That’s your subjective interpretation

I stick to mine

And to my call for a change to the rules for small business that will stop this abuse http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/08/09/arctic-systems-moving-small-business-taxation-on-in-the-uk/

Richard

All very however. This very thing was brought up by the Labour Party when the independent taxation of spouses was brought in and at that time the government was perfectly happy. If the Labour Party was unhappy with this then rather than demand back taxes and put people’s houses at risk it should change the law. If the Labour Party was unhappy then why did the BusinessLink Website recommend using a spouses tax allowance - until this was pointed out to the Treasury team during Jones v Garnett.

Further was a change even required - There is two ways the government could deal with this - Disallow certain parties to Income Shift, or allow everyone to. A number of our competitor countries actually allow it and allow families to file joint returns for a husband and wife (so if your allowance is £5K they are allowed £10K, together). There are important social benefits in encouraging families.

In addition, their were a number of years that were under investigation in Jones v Garnett and HMRC gave up on the previous years because having investigated them it saw nothing wrong. So if nothing was wrong when originally investigated why did the Tresury suddenly change their mind and decide they was (they gave up when it got to court - what if this was someone who could not afford the fight). Maybe this is because they did decide to ignore what the law said and change the rules without going through parliament.

The government changed the rules and decided on someone who was in a position to fight back. Not everyone can. They tried that to

I have some sympathy with what you say, but only some.

The requirement that ‘You shall not beat your wife’ does require considerable definition if an equitable basis of interpretation of the law is not to be used (and I note you oppose that).

When definition is required loopholes creep in.

That’s why I want a GANTIP and a equitable interpretation. Without espousing these I ma not sure your position is credible.

Richard

The more sustainable approach is that the will of parliament produces undesirable consequences because the executive cannot formulate coherent policy.

Directing the case towards those that make the laws, and often so badly in terms of the consequences, would be seen by many as a far more rationale and sustainable way of addressing, and arguably, correcting the consequence.

I disagree.

It was said that the rules would not be used to prevent reasonable income splitting.

But nor were they ever seen as an invitation for ritual income splitting for the benefit of some in society, but not all.

I think HMRC were right and consistent on this issue.

Richard

If subsequent govt’s decide, after such a long time, that it’s no longer an acceptable result then they should use due process and be upfront and clear about it. They tried to implement by stealth and got caught out, now they want to try their usual legislative ‘lash-up’.

George

It is not in the interest of the clients of the accountancy profession to abuse the tax systems of the world.

Maybe you have never suffered a tax investigation. I used to run them for clients (usually clients of other firms of accountants who had suffered their bad advice). If you have suffered a tax investigation you’ll know why abusing tax systems is not a good idea.

But accountants don’t add that risk warning when selling their avoidance services.