Ever since the last Budget there has been a lot of commentary on tax
avoidance and following on from last night’s BBC Panorama show 'the truth about
tax' I thought I would share my comments and understanding on the difference
between Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance.
Tax evasion is in quite simply unlawful and can expose the taxpayer to
penalties. Examples include giving inaccurate information or describing a
transaction as something different from what it really is. It is basically a
form of deception.
Tax Avoidance however has developed over a number of years in to what we
have today in artificial schemes by which a sequence of transactions is
undertaken for the sole purpose of mitigating a tax burden much like what was
shown in the panorama show.
I have taken a quote from the judge in the tax case Duke of Westminster 35
that perhaps sums it up the best "A taxpayer may have a choice between two
or more alternative methods of achieving a desired result. He is entitled to
select the method, if lawful which avoids altogether or reduces the tax he
would pay on another alternative. He is not to be taxed on the basis that a
more normal method would attract a heavier tax burden. The selection of a tax
effective method is called tax avoidance"
The best analysis on tax avoidance does come from case law and taken from
the 'Ramsay' case the courts came up with a strategy to look at tax avoidance.
1. There must be a per ordained series of transactions
2. Into which are inserted steps which have no commercial purpose except the
avoidance of tax
3. In which case the court may disregard the inserted steps in deciding how
the transaction should be taxed.
4. Look at the end result.
This is the basic form the courts have been using over the past 20 years to tackle these artifical tax avoidance schemes however many sophisticated schemes have been winning. I believe now along with the Chancellor's Budget we will see more anti avoidance measures put in place potentially starting with stamp duty mitigation and in a fairer society this can only be seen as a good thing. Although how strict these provisions are remains to be seen and I suspect the highly intelligent people operating these schemes will find a way around it.
It is very hard as a tax practitioner to tell a client who wants to minimise
his tax liability and has taken part in these various schemes that it is
unethical and to me goes against certain principles. I believe others have to
suffer and pay more tax whilst people are working within the tax avoidance
legislation to sometimes not paying tax at all. However whilst it is still
'law' and the legislation has not been amended then as a practitioner you have
to accept the schemes. HMRC of course operate the general anti avoidance
provision. Where the scheme must by notified to HMRC by its promoter to obtain
a reference number to go on the tax return. There is a £5,000 penalty for failure
to notify.
Tax Avoidance is a term that should not be used loosely and can’t be
interrupted in a number of ways. Whilst I would not promote any artificial
schemes I am all in favour of tax planning to minimise the client’s liability
and here are some examples:
1. Income bearing assets should be held by the spouse with the lowest
marginal rate to tax.
2. The use of pensions can reduce tax in the years of high income working
whilst making provisions when the marginal rate is lower
3. On the sale of a business there is some scope for allocating the price
between different assets to reduce the tax burden
I have many more what we call 'lawful' tax planning tips.
I hope you have found this useful and provide a clearer picture of tax
evasion and tax avoidance and if you would like any help with your tax or have
any questions please email me
mitch@ljd.uk.com
Mitch the Tax Man