tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post6914332344447947822..comments2024-03-28T12:23:39.665+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: Tax odditiesFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-29876611180322532662012-01-08T16:02:04.255+00:002012-01-08T16:02:04.255+00:00An interesting post.
You are spot-on about the ne...An interesting post.<br /><br />You are spot-on about the need to reform and clarify tax law rather than introduce more law: the vaguaries of the law allow organisations (and their lawyers) to interpret the law in their favour - which they then need to argue with HMRC (hence the apparent relationships that are being investigated by NAO).<br /><br />Every chancellor increases the complexity of tax legislation, rather than clearing up the mess created by their predecessors; Gordon Brown in particular generated a huge amount of tax law.<br /><br />There is undoubtedly abuse of the system by multinational companies - most likely via "transfer pricing" (1 and 3 in your list of avoidance methods) - routing transactions through particular jurisdictions and charged between subsidiaries at internal prices set to minimise profits.<br /><br />I completely agree that it is strange for government to legislate on a particular industry - in this case, banking and finance: but the history of tax is full of such curiosities: some industries are easier to tax than others, and in the current climate, there are unlikely to be any votes in defending the banks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-4914832078314479822012-01-06T23:04:57.961+00:002012-01-06T23:04:57.961+00:00I'd argue that various of Aaronson's "...I'd argue that various of Aaronson's "abusive tax avoidance" practices actually constitute evasion. None of a-d need a 'GAAR', they just need an audit. They are either bona fide errors (which can be corrected) or they are deliberate evasion (which HMRC can already deal with quite happily).<br /><br />As for Murphy falling out with the report, well he has a tendency to (or so it appears) be particularly critical where he has a personal beef with a person or organisation (witness his vindictive crusade against the guardians of St Pauls which, as I understand it, could be linked to a known personal gripe). Alternatively, it may simply be that the Aaronson recommendations are now bad recommendations because the Tories may implement them.. and the last thing he wants to have to do is say 'well done Osborne, you've done exactly what I think you should have done'.<br /><br />Finally, all mainstream reporting of tax matters is.. let us not mince our words.. absolute horseshit. They don't know what they are on about.. because none of the journalists involved are accountants, tax practitioners, or anything of the sort. Imagine the outrage if the BBC filled the Match of the Day studio with jobbing journos who've been to a couple of Arsenal games and have a vague idea of the offside rule.. rather than ex-pros and managers. When it comes to reporting on tax (and, for the most part, economics in general) it seems that any old muppet will do. It's a shocking state of affairs. Ben Goldacre does a great job of exposing this kind of crap in science journalism.. but nobody at all is doing the same for the number-monkeys.The Thought Ganghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01045121525572346178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-81825045965694881932012-01-06T15:22:04.386+00:002012-01-06T15:22:04.386+00:00Oops
That 4 in the list - should read the preview...Oops<br /><br />That 4 in the list - should read the preview!<br /><br />ShineyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-37808196388779962842012-01-06T15:20:34.164+00:002012-01-06T15:20:34.164+00:00Frances
"I don't understand why the BBC ...Frances<br /><br />"I don't understand why the BBC prefers the opinions of special interest groups over the findings of acknowledged experts..."<br /><br />You are surprised?<br /><br />I would suggest one or more of the following (non-exhaustive) list...<br />1. the views of those special interest groups accord with their own weltanschauung;<br />2. they haven't bothered to find out the views of the experts (i.e. actually read the report)<br />3. the expert view/conclusion is at odds with their agenda;<br />3. they are lazy, incompetent liars or charlatans!<br /><br />ShineyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com