Matt Upson tax Dodger?

Frampler said:

There hasn't been a retrospective changing of the rules. What has happened is that HMRC has been given greater resources to investigate some of the larger tax avoidance schemes and have taken the view that the tax due is more than was paid.

Click to expand...

father_and_son said:

But that's not strictly what is happening is it?

The HMRC has declared the scheme against the rules but that has been challenged in court. Rather than wait for due process and a court decision, HMRC is pursuing the contributors to the scheme - with an inappropriate and immoral degree of publicity given that, at this stage, no one has actually done anything wrong in the eyes of the law! Contributions to the scheme have been made and declared and, in all probability, long since forgotten, given that this investment option has been available for nearly a decade.

As with numerous high profile cases recently, HRMC and the government are not closing the loopholes, they are using trial by media to force the result they want without any regard for the letter of the law or indeed, their own culpability.

Personally, I hope that the court finds in favour of the scheme and that Upson and the others sue [individuals at] HMRC for releasing confidential info (their membership of a legal investment vehicle) to the press.

What is happening is to the detriment of everyone. Next time a british government want to create a tax break to help a particular industry, the wealthy will avoid it like the plague for fear of the goal posts being moved 10 years later and the industry being "helped" will get nothing.

Click to expand...

wakeytom said:

100% my point, it really is immoral to change the law/rules and then retrospectively prosecute based on the new law when it didn't stand at the point of the new offence (or something like that I am not a lawyer)

Click to expand...

Creaky said:

The law hasn't been changed - HMRC's argument is that 'Inside Track' isn't a company set up to trade and invest in the film and games industry that would attract the various tax reliefs but was set up with the main purpose of allowing its investors to reduce their tax burden.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

as i recall, the company did invest in films. maybe thats the point of legal contention, but if it was set up to reduce tax rather than fund films, as long as investment went into the film industry the differences is acedemic.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

as long as investment went into the film industry the differences is acedemic.

Click to expand...

wakeytom said:

To start with are they going to change the laws so that business owners cannot save tax by withdrawing through Divs and paying less corp tax after deductions for such things as pensions given the huge pension gap that all generations will now face that is the last thing they want to stop!

Click to expand...