So as I understand thing at the end of this review it looks like the government will be saying to their "tax avoiding" cronies, 'look don't worry we are going to make it look like we are toughening up and we will talk about a "rule" but that's OK your clever accountants can just find another way around it.' So in other words the poor and low paid and those on fixed incomes will carry on paying high tax while the richest avoid it - business as usual then! And I am not in the least bit surprised, I expect no more from this hideous Tory government.

To understand UK tax policy you have to appreciate the way the City of London operates to draw money to itself and the way the government (of any party) regards the benefits and risks involved. When working well the City is a vast money earner for the UK and the country doesn't have many of those. When, as now, things are not going so well, the City is carrying vast debts that are a potential time bomb. It has been through the Bank of England's work since the 1950's to build a network of low tax high secrecy jurisdictions around the former empire that much of the money has been drawn to London. A consequence of setting up systems to facilitate people and businesses to avoid tax and regulations in other countries is that it has made it harder for domestic tax collection to work effectively. Only when government has the confidence to abandon the City and give the rest of the country the priority in policy making that it deserves can this be resolved. In the meantime the City is the policy priority and while HMRC may try to stop oiks using the systems intended for wealthy foreigners and multi nationals there will be no real change. Of equal concern are the effects of this priority on other areas of policy including turning UK government expenditure into private investment assets to decrease the risk of attack by speculators observing the weakness of the UK economy due to excessive bank debt.

Well if Cameron finds Carr's tax arrangements morally wrong does conman Cameron also find a dishonest election campaign "morally wrong" Does he find a dishonest manifesto "morally wrong" Does he find his habitual lying "morally wrong" Does he find forcing people weeks to live into the hands of the DWP and losing their temporary benefits "morally wrong" Does he find conning people out of their pensions "morally wrong" Does he find loading generations of innocent people up with banker debt morally wrong Does he find his tax avoiding friend and adviser Phil Green's arrangements "morally wrong"

The American charge tax on their subjects, no matter where they earn the money, no matter where they live, no matter what other passports they hold. Why do we not do the same? The answer is in the article. The people who are in charge are the foxes and the ordinary taxpayer, on PAYE, has no opportunity to legally avoid tax. The others, like Osborne and Jimmy Carr have tax accountants who know the loopholes and see no reason why they should not use them. Many of them move to Switzerland and work from there, after they have had their education and nurturing in the UK, and appear to have no conscience on the morality of such moves.
Solution: You have a UK Passport and you pay a percentage of your total income to HMRC. No ifs, no buts, no allowances but for your pension and personal allowance and these need to be defined very carefully. You earn £1,000,000 you pay 40% of your salary at the time you receive it. It is deducted at source and you provide the source with the documents to make the payment. HMRC would provide all self assessed tax payers with incomes over £50,000 per annum with these documents.

The contributer doesn't know the difference between a "rule" and a "principle". Consequently the crux of his argument is pointless. Where he gets the notion that a principle "looks at intent" is absolutely beyond me. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Calling a rule a principle doesn't make it a principle, particularly when he totally muddles what a principle is. Lesson 1 for Richard Murphy is to go and read Dworkin about what the difference is between a principle and a rule. All GAARs examine the intent (some objective, some subjective) of the taxpayer in determining whether or not not the GAAR should operate to counteract a transaction or not.

33% across the board, unearned & earned

So the new anti-tax avoidance laws doesn't stop tax avoidance? Well, that's a shocker.
Why can't they just make a law that is working as intended? Is it that hard? jocurile

I read an interesting perspective at bit.ly/tax-avoidance. I agree that there is a moral element to it but at the end of the day everyone wants to make money, there is an issue with everyone's attitude, people should not have to resort to tax avoidance schemes in the first place.

A General Anti-Avoidance Principle in order to judge intent!! What utter nonsense! This is like welcoming the thought police!!

And besides, what about HMRC riding rough shod on Parliamentary intentions e.g. trying to invoke the settlements legislation in family owned companies when the Conservatives, who introduced Independent Taxation, in a parliamentary question on this gave categoric assurances that they were not looking to disturb such arrangements?!!

The article is skirting round the main issue viz. legislation that is badly thought through and badly drafted. The government cannot remain blameless if it provides scope for people to so arrange their tax affairs that they minimise their tax liability. Where is the law that says that we should so arrange our tax affairs that we end up paying the maximum that we possibly could to the Treasury?

Tax is a business cost like any other, and if there is a legal way of mitigating that cost then he would be a foolish businessman indeed if he did not consider reducing it.

Is not News Corp involved in tax avoidance itself; using tax havens to shelter tax? So why the moral outrage against Jimmy Carr? The terms "Speck" and "Log" to mind!!

As laymen drown in a confusion of terminology , they miss the point.

The K2 Scheme and it's Ilk do not work anyway and an Anti-Avoidance provision brought in , in 1936:- Currently Section 720 Income Tax Act 2007 kills it stone dead amongst other rules such as the Ramsay Principle!

What enables Promoters to flog this nonesense is the tardiness with which HMRC operate to attack these things!

The Promoters will go into Liquidation leaving Carr et al to fight on and eventually pay up! In the end it's a low interest loan!

Only the lower classes get a good kicking
after all what do they do...according to the rich and wealthy
they should be thankful for their lot.. and know their place
we the mighty... thinkers and scribblers ..with a grasp of grammar " don't forget "
must sit on our arses and..." think"
of what you must do to make our lives comfortable
ACTORS ..THE ARTS..LAWMAKERS.. WRITERS OF BOOKS .. KINGS and other layabouts are your betters

Whoever appointed Aaroson to propose an anti-avoidance strategy when the man lives off tax avoidance?

This is from his webpage:

Graham Aaronson practises exclusively in commercial taxation, with extensive experience both in advisory work and in litigation through to the Supreme Court and the ECJ. For many years he has concentrated on a number of particular areas of commercial taxation – especially complex transfer pricing disputes, the UK taxation of multinationals, and oil taxation. He is currently the lead Counsel for the claimants in 5 of the 6 ongoing EU law based “Group Litigation Order” corporate tax actions against HMRC. A substantial proportion of his time is devoted to dispute resolution, whether preparing and conducting litigation or advising on the strategy and tactics for achieving a successful resolution of disputes through negotiation or mediation. His client base comprises virtually all of the multinationals with operations in the UK. Instructions are often direct from the largest companies as well as through all of the big 4 accountancy firms and most of the major law firms.
http://www.pumptax.com/barristers/640/graham-aaronson

"Of course any such HMRC ruling would be subject to appeal to the courts, but the taxpayer would have to show why the scheme was not tax avoidance: the burden of proof would be on them."

Seriously? You want to over turn a 1,000 years of jurisprudence and insist that the accused prove themselve innocent rather than the prosecution having to prove them guilty?

Don't you think that there might just, you know, possibly, be a civil liberties issue here?