Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Simon <simon@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:29:58 +0100
Tim wrote:
Yes, it was written that way but it was not intended that the loophole should exist. So when people find the loophole, it is exploiting an error in the legislation and is avoiding the intent of that legislation. So new laws to close the loophole does become anti avoidance"Ronald Raygun" wrote"Simon" wrote"Tim" wrote:... producing anti avoidance legislation...I thought that tax 'avoidance' (note: NOT 'evasion') was legal?
So what would "anti-avoidance legislation" say?
Well, you wouldn't need anti-evasion
legislation because evasion is already illegal.
Avoidance is indeed lawful, but where a particular set of
avoidance measures is thought to be somehow unfairly
exploiting a loophole, and if legislation is introduced which "plugs"
the loophole and makes that particular set of avoidance measures
unlawful (i.e. they become evasion), then would you think it
wrong to describe this new legislation as "anti-avoidance"?
Yes, I would...
Any so-called "loopholes" that may exist, only exist because
that is the way that the original legislation was written.
Any new legislation is not "anti-avoidance",
it's simply "changing the goal-posts"!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Tim
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- References:
- Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Jon Griffey
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Martin
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Jon Griffey
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Simon
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Tim
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- From: Tim
- Arctic Systems win!!
- Prev by Date: Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- Next by Date: Re: subsistence Allowance
- Previous by thread: Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- Next by thread: Re: Arctic Systems win!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|