Three campaigns against cuts, and their consequences have come to my attention today.<\/p>\n
38 degrees have a campaign against forest privatisation<\/a>, and against NHS cuts<\/a>. Both are recommended, and high on my list of priorities, whilst those who want to highlight tax issues have a new opportunity at False Economy<\/a> - who are ow looking at tax matters.<\/p>\n PS Whilst on the forest issue - I note the Guardian has picked this one up this morning - massively misquoting me on the way. They report<\/a> me saying:<\/p>\n This is about creating a massive opportunity to ensure that less tax is paid, which undermines the whole cause of selling off the forests<\/a>. If I had a million pounds and I thought I have some risk of dying in the next few years, as part of my inheritance planning I could put it into forests. Then when I keel over, I can pass that on to the next generation without inheritance tax<\/a>, so the government would lose out \u00a3400,000 in inheritance tax. I think an awful lot of people are going to be tempted to buy forests<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I was of course speaking figuratively. But somehow that didn't get across. Oh well, you live and learn. It's interesting I am not alone in seeing this though. They also report Jon Whiting at the Chartered Insutite of Tax (and Office for Tax Simplification) saying:<\/p>\n Some of the increase in value in farmland and forestry [in the past few years] has been driven by people looking to take advantage of the inheritance position. I think [forestry] is coming back on the radar scheme. It has got a tax sweetener \u2014 you're not going to go into it purely for tax reasons, but the fact is that is has got a tax sweetener<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And if that's true a major reason for sale is undermined - the message I always intended to convey, and which despite the misquote is the one that I think is delivered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Three campaigns against cuts, and their consequences have come to my attention today. 38 degrees have a campaign against forest privatisation, and against NHS cuts.\n
\n
Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-condems","category-tax-avoidance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}