That article about tax avoidance very seriously misses the point. There is a huge difference between using rules as they were meant to be used and using rules as they were not meant to be used
( ... )
Just because there are clear examples of "good" and of "bad" tax avoidance doesn't mean there is a clear line between the two categories. Did you read the paragraphs at the end of the article, as well as the sarcastic examples?
I agree there will be some harder examples where some people say it is a bit dodgy and some people that it's ok. The author didn't raise any though. He merely listed a bunch of things clearly not tax avoidance and then finished with some kind of "nah, joking" and some point that we were all tax avoiders (which is obviously untrue). I just don't see what the point was of the article at all. He seemed to be trying to add moral shades of grey where there are none... And as you rightly point out, there could be. It is not yet as if we are in a place where we are angry with people for the semi-legitimate. The big stories where people have been shamed for tax avoidance have all been of the "obviously crooked" types of scheme.
Giving to charity has been called tax avoidance. Indeed, it was a target of anti-avoidance legislation a few years ago when they brought in the cap on sideways loss relief. Thankfully sense was seen and it was excluded from that cap, but it was an explicit target at first
( ... )
Somewhat horrified that this is the first I've heard of the 'The appalling compensation for those people imprisoned through a miscarriage of justice.' story and it's not exactly in mainstream news.
Comments 6
Reply
Did you read the paragraphs at the end of the article, as well as the sarcastic examples?
Reply
It is not yet as if we are in a place where we are angry with people for the semi-legitimate. The big stories where people have been shamed for tax avoidance have all been of the "obviously crooked" types of scheme.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment