle that I referred to in the post above is an old one. A number of cases from the early 80s established that where a taxpayer enters into a preordained series of transactions that includes one or more steps that have no commercial purpose other than tax avoidance, those steps, and their tax consequences, can be ignored for tax purposes.

If you want to look into this further it's known as the Ramsay principle.

Yes, nicely dug up

The problem - not just relating to tax - is that Parliament (Government) create the law by virtue of an Act, but the Judiciary interpret it. That interpretation can often fly in the face of Parliament's intentions in passing the Act, particularly when it has been poorly drafted.

Whilst I applaud the fact that the Judiciary is independent I have always thought that they should pay more regard to the intentions of Parliament in their interpretations - as in Ramsay.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

As I don't believe that politicians are on the whole particularly intelligent, I reckon they're lobbied for wording etc.

 

[Trader333]

Also if everyone paid similar amount of tax to carr they wld have considerably more money to spend, invest etc, which I guess wld be good for the economy

It is highly unlikely that you would have any infrastructure supported on a 1% tax rate and it has not worked in Greece where tax is heavily evaded.

I am all for low taxation which is why I would look to the Hong Kong model as it has been hugely successful in my view.

 

[counter_violent]

It is highly unlikely that you would have any infrastructure supported on a 1% tax rate and it has not worked in Greece where tax is heavily evaded.

I am all for low taxation which is why I would look to the Hong Kong model as it has been hugely successful in my view.

Small Government and Low Taxation.
It's the only way forward.

I just wish the masses would wake up.

 

[barjon]

Yes, nicely dug up

The problem - not just relating to tax - is that Parliament (Government) create the law by virtue of an Act, but the Judiciary interpret it. That interpretation can often fly in the face of Parliament's intentions in passing the Act, particularly when it has been poorly drafted.

Whilst I applaud the fact that the Judiciary is independent I have always thought that they should pay more regard to the intentions of Parliament in their interpretations - as in Ramsay.

I should perhaps add that the problem HMRC face is that they can only challenge on the basis of the wording of the law and not Parliament's intentions behind it.

Scose - aye, but it's the Parliamentary draftsmen that carry the can

 

[robster970]

Small Government and Low Taxation.
It's the only way forward.

I just wish the masses would wake up.

+1

 

[The Leopard]

@ Leopard

It's legal because of what they do with they money. They don't repatriate any more as they use some sketchy loan thing where he'll owe the trust

Don't get me wrong, I understand the distinction, but it should still fall foul of the rules as they currently stand. They are specifically designed to catch things like this without making any individual step illegal.

If this goes to court and HMRC lose (loose), they'll most likely just change the rules to cover situations such as these.

However, in this case if it did go to court I would imagine that HMRC would win.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

They have clamped down on it but they cannot shut down retrospectively so people who set up before the court decision can carry on as long as they like

It's a nonsensical system worthy of much lulz

 

[The Leopard]

I should perhaps add that the problem HMRC face is that they can only challenge on the basis of the wording of the law and not Parliament's intentions behind it.

Actually, it's not just based on law as in purely the clauses in the relevant legislation.

There is also a vast body of case law to be considered. I think that this was the point in MacNiven - the law was reinterpreted by the judges in that case, but from then on that has established the new practice.

I'm in favour of lower taxes, smaller government - and not just for economic reasons either. But the issue here is not that, rather it is whether what has been done is allowed. Note the key is allowed, not legal. Case law clearly establishes that what is legal is not necessarily allowed for tax purposes.

I think the principle has clearly been breached in this case, and like I say I expect HMRC will either successfully challenge or if not get legislation amended to allow them to act in such cases. It should be very easy to write legislation that distinguishes between legitimate loans and those made purely as part of a tax avoidance scheme.

 

[The Leopard]

They have clamped down on it but they cannot shut down retrospectively so people who set up before the court decision can carry on as long as they like

I don't think this is actually the case. If a scheme was legal, but is no longer deemed to be so, they might not be able to impose penalties or claim unpaid taxes, but as far as I'm aware they can prevent it operating in the future. Certainly, plenty of such schemes have been shut down - if you're already in one, that's just tough.

To give an example, the taxation of ISAs was changed with regard to dividends (same with pension funds).

So in Jimmy Carr's case, he might be OK up till now, but have to change his future arrangements.

As for retrospective, I'm not sure this is true either, certainly in the matter of trusts. There was a change in recent years to the way that certain types of trust are taxed, and this applies now to all such trusts, even those that were established before the change.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Trust me mate. I speak from personal experience here involving HMRC challenging one of these schemes which processes hundreds of millions per year.

If it's any consolation I'm still as shocked as you are. The guys that are running the one I know are earning more than Jimmy Carr for administering it. It's big business.

 

[The Leopard]

Trust me mate. I speak from personal experience here involving HMRC challenging one of these schemes which processes hundreds of millions per year.

If it's any consolation I'm still as shocked as you are. The guys that are running the one I know are earning more than Jimmy Carr for administering it. It's big business.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here? Are you saying that HMRC can't shut down such things, or that existing users can continue to use them regardless of changes in legislation?

 

[scose-no-doubt]

The latter

 

[The Leopard]

If it's any consolation I'm still as shocked as you are.

LOL I'm neither shocked nor concerned. It's just interesting having a more adult discussion on this site for a change.

Pity it's only about tax law.

 

[counter_violent]

Trust me mate. I speak from personal experience here involving HMRC challenging one of these schemes which processes hundreds of millions per year.

If it's any consolation I'm still as shocked as you are. The guys that are running the one I know are earning more than Jimmy Carr for administering it. It's big business.

Making sense now

You want this kind of stuff to continue so you can get a break and join the elite administrators. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[scose-no-doubt]

My attitude will never allow me to become that successful in any endeavour as I lack the ability to ignore incompetence and I'm missing the genetic make-up that allows sychophantc behaviour. It's a real problem. Also, I hate everyone almost as much as I hate tax. That being said, I wouldn't turn down an offer

 

[The Leopard]

My attitude will never allow me to become that successful in any endeavour as I lack the ability to ignore incompetence and I'm missing the genetic make-up that allows sychophantc behaviour. It's a real problem. Also, I hate everyone almost as much as I hate tax. That being said, I wouldn't turn down an offer

Misanthropy is nothing to be ashamed of. Other people are awful, after all.