I've been challenged to suggest five steps that could be taken now to tackle tax avoidance, given that the topic is in the news.
First of all, let's be clear why this issue is important. I estimate tax avoidance costs the UK £25 billion a year. I stress, that's an estimate. That means it's an informed guess - I'm not saying this figure is right. What we do now know though is that it is substantially more realistic than the government's own estimate of £5 billion. That is why this issue is now under discussion. When George Osborne now admits that just 20 taxpayers may be avoiding £145 million between them we know that this issue is of enormous economic consequence.
So, these are my top five ways of tackling tax avoidance, each if them in short summary:
1. Introduce a proper general anti-avoidance rule
This is a perennial demand of mine and is absolutely essential if we are ever going to be tax avoidance.
A general anti-avoidance rule is essential once we realise that all tax regulation is written and it is an inevitable fact of life that words have uncertain meanings, however much we like to deny it and however hard Parliament works to try to define them in taxes acts. That means all tax law is open to abuse if the only basis on which it can be interpreted is the strict meaning of words, which cannot be known until a judge has ruled on the issue. So, we need a better basis for interpretation and that is to look at the purpose of the law, and the intention of the taxpayer and then decide if the two coincide. If they do, then everything is fine. If they don't then quite clearly action needs to be taken.
Now, no one wants a general anti-avoidance rule which gives a tax authority complete right to decide when, if, and how somebody should pay tax. There is obviously massive uncertainty in that as well. But thankfully we have a precedent for such a general anti-avoidance rule, and it was, curiously, created by the House of Lords. In 1982 the House of Lords ruled upon a case and their resulting decision came to be known as the Ramsey principle. In order for the Ramsay principle to apply, there had to be:
1) a series of transactions; which are
2) pre-ordained; and
3) into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from tax avoidance.
Under Ramsey the artificial step inserted for tax avoidance was ignored when calculating the tax due— effectively delivering a general anti-avoidance principle.
Unfortunately, the Ramsey principle was largely overturned in a subsequent decision of the House of Lords in 2001, and that is one reason why tax avoidance has become so rampant in the last decade. Now we need it back, and a general anti-avoidance rule that would put it into UK law is now essential.
I stress of the current proposal from the government for a general anti-avoidance rules nothing like this at all and I explain why here.
2. Country-by-country reporting
A very welcome development over the last few weeks has been the increase in discussion of the impact of transparency upon tax avoidance. There seems to be almost universal agreement that most people are embarrassed about being found to be tax avoiding. As a result there also seems to be near universal agreement that the more information there is on public record about a tax payer's affairs the less chance there is that they will undertake tax avoidance activity.
My estimate of tax avoidance splits into two near equal parts. One half relates to the activities of individuals and the other to the activities of large companies. By definition there are many fewer large companies than there are individuals and each of those companies also pays (or should usually pay) a great deal more tax than any individual, and so also has a great deal more opportunity to tax avoid. As a consequence, demanding transparency from multinational companies who have greatest opportunity to use tax havens and their associated arrangements to avoid their tax obligations in the UK is the obvious place to start with a transparency agenda.
Large companies do, of course, have to prepare and publish their accounts, but those accounts do not at present include any indication at all of what a multinational company does in each and every country in which it operates. So we have no idea of what its sales are, what its profits are, how many people it employs or at what cost, and most importantly of all, of course, how much tax it pays in each and every country in which it operates.
Country by country reporting by multinational companies would solve this problem. Those companies would then have to publish a profit and loss account showing all the above noted information for each and every country in which they operate. As a result we will know precisely what they do in the UK, how much tax they pay here and how much in addition that they don't pay here because we will know how much of their profit is shifted into tax havens.
There is an official proposal for a form of country by country reporting before the European Parliament at present, but it only relates to the extractive industries. This is not therefore something that is now on the fringes of debate. The OECD is looking at it, the International Accounting Standards Board is looking at it and so is the European Union. In that case it is time to put pressure on all these bodies to introduce a comprehensive country by country reporting requirement to reduce the tax avoidance activity of multinational corporations to the benefit of this all. There is more information on this issue here.
3. Increasing the number of staff at HM Revenue & Customs
A lot of tax avoidance is complicated. It takes time to investigate it, time to assess it, time to react to it and time to push through the resulting demand for additional tax due. All that time has to be undertaken by real people, sitting in real offices, doing a real days work on behalf of the UK. They are employed by H M Revenue & Customs, and yet right now far too many of the people employed by our tax authority are facing the risk of redundancy.
I'm well aware that the government says that it is investing up to £900 million in additional funds to tackle tax avoidance but that has to be set against the background of £3 billion of total cuts to the budget of HM Revenue & Customs over the life of this Parliament. You cannot tackle tax avoidance and cut the resources available to address this issue at the same time. As a result it's now essential that we change our attitude towards spending on staff at HM Revenue & Customs and not see them as a cost, but to see them as a revenue generation opportunity, with the people in question being gainfully employed to ensure that there is a level playing field on which all business in the UK operates where no one gets an advantage by tax cheating to give them an unfair benefit in the marketplace. There is in this a double benefit. We get a more efficient, fairer, competitive and vibrant market and we have more tax paid at the same time. This is a pro-business tax policy for the UK.
4. Reforming small business taxation
One of the first objectives of any tax avoider is to get their income out of their hands, where it might be subject to income tax rates of up to 50% present and potentially to national insurance charges as well, and into the hands of another person who will pay tax at a lower rate, possibly with no national insurance paid. That obvious 'other person' is a limited company, and anyone can form such a company for a tiny outlay of under £100 at this point of time in the UK.
Too often this then means that the income that an individual has earned is artificially diverted into making payment to someone else, or that income from unemployment that should be subject to national insurance is converted into what looks like investment income paid in the form of dividends to which no national insurance applies. We now know that thousands of people are paid in this way by the government each year, and there will be tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of people paid in this way in the private sector each year as well. All of this is tax motivated.
I have no desire to impede small-business because it is in many ways the backbone of our economy. Nor do I want to put an impediment in the way of those businesses that really need to raise capital through a limited company, and to retain profits to reinvest in their enterprise. But let's be clear, that is a small minority of companies these days. The vast majority of small limited companies are owned by just one person, have a share capital of under £10, do not retain profit for investment in the business, and are basically the incorporated persona of their owner/manager. We need to recognise this fact and create appropriate structures for limited liability entities for use in the 21st-century economy when at present we are struggling with the legacy of a structure designed in the 19th century.
I explored this issue in much greater depth here, but what we need to do now is change the format of incorporation for most small businesses in the UK so that something much like a limited liability partnership, which has been available in UK law since 2000, becomes the standard format for the small limited liability business. This means that they enjoy limited liability, but at the same time the owners are taxed upon the profits arising in the business each year under income tax rules as if they were partners in an unincorporated business. This means that the opportunities for tax avoidance are limited, national insurance at self-employed rates is paid (and this is lower than on employment income) and many of the admin burdens that exist in the management of a limited company are eliminated because the taxation rules of limited liability partnerships are at present much simpler than those of companies.
There are enormous advantages to making this change. It will reduce the admin burdens on small business, it will reduce tax avoidance, it wil differentiate between those companies which are setting out to establish larger scale enterprises and those which are always intended to be small-scale operations (not that there is anything wrong with that) and it will help create a level playing field between smaller companies of all types who would then be face broadly consistent tax rates whether they are incorporated or not. That has to be good for fair competition in the UK economy as well.
5. Tackling tax havens
Tax havens are often associated with tax evasion activity, where a person simply hides their income, gains or wealth from the view of H M Revenue & Customs, but that is not always the case. They can also be used for tax avoidance. Some of this will be easily undertaken by those who are not domiciled in the UK (and tackling the domicile rule remains an important issue in the tax avoidance agenda) but they are also widely used by those who are resident as well. iIn many cases this happens because people think that such activity will not be found out, whether the transactions undertaken is legitimate or not. Certainly, keeping such activity out of the public domain is a key objective of those who use tax havens, which is why I so frequently refer to them as secrecy jurisdictions.
The UK has more tax havens under its care than any other country in the world. The Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar and others are all ours. We have a duty, first of all, to make sure that these places are as open and transparent with us as we expect financial institutions in the UK to be, not least because most of the financial institutions located in these tax havens are owned by UK-based organisations.
We have to go further than that though. International cooperation to stop taxing the people is essential, and the European Union has been extremely important in this process. Currently the UK is undermining the EU's initiatives to tackle tax havens by signing a deal with Switzerland. That deal must be cancelled because it will at the very least seriously delay and will quite possiby ultimately completely prevent progress on the upgrade of the European Union Savings Tax Directive which would, if implemented in the form currently proposed be the best weapon to shatter tax haven secrecy that the world has ever seen.
I am, of course, aware that the Austria and Luxembourg are siding with tax cheats and tax criminals in opposing this upgrade to this European directive. However, it is essential that the UK commits itself to tackling tax avoidance by siding with the European Union against such tax cheats and the governments that help them, including Switzerland, which has for all practical purposes joined the existing European Union Savings Tax Directive. We must now proactively demand that those countries that help people avoid their obligation to pay UK tax must be transparent with us in ensuring that everyone who owes tax in this country has their affairs made known to us so that demands for payment can be made.
6. Just in case you want some more
I could of course have suggested some other items for inclusion in the above list. I will give no great detail on them here but would suggest they might include:
a. Renegotiating the basis on which multinational companies allocate their profits between states. The OECD's arm's-length principle which has been the basis for this calculation for well over half a century is now completely outmoded, and a new basis of allocation is now essential. The UK could lead this process.
b. Aligning the income tax and capital gains tax rates for individuals. Nigel Lawson did, of course, do this with great success. It immediately eliminates an obvious route to undertake tax avoidance, and that is why the rates should be aligned again.
c. Some moves have been already put in place to cut the value of allowances and reliefs available to the wealthiest taxpayers but the measures in question may not have gone far enough. Consideration of further restrictions is an essential part of addressing the problem of tax avoidance because in some areas the opportunity for continuing avoidance is far too easy to locate within our tax system.
d. The USA has for a long time had what it calls an 'alternative minimum tax rate' which has had the intention of limiting tax abuse. We need to investigate the same sort of system in the UK.
e. There is a paradox in the UK tax system that income earned from employment ( by the proverbial " hard-working family") is much more heavily taxed because of the application of national insurance than is income earned from investment. Avoiding national insurance has as a result become the tax accountants first port of call as a consequence. There is an obvious way to remedy this, and to create a level playing field for all taxpayers whatever their source of income, and that is to introduce an investment income surcharge on investment income (for everyone but pensioners, I suggest) with investment earnings of, say, more than £5,000 a year being subject to that additional charge that is equivalent to national insurance. Yet again the object is to create a level playing field, and when there is a level playing field the opportunity to tax avoidance is greatly reduced.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“it wil differentiate between those companies which are setting out to establish larger scale enterprises and those which are always intended to be small-scale operations”
But you haven’t explained how this will be done. When does a small scale operation, designed primarily (in your view) for tax avoidance, become a legitimate trade properly conducted through a limited company? Is it based on turnover, profits, employees or some other factor – all of which are entirely arbitrary and may not reflect commercial realities. Far from increasing certainty and reducing admin costs of small business, it will be a potential nightmare as traders and HMRC come before the courts arguing whether or not theirs is a trade which should legitimately be carried on through a company. It certainly is not a black and white issue as you appear to suggest.
The fact there is no such guidance either in the Companies Act or the Taxes Acts would appear to me to suggest that there is no restriction on what activity a company may undertake (save for things such as helping an enemy etc). HMRC have never challenged service companies in the Ken Livingstone mould (NB – not personal service companies and IR35 – which is an entirely different kettle of fish and much confused with “service companies”) so one assumes they are quite happy with them.
I explore that in the paper I link to
And I am suggesting law to refine the point
The paper you link to talks about income splitting in the context of husband and wife companies. Indeed, it was clearly written in response to Jones v Garnett.
It does not explain how you are going to decide whether a trade is suitable for being carried on in a company.
A most basic point is that a small scale operation may in due course become a much larger operation. How is that business to be taxed in the opening years? On the assumption that he is a sole trader and if and when he becomes big enough, allow him to re open the Returns some 5, 6, 7 years later, refund the income tax and make him prepare corporation tax computations for the previous few years? What a nightmare. But how else would it work in that situation?
It could change form when it wished – by subscribing the appropriate capital as a pre-requisite of doing so – and then change tax status
This is no more than happens on in corporation now
Your objection is utterly spurious
I should also have pointed out that very often it is impossible to win any contract work unless you’re a company. This is especially common when working for government but is also widespread in industry. So a lot of these companies are incorporated for entirely commercial reasons – to gain work. And again I reiterate this is not in IR35 cases with just one client – this is your Livingstone-esque “service companies” type – one man and lots of clients.
So we need to change the law on that point – and my LLP would suit this purpose just fine
I apologise for changing the subject here, Richard, but do you have any opinions on the government considering taxing the basic state pension at source, much like income tax? I have looked through the older entries on this blog but find no references to this?
Have you an opinion on this or not?
In practice they do this already – through notices of coding.
So in principle I have no special objection to do it.
It appears it will take money from peoples pensions, though. not a good thing, surely?
Some greater public awareness of the spectrum of tax avoidance would be good too. Is a pensioner putting their savings in an ISA tax avoidance? They’re certainly structuring their savings to pay less tax. How about a couple putting their savings in the name of the lowest earner to save tax? Likewise. Or how about a contractor being ‘paid’ in tax free loans from an Isle of Man employment benefit trust (easy one this time!). I would like a new term inventing – tax scheming – to cover the stuff which, whilst technically legal, really gets up everyone’s nose.
Of course an ISA is not tax avoidance – the government intends it be used. That can’t be avoidance
If we have taxation of couples then your second option is legitimate – it’s not clear now though whether it is, or not. the settlements legislation has never been tested
IoM loans – obviously abusive
So, since the governmentrnment intends non-domiciled taxpayers to avail themselves of the remittance basis of taxation , it cannot be tax avoidance.
Good to see we agree on this.
But I can argue it should be made so
And do
And I can also argue it is an illegal tax basis
And do
Richard, how do you get to the govt estimate of £5bn of avoidance? In your link, the avoidance seems to be £2.5bn or are you including other line items not expressly identified as avoidance?
Surely HMRC’s figures on avoidance would be much easier to calculate than evasion given it is the dfifference between income declared and the tax that should be due at normal tax rates, unlike evasion which involves estimating income that isn’t declared. So while I can believe the evasion figures is understated, I struggle to believe HMRC is wrong by a factor of 10 on avoidance.
I agree – it’s hard to reconcile numbers
But if you search you’ll find they do say it’s £5bn avoidance in total
And please read their methodology – they use a tiny sample basis and extrapolate it
The notion that taxation should be used to redistribute income begs the question of why it is mal-distributed in the first place.
And apart from the tax that must not be mentioned, all other taxes can only affect the economy negatively. This may be desirable if it reduces activities with external costs eg purchasing things with packaging with expensive disposal costs but otherwise is surely not?
Incidentally what became of Adam Smith’s Canons of Taxation? Surely one does not want to crank up collection and compliance costs unduly, or for disputes to end up in long and expensive court cases?
Do you really want to base your decision making on the thoughts of a long dead economist writing about an economic order that n longer exists, thankfully?
We still base our decisions on the thoughts of long-dead scientists like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein. Do their theories have a best-before date.
On the subject of domicile, I pay UK taxes and get absolutely nothing whatsoever for the money I hand over to the UK government.
It this a satisfactory situation?
the world they dealt with has not changed
Our economy has
Henry, I don’t recommend citing the works of long dead physicists as an example to follow for economics. Physicists continue to develop their theories and throw out old theories which no longer hold up under examination. This is not true of economists – the heterodox literature is full of comparisons between the real sciences and economics. And that’s not to say that you need to throw out all the bathwater…
 On the subject of domicile, I pay UK taxes and get absolutely nothing whatsoever for the money I hand over to the UK government.
I think there is much waste by government, but your comment (unless you do not, never have and never will live in the UK) is utter claptrap and such blinkered dogma that frankly it does not require refutation. Law is your surname — what provides the legal system and framework? Even if you have never lived in the UK, has it occurred to you that you are writing your comments on a website that runs on a system designed by a UK scientist working for CERN, an organisation principally funded by the governments of EU countries, one of the largest of which is the UK?
Roger
Agreed – and thanks
This sort of nonsense has to be rebutted – and is I am afraid a sure sign of a person who has yet to engage their brain
Richard
My comment does not need to be rebutted. I have no objection to paying taxes to the government of the country where I actually live, which provides good public services and does not waste money on wars, unsuable aircraft carriers, inefficient croney consultancies, near giveaways of public property to trendy tycoons, etc. But they actually get relatively little from me.
The domicile rule does not result in tax avoidance, for Parliament has expressly legislated to the effect that non-domiciled resident taxpayers should be taxed on a remittance basis for their foreign-sourced income. This is is both the letter AND the spirit of the law. It is no different from an ISA, the income from which Parliament has decided should remain tax-free.
You may not like the domicile rule, but that is a different matter.
All tax avoidance is legal
So your argument does not work
Richard,
All tax avoidance strategies follow the letter of the law. Your problem is with those that fail to comply with the spirit of the law.
It turns out that the use of the remittance basis of taxation by non-domiciled taxpayers obeys BOTH the letter AND the spirit of the law, just like an ISA does.
My argument works very well. Thank you.
The slight problem for you is it abuses the Race Relations Act – it is discrimination on the grounds of national origin
Not sure about the Race Relations discrimination point. A person can be UK domiciled and become non-UK domiciled and vice versa. They remain the same person with the same passport. So their domicile status for tax purposes can change without any change to their race, creed, colour or religion. I cannot see therefore how “Race Relations” comes into it.
A person who was born in the UK with several generations of UK ancestry is not prevented from changing their residency and lifestyle status to the extent that they can become non-UK domiciled. It’s entirely up to them. To what extent are they being discriminated against?
National origin is none of those things
It is domicile
And that is not picked or easily changes as you imply
And discrimination on the basis of it is illegal since 2003
I am afraid that you show almost no appreciation of domicile, let alone the law
Au contraire Richard.
I have only been advising on domicile for 37 years so I think I am pretty well qualified in this area. I’ve actually lost 3 claims for foreign domicile out of at least 600, so HMRC and its predecessors seem to be on the same wavelength as me.
Domicile is based on intent and state of mind, not race or even national origin. A person of foreign national origin does have some significant advantages over a person of UK origin because the domicile of origin is notoriously “sticky”. However, I have several clients who are British nationals who were born in the UK, and whose parents were also British nationals who lived abroad for many years, but who had successfully claimed foreign domicile status. A child automatically takes the domicile of their father at birth, and so the child is foreign-domiciled if the father was foreign-domiciled. The child needs to do enough do preserve that foreign domicile status, otherwise he/she will acquire a new domicile of choice. I equally have clients who are foreign nationals but who were children of foreign nationals who had already lost their foreign domiciled status by the time of the child’s birth, and so the child had a domicile of origin in the UK.
The point is that it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with intent, state of mind and the facts in each case. Those same criteria apply equally to people of every race, creed, religion or nationality. The foreign national has an advantage, albeit a big one, but its nothing more than an advantage.
Yes, UK-domiciled people are discriminated against compared with the tax treatment of foreign-domiciled people, but race doesn’t come into it. It’s not really any different from variations in the tax treatment of married and unmarried persons. Discrimination yes – racial discrimination no.
And respectfully – whilst agreeing that – you are describing ‘national origin’
And discrimination on those grounds is illegal
So I continue to disagree with you – based on my own experience and understanding of this issue – which differs from yours
Pete – you are mistaking domicile with residence. Domicile is a status you acquire at birth. In the modern world, it ensures that hihly skilled foreigners (mostly Americans of course) who come to live in London, having cost the UK nothing to educate, putting their kids into private schools and flying home for any healtcare related issues, only pay UK tax on their UK-sourced income. In total, c. 100,000 non-domiciled residents pay about £6 billion in UK tax, which at the going rate of about 20,000 per public sector worker, mean that they directly support 300,000 civil servants who otherwise would be unemployed.
It is an essential tool to make the UK an attractive location for mobile talent, which the UK is so desperatley short of.
The UK has no shortage of talent
The sort we do not need is mobile – that’s the grubby, self seeking, short term, screw you sort
Ted
No – I can assure you that I’m not getting it mixed up with residency at all! I know the intricacies of domicile of origin and domicile of choice inside out.
I agree with you re the value to the UK economy of non-doms, although Richard clearly doesn’t ! In his words they may well be “grubby, self seeking, short term and screw you sorts”, but they contribute a massive amount to the UK economy and barely utilise the UK’s public facilities.
Actually, the vast majority of “tax avoidance” is NOT legal. However, it passes because HMRC are unable to establish the truth. There are 2 main hurdles;
1) HMRC incompetence – which can’t be legislated for
2) Legal & Professional Priviliege – which could, instantly
Since a large part of tax avoidance for small businesses revolves around National insurance couldn’t you just advocate equalising NI rates for all income, including dividends from limited companies.
Or better still abolish NI and incorporate it into income tax rates.
I have advocated that
Easiest and almost guaranteed way to make sure tax avoidance is reduced considerably is to incentivise the tax collectors. Put together a crack team of guys, give them 1 percent of any tax avoidance convictions (settled) then you’ll have your issue sorted. I’ll put my hand up for that job in fact and i dont even want a salary.
Last point, are we all sure that stamping out tax avoidance is going to ensure more absolute tax pounds coming through door?
You describe a sure route to corruption and abuse
No thank you
This is called “tax farming” I think. It was done in the late Roman empire. Tax collectors became very unpopular – read the bible! A letter from the taxman may be unwelcome but tax officers are not hated in this country.
1% you say. I think the % would soon escalate, because some reluctant taxpayers would “incentivise” the collectors too. What’s sauce for the goose…. Pretty soon the amount of tax received by HMRC would diminish.
It would undoubtedly undermine the rule of law, and it is the rule of law that we need, rather than dodgy deals in smoke flled rooms.
Indeed
But that does not stop right wing think tanks dreaming about it – and HMRC is being privatised, right now
[…] A longer version of this piece is here. […]
Is there any country by country reporting of official, charitable organisation, corporate and personal donations in charitable organisation accounts?
It’s growing as a result of the Publish What You Fund campaign – US based
Richaed did you say that the HMRC is being privatised oh god help us !!!!
In some places the trials are already happening
Sorry I spelt your name wrong Richard
No prolbem 🙂
“The slight problem for you is it abuses the Race Relations Act — it is discrimination on the grounds of national origin”
The RRA does not apply to Acts of Parliament. I thought we had put this lie to bed – but clearly you are going to persist with it.
Domicile has never been created by an Act of Parliament
It is Revenue practice
Sorry – wrong again
1. Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.
2. The rules allowing a non-domiciled individual to claim the RB are found in Income Tax Act 2007. ITA 2007 is an Act of Parliament.
No – they clarify but do not create domicile, as you well know
Richard
Neil Dexter is correct.
Whilst domicile itself may or may not have been created by Act of Parliament, the tax treatment of non-domiciled individuals most certainly was.
Your point isn’t that domicile is discriminatory – you are arguing that the tax treatment of non-domiciled individuals is discriminatory. If there was no difference in tax treatment then domicile status would be irrelevant from a tax perspective and so wouldn’t even be on your radar.
I could see a reasonable argument that it may be an “unfair” issue for other EU countries, but even if that was the case then it couldn’t apply to individuals with no other EU connection as no other EU country would be suffering.
Right?
That’s a brave claim
Brave – in what way?
That it’s ‘right’
Well – the evidence is overwhelming and your counter-argument isn’t !
But you have not explained why – it’s just your wish to maintain the status quo that motivates your comment
I have clearly explained why – I have stated that the advantageous tax treatment of foreign domiciliaries was clearly created by Act of Parliament, and therefore cannot be attacked under the Race Relations Act.
You seem unable or unwilling to counter this argument.
And I disagree it was created by Act of parliament
I think it is granted by HMRC
Er…isn’t the Income Tax Act 2007 an Act of Parliament? The clue is in the name.
I don’t think we’re getting anywhere here
We differ
That’s it
That’s not up to your usual debating standards. It’s unlike you to concede defeat so easily without at least attempting to justify your position.
I have better things to do with my time
Richard, you seem to be getting increasingly tetchy. Do you need a holiday?
No Henry
I’ve never suffered fools gladly
And I’m not in the slightest bit embarrassed about it
How can you refer to somebody as a fool when they have proved you wrong?
Admitting that you are human is not a weakness you know.
I was not replying to you