I commented yesterday on right wing libertarian bullying. As if on cue this morning someone from the right wing libertarian camp turned up with these comments on the blog (both deleted in the place where he originally sought to post them):
Richard - a quick check with the Valuation Office Agency suggest you are not paying business rates on your Norfolk premises.
Is this tax planning, tax avoidance, tax compliance or tax evasion?
Either way, I'm sure one of the dreaded far right libertarians will be reporting it.
Followed by:
I can confirm that someone has now reported you for non-payment of business rates on your Downham Market premises!
It’s quite true I don’t pay business rates on my Downham Market premises. I don’t pay because they’re not due. I followed VOA guidance. It’s here. I also looked at the legal precedents. The most important is referred to here. The reporting seems accurate.
And using those criteria these no chance at all my premises should be business rated. For the record:
- There is no external signage of a business at my house;
- I have no business visitors to the premises;
- The office is not suitable to receive business visitors because it is not set up as an office;
- The room where I work is shared with my sons' model railway — which takes up as much or more space as I do for my work - and they’re in here almost as much as I am as a result;
- The same room also is host to gardening and other domestic equipment;
- Nothing has been especially adapted for business use (although it has been for railway use) the room is (apart from fitting railway baseboards) as it is when I moved in;
- I do — admittedly — have a business telephone line — but mainly for broadband use. I’ve recently pondered getting rid of it as almost no one calls it any more — modern willingness to call mobiles on all occasions has made it irrelevant.
In other words — there is no chance these are business premises for rating purposes. Which is why they are not recorded as such.
But in that case the whole point of these comments was to harass and bully. Thy had no other purpose.
I rest my case: these people will use any method they can to harass, bully and intimidate. No wonder the Climategate scientists reacted as they did. And that’s why action is needed to protect those who are harassed, bullied and intimidated by them when making fair comment in public.
PS - Discussion with the local Valuation Office confirmed my logic was completely correct
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I know you won’t let the bastards wear you down but it’s worth saying here if only to let the bastards know that others are appalled by their tactics.
Might naming and shaming be appropriate here? After all vexatious complaints to the authorities waste valuable resources..
And yet more evidence of the witlessness of all these Libertarian clowns.
They really can’t spot how ironic it is to report you to the authorities for alleged non payment of tax / rates given their infantile anti-government stance!
You’d think they’d applaud a demonstration of open defiance.
Hilarious stuff from the far right Libertarian loons.
I agree. Let’s see their pen-names. Then we can mock them when they post future comments. We must all refer to this scandalous behaviour whenever any of them posts again. I see none of them have commented on this here, to disown this kind of behaviour.
@James from Durham
He uses the name Peter
His latest comment – made a few minutes ago (and deleted) included this:
What a little Hitler you are.
Take that little smug mugshot off the screen before I want to punch the screen.
Pleasant eh?
Such language in comments that never reach the screen here is, by the way, commonplace.
And such abuse is normal on many of the blogs run by right wing libertarians.
The person in question will not be posting future comments. He will join the list of those who write frequently and never see the light of day
This is not fair game and you are right at expressing revolt at these tactics.
But there remains an issue of substance here which you should address. Your definition of tax compliance is:
to which you add:
If you run a business from that room (as it appears you do), compliance would mandate that you pay some sort of business rates regardless of what else may happen in that room. This is what the spirit of the law says, and any attempt to reduce (or in your case eliminate) the tax liability by making a judgment call on the basis of case law could easily be construed as tax avoidance.
@Jason
And they don’t want to tax me
I’ve now tried – twice
There is no voluntary donation box in tax
I deplore Peter’s language against you.
However, the issue highlights why we should be paying our tax according to ‘the law’ rather than this thing called ‘the spirit of the law’. The ‘spirit of the law’ is just too vague a concept, and there is likely to be too much disagreement between all 60 million of us on any particular point.
I suggest (as a layman) that the ‘spirit of the law’ behind business rates is that they are imposed to reflect the fact income is earned at the premises through commercial activity conducted there. Other issues (e.g. % of the house used, whether there are visitors etc) would appear irrelevant technicalities.
But that’s just my view. There will be other views. I don’t have a dog in this fight particularly.
But it illustrates why we should be judging our tax liabilities on ‘the law’ not the ‘spirit of the law’.There just isn’t sufficient mutual understanding of what it is or who (apart from Parliament and judges) should decide it. And we definitely don’t want to put it in the hands of HMRC – they are subject to the law, not arbiters of the spirit of it.
I agree with an overall theme of this blog that there are too many loopholes, the law is too complex and uncertain on too many points, too many clever people wasting their lives devising tax schemes whose energies would be better spent on other things.
But I don’t blame the advisers (there’s a buck in it) or their clients (who prefer not to pay more than they must).
I blame 100% the various Parliaments who produced the legislation. The tax law is their baby, they have the time, power and resources to do whatever they want with it. And if Parliament doesn’t, it is its fault.
“There is no voluntary donation box in tax”
Then how did Hazel Blears pay tax that wasn’t due on flipping her London home?
@BenM:
“You’d think they’d applaud a demonstration of open defiance.”
They do, and furthermore they condemn the sneak:
http://timworstall.com/2010/07/09/yes-you-know-him/
I know that Richard isn’t likely to want sympathy from them but these ones are at least offering it.
“I blame 100% the various Parliaments who produced the legislation.”
Actually, I blame the executive: the governments that have both produced the complex legislation and at the same time emasculated Parliament so that it cannot scrutinise proposed legislation. Many of our most idiotic laws were conceived and drafted badly and rushed through to meet PR objectives.
“Actually, I blame the executive:”
Fair enough, take your point, I was describing Parliament/the government generally. I imagine your average MP on either side hasn’t a clue about the tax legislation he/she votes for.
Richard, surely this just shows how daft UK tax laws are? No wonder there is such large scale tax avoidance taking place. Maybe instead of rallying against offshore centres, more focus needs to be placed on making UK tax law simple and easy to define?
Anyway, it’s good you give idots such as Peter such little attention.
You are a sickening hypocrite Murphy. Rest assured I will be doing more research into you, in particular the source of the £380,000 you paid for your property (quite a lot for a socialist).
Just thought I’d pipe up to condemn the appalling behaviour of “Peter”. Not just the Pavelik Morozov style informing, but the disgraceful way he has tried to intimidate.
Peter – you owe Richard a big apology. Seriously: your behaviour is nasty, personal and absolutely beyond the pale. ps, look up Pavelik Morozov. Even Soviet kids used to hiss at the mention of his name.
Oh, and you were wrong too. Shabby – every way you look at it “Peter”.
Let me get this straight: you campaign for people to pay the amount of tax due under the spirit if the law, deploring people who use the letter of the law to pay less tax than the spirit of the law says.
Then we find you’re using the letter of the law, citing it in detail, to avoid paying business rates the spirit of the law says you should pay.
Sorry, pressed send half way through. Can you explain, without resorting to the letter of the law, how you see that business rates are not required if you under the spirit of the law?
If the lady that wrote Harry Potter books, did it in a coffee shop, should that shop pay taxes for leasing out its space for business purposes, the price being an occassional coffee and a cake!
In fact should every author pay taxes if he works from home or a park bench?
There are more and more people working from home.
@Peter
Those who have commented here will note that Peter has returned with more threats.
And yes – it is true and a matter of public record that my wife and I paid £380,000 for our home in 2006.
But let’s put this in context for a moment. In was 48 when I moved here, and had owned several homes since buying my first in London SW17 in 1983 – when it was still possible to buy a nice flat there for three times a newly qualified accountant’s salary
In the intervening years I generated, through no effort on my part, more than £250,000 in equity because of moves in house prices.
It can be argued this should be taxed – indeed I have argued this to be a reason why Inheritance Tax is just and equitable – and it could also be used as an argument for enhanced Land Value Taxation with good reason
But it also means you really don’t have to search very hard for the reason why I can afford my house
But it does more than adequately demonstrate the aggression that right wing libertarians – and those who incite them – use in an attempt to stifle public debate
Which is sad but clear indication that liberty is not their objective.
@Marksany
Let’s be quite clear about how I define tax compliance – which is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.
The economic substance of my home is that it is a home. I use a part of a room to work – but that room also has domestic use.
And I have asked for advice from the relevant authorities on this, put my cards face up on the table, told them the facts (they’re noted above) and they say the economic substance is I work in a building that is used as a domestic residence in its entirety for tax purposes.
That does not mean I avoid tax of course: I pay tax on all of it as a domestic dwelling
If I paid tax on part as a business I would then also only pay tax on part as a dwelling. That should be borne in mind by those seeking to complain. I would of course pay less domestic dwelling tax if I paid business taxes – we do not double tax in the UK.
In other words I’m not avoiding tax by what I do – I am paying all the tax owed having made disclosure and sought advice. Equally I am paying no more than is required. That is what tax compliance requires, as it also requires openness, transparency and seeking to comply – which is exactly again what I have done.
In other words I have completely and utterly complied with the standard I am advocating.
In other words – what is your problem?
Richard
I think you are missing the point a few of us have raised above.
Nobody is suggesting you are avoiding tax, or doing improper or anything that any of us would not do.
The problem is that you have previously and regularly defined tax avoidance as ‘against the spirit of the law’ — a point you seem to have omitted in your summary of your views in your reply to Marksany.
The point I made is that it is such a vague concept that there is unlikely to be a common understanding of what that ‘spirit’ is. And therefore, ‘spirit of the law’ is an unhelpful consideration — we should just simply obey ‘the law’ as written by Parliament and as interpreted by the courts.
You’ve suggested (in relation to our discussion above about business rates) that the spirit depends on the dominant character of the dwelling based upon % of use. A small desk is commercial, the rest of the house is domestic, therefore the dominant character is ‘domestic’. Presumably you would argue that a pub with the owner’s flat upstairs would have the dominant character (again, presumably based on % floor space) of a commercial building and therefore be a business premises.
I have said as far as the spirit of the law is concerned, the % use is irrelevant — it is earning income in a commercial capacity that is the ‘spirit’ of the law. As you well know, it is quite possible to earn much more from a small desk (even millions) than from a pub where the commercial part of the premises is much bigger.
I am not saying particular that I am right and you are wrong. Who knows?
The point it that the entire exercise of determining ‘spirit of the law’ is tricky and open to disagreement across all 60 million of us. Therefore, it is a concept that should be abandoned. If Parliament writes something they didn’t mean or which is causing confusion, it is up to Parliament to change it.
Best regards
@Adrian
It is very difficult to take your comment seriously
It is abundantly clear that HMRC and a great many tax advisers think there is a spirit to the law – in other words they think they are quite able to discern the will of parliament with amply sufficient accuracy that they go nowhere near abusing it
But of course it is important that we do not tax on a mystical basis – which is what you seem to think I’m suggesting – although I have not and never would do any such thing
The reality is that a practical interpenetration of what complying with the spirit of the law would look like if it were to be seen is needed to ensure that consistency in the operation of tax law is to be offered to all taxpayers. Hence my definition of tax compliance – which if met would indicate compliance with the spirit of the law
As such there is no inconsistency at all in what I have written
And, what is more, if this is the case then compliance with the spirit of the law is entirely straightforward and easy to interpret – certainly easier by a very long way than interpreting compliance with the letter of the law – which means this represents a substantial step forward in UK taxation.
This suggest firstly how pointless your argument is and secondly that you really do need to find another straw man elsewhere to argue with.
You say there is a clear spirit of the law, but I have argued that it is indeed unclear on this relatively small point.
The fact that there are some HMRC and tax advisors think they can identify a spirit of the law is irrelevant. The issue is: is the spirit of the law so clear that they all 100% agree with what it is on a particular point? As long as there is sizeable, even if minority disagreement on a particular point, then the ‘spirit of the law’ can’t be universally applied.
I have given you one interpretation of the spirit of the law of business rates.
It would seem a strange anomaly that premises that earn potentially millions (and I am not suggesting you earn millions but a person might) from a small desk in the corner of a lounge room (simply because there is also domestic furniture in the room) do not attract business rates, but a pub (where the owner also lives but in a smaller % of the premises but which only earns moderate profits) does attract them.
Is that really the spirit of the law — to ask people to take tape measures to their rooms and work out what kind of furniture they have in them?
You have not offered any view on the spirit of the law, but have complied with the law. Good, that’s what you should do.
But shouldn’t we all follow your own example by relying on the law itself, rather than on some vague notion of the ‘spirit of the law’?
Regards
Richard
Putting aside the extremely tiresome right-wing for a moment I do envy you having a model railway in the ‘office’. I could never get away with it, my youngest is 25!
@Adrian
I think you reveal your own lack of understanding – which is why this is the last comment I am accepting from you on this issue
You seem entirely satisfied with your observation on the pub – which is, if you took the slightest bother to check, very obviously wrong.
The pub will – if I interpret the guidelines correctly – be a commercial property. And the flat, unsurprisingly, will be a flat and taxed as such.
There are clear guidelines on how the law works. Inevitably rules will create anomalies – which is why guidance is needed – and purposive legislation and interpretation is essential. But bothering to find out what the rules are is a key part of abiding by the spirit of the law
You have not bothered to do so in your example.
In other words you had no intention of seeking to abide by the spirit of the law because you did not find out what the law was
Similarly, I have no doubt you are also being closed minded on the argument presented because you have no desire that the law be applied, justly, fairly, appropriately and equitably and without abuse
In which case as I said before you prove yourself an excellent pedant
But you utterly fail to make a case
Whereas I have offered a comprehensive, complete and exampled case of tax compliance within the spirit of the law
At which point I close this debate with you and others on this point – where no one has come close to making a useful contribution as yet
@ Richard
What a highly jealous and disagreeable person this Peter is. I can see no reason why you should have to justify yourself in your own blog. Peter is a bully and clearly you have him worried about something – maybe because you’re often right and better still, you don’t care who you upset when you voice your opinions – or he wouldn’t have felt the need to resort to such underhand tactics. Obviously he was incapable of reasoned argument with your points.
Oh, and working from home is great. Much better than making travel operators rich, buying landfills of clothes, polluting the air, meeting right wing jerks on crowded public transport. Anyone who has a problem with it is envious becuase they don’t have the courage, commitment and skills to run their own business.
A model railway in the office? Fab! I have a daybed.
@Jacquie Martin:
“Anyone who has a problem with it is envious becuase they don’t have the courage, commitment and skills to run their own business.”
The left do not as a rule look kindly on those who run their own business: it is refreshing to see that you value entrepreneurs.
“A model railway in the office? Fab! I have a daybed.”
One question: is the track owned by your children, but the rolling stock operated by you?
@JamesD
Oh come on!
This is British Railways, 1950 and 1960s
Surely you realised any model railway I’d allow in my office had to be of the nationalised variety? 🙂
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
@ funny Peter
I have never seen a sentence from this blog that derides entrepreneurial success and whatever benefits derive from that; justice is entirely different.
It is a true hypocrisy to spout out nonsense without knowing what you are doing in the name of something you know nothing about.
you would thing better of people, wouldn’t you, with an opinion?
sigh.
when i say thing i am streetwise think