‘[George Osborne] described “aggressive” tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”. He was right to do so ... ‘[Cameron and Osborne] need to see through the logic of what they have started.
‘[George Osborne] described “aggressive” tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”. He was right to do so ... ‘[Cameron and Osborne] need to see through the logic of what they have started. They need to be clearer about the distinctions they are making, and attempt at least a broad definition of “aggressive”. And then they need to set about reforming the tax system in a way that will command public support after the scandals that seem likely to come. More intense scrutiny of arrangements will expose a fair number of people, ranging from bankers to actresses, who are paying only what their accountants cannot hide from the taxman. The public will be appalled, and will demand action.’
‘Cameron digs deeper hole trying to define morally repugnant’
‘What a mess. David Cameron and George Osborne seem to be rewriting the rules around tax policy on the hoof ...
‘The problems began in the Budget, when the Chancellor announced that he regarded “aggressive tax avoidance” as “morally repugnant”. Mr Osborne’s aim was to highlight government plans, pushed by the Liberal Democrats, for a new “Targeted General Anti-Avoidance rule” being introduced by the coalition. But by using evocative language on such a sensitive subject, Mr Osborne was clearly hoping for political credit for siding against the shady activities of the super-rich who use tax havens and obscure corporate vehicles to minimise their contribution to the Treasury.
‘However, such loose language has started causing problems. By criticising “aggressive” tax avoidance behaviour, but not explaining what he meant, the Chancellor effectively invited opposition politicians, the media and the public to judge for themselves ...
‘Yesterday, Mr Cameron dug deeper. In an attempt to deflect questions about the tax affairs of Sir Philip Green, the Arcadia boss brought in to advise on Whitehall waste, he offered his own definition of morally repugnant tax avoidance. He told the BBC that he condemned people who specifically set up a company in order to avoid tax rather than wanting to invest in start-ups.
‘At a stroke, Mr Cameron appeared to impugn everyone who structures their affairs using a company in order to take advantage of the disparity between corporation tax and income tax, an anomaly which has existed since corporation tax was created in 1965. Yes, this includes Ken Livingstone but according to Mike Warburton, the tax director of Grant Thornton, this scheme is likely to be used by tens of thousands of people.’
‘[George Osborne] described “aggressive” tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”. He was right to do so ... ‘[Cameron and Osborne] need to see through the logic of what they have started.
‘[George Osborne] described “aggressive” tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”. He was right to do so ... ‘[Cameron and Osborne] need to see through the logic of what they have started. They need to be clearer about the distinctions they are making, and attempt at least a broad definition of “aggressive”. And then they need to set about reforming the tax system in a way that will command public support after the scandals that seem likely to come. More intense scrutiny of arrangements will expose a fair number of people, ranging from bankers to actresses, who are paying only what their accountants cannot hide from the taxman. The public will be appalled, and will demand action.’
‘Cameron digs deeper hole trying to define morally repugnant’
‘What a mess. David Cameron and George Osborne seem to be rewriting the rules around tax policy on the hoof ...
‘The problems began in the Budget, when the Chancellor announced that he regarded “aggressive tax avoidance” as “morally repugnant”. Mr Osborne’s aim was to highlight government plans, pushed by the Liberal Democrats, for a new “Targeted General Anti-Avoidance rule” being introduced by the coalition. But by using evocative language on such a sensitive subject, Mr Osborne was clearly hoping for political credit for siding against the shady activities of the super-rich who use tax havens and obscure corporate vehicles to minimise their contribution to the Treasury.
‘However, such loose language has started causing problems. By criticising “aggressive” tax avoidance behaviour, but not explaining what he meant, the Chancellor effectively invited opposition politicians, the media and the public to judge for themselves ...
‘Yesterday, Mr Cameron dug deeper. In an attempt to deflect questions about the tax affairs of Sir Philip Green, the Arcadia boss brought in to advise on Whitehall waste, he offered his own definition of morally repugnant tax avoidance. He told the BBC that he condemned people who specifically set up a company in order to avoid tax rather than wanting to invest in start-ups.
‘At a stroke, Mr Cameron appeared to impugn everyone who structures their affairs using a company in order to take advantage of the disparity between corporation tax and income tax, an anomaly which has existed since corporation tax was created in 1965. Yes, this includes Ken Livingstone but according to Mike Warburton, the tax director of Grant Thornton, this scheme is likely to be used by tens of thousands of people.’
