![\"Screen](\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/Screen-shot-2013-03-21-at-05.39.191.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The schedule on the implications of tax avoidance and evasion measures in the budget are interesting.<\/p>\n
First, excuse my cynicism for thinking they jut happen to exceed \u00a31 billion a year: we will, of course, never know.<\/p>\n
Second, note the official estimate of losses to the Crown Dependencies. I suspect these are low.<\/p>\n
Third, the scale of partnership abuse - where LLPs in particular (and lawyers even more particularly) make people who are really employees partners to save NIC is bigger than I ever imagined (sorry for missing that one - although see yesterday's post on the much bigger problem in companies). <\/p>\n
Fourth, oddly the Revenue show little faith in the GAAR and are still producing specific tax avoidance rules to target corporate tax abuses. If we had a general ant-avoidance principle neither this of the LLP rules would be needed: despite my current (ambargoed) work on the general anti-abuse rule I remain quite convinced of this, as seemingly are HMRC.<\/p>\n
Note also how limited the general anti-abuse rule is going to be in impact terms, supprting all I have said about its far too limited scope in the face of the tax abuse problem.<\/p>\n
And note that penalties in tax cases are meant to collapse. I have no idea why.<\/p>\n
But when the tax gap is \u00a395 billion this is a lame effort, and it's important to say so.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<\/a><\/p>\n