Indeed, very much so.
Not helped by HMRC having zero credibility when it comes to claims that "oh, we would not seek to use it that way". Time has proved again and again that if they have a power they will use it at every opportunity, and worse, will seek to reinterpret existing powers in new more draconian ways in the future given the chance.
Thank you for that. The link to the detail was broken when I looked, so I could only go by the title. Of course, under English Law it will also depend on what the Courts decide is wrongdoing.
Colin Bignell
Possibly - but it could take several years for a case to get to a real court - you often have a few years of argument with HMRC, eventually a hearing before the commissioners, or special commissioners, then possibly appeals etc. Lots of hassle and stress, for what is to them at least just a game of suck it and see in many cases.
With the new government things may change, from the full text of the con/lib-dem deal at:
Do they *really* mean avoidance or evasion?
Avoidance playing by the rules to reduce your tax bill - legal. Evasion not playing by the rules to reduce your tax bill - illegal.
Also "A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences"
I do hope that is an error. However, I am pleased to see they plan to scrap compulsory annuities at age 75. My pension has taken a lot of planning and an annuity is definitely not part of it.
Colin Bignell
You can tackle avoidance - basically by rewriting the rules.
The trick is to understand the avoidance, and change the rules to MAKE it evasion.
Remember the great scams of the labour era in te 70's where income tax was humongous, so everyone had tacit 'perks' instead..company cars, free petrol,'business trips' to Marbella with the wife and kids.. and a lot more.
Making cars and fuel 'benefits in kind' reduced all that,.
Or as they say what's the difference between Avoidance and Evasion?..
5 years;!...
This was a bit a nu labour newspeak that seems to have gained traction. As you say, avoidance is perfectly legal, and morally defensible when actioned in the way most "normal" people do it.
In fact there really ought to be three different descriptions for different activities: mitigation, avoidance, and evasion. Mitigation would be actions that reduce tax as a by product of a decision made for other reasons. Avoidance for actions that reduce tax by actively doing things in order to legally reduce your tax liability, and evasion for illegally avoiding tax which should be due.
Part of the difficulty was that as the taxation regime has expanded in complexity to the point where it is now incoherent and mutually contradictory, it has opened ever more avenues of attack for people to devise clever ways to use it against itself. The government / HMRCs response seems to be adding yet more complexity, and introducing draconian powers to enable tax to be collected according to what "they" would want the legislation to mean rather than what it actually means! Quite often the concept of retrospective changes in legislation has crept in during recent years.
Which will only stop the avoidance happening in the same way that it is happening now. It won't stop it, nor do I think it should be stopped. Everyone should have the right to ensure that they pay the minimum amount of tax that the law requires.
Colin Bignell
You can see the IRs logic then in making it difficult/expensive for anyone to tell you how to do that then! ;-)
Mike P the 1st wrote: ....
...
I've just had a chat with the VOA about a 12' x 8' shed I am putting up in my garden, specifically as a store for my business. The gist of the conversation was that the valuation officer was not really interested if it was not going to change the nature of the property, i.e that it would not be obvious to neighbours, by reason of increased traffic, noise, etc. that I was running a business from home. He implied that the £100 a year it would bring in, after small business relief, might not even cover the cost of collecting it.
Colin Bignell
In article , Nightjar
It varies by company, and by industry sector. There is still a lot of poor management in industry, but in the more progressive industries, things are improving. I've worked for companies which pushed home working really hard (such as Sun, who saved hundreds of millions of $ by doing this and giving up real estate). Conversely, I've worked for companies I won't name who had managers just as you describe - these fail to attract and retain the best tallent. If you are aiming to be the best company in your field, then you want the best people in that field working for you. It doesn't matter where you are based, most of the best people in the world in any field won't be anywhere near you. If you don't have an option for remote working, you won't be able to employ them.
The manager's main function is selection and motivation his staff. If you get that right, almost everything else comes out in the wash. This does require special effort when you have a dispersed team. As a manager who's implemented remote working, I've had to make sure the relationships and respect which would have existed naturally in a team sitting together in the office works in the same way with remote staff, and they they don't feel left out of anything. So the office banter which goes a long way towards building this has to move to a medium which works for remote workers such as email or IRC, and you may have to explain to the IT department that yes, you do expect your staff to be discussing what they did over the weekend in email, because they would have been doing that if they'd been sitting next to each other in an office. It's important to meet face-to-face periodically, particularly initially when someone new comes on board. This generates a level of lasting respect which is impossible to match before you meet someone face-to-face, but which continues for remote working afterwards. The flexibility that remote working can bring can also be very useful, as the concept of 9-5 working is pretty pointless. An example was one of my staff who was a new mum would stop around 3pm to pick up from child minder, and then around
8pm after child has gone to bed, would start working again. It was actually very handy to have someone available from 8pm-10pm to handle work out of normal hours, and of course it cost me nothing extra, and suited her ideally too.
Some Taxi companies are doing that now as its a real PITA for them to get staff on Friday and Saturday nights for a few hours, so mum logs on to the dispatch system has her phone on VoIP off the office system via broadband and virtual office staff! and no commuting costs either no extra office costs ....
good grief. You must work in the public sector.
A managers JOB is to get productivity out of his department.
He doesn't need to solve interpersoanl problems if people don't meet!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.