The UK should not have a general anti-avoidance rule, according to two thirds of respondents to a Tax Journal online survey. More than 300 of the 400 respondents did not agree that legal tax avoidance should be regarded as part of the ‘tax gap’.
Six out of ten said they believed that the government is doing enough to tackle avoidance, and a similar proportion considered that HMRC should not be given further resources, in addition to those already announced, to tackle the tax gap. Half of the respondents said the avoidance scheme disclosure rules had been effective in reducing avoidance.
Four hundred responses were received to the survey promoted at taxjournal.com on 9 March, when Tax Journal news reported that David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said it was unhelpful to ‘try to exaggerate the scale of the problem’ of what he called ‘the overly aggressive pursuit of lower tax bills’.
Avoidance is legal, but Gauke said it was generally regarded as ‘the use of legal structures and allowances to reduce tax bills in manners not intended by Parliament when enacting the legislation’.
He has criticised the widely-quoted estimates produced by Richard Murphy and claimed that Murphy’s methodology was ‘deeply and systematically flawed’.
Readers were asked whose was the better estimate of the tax gap. While 166 favoured HMRC’s estimate of £42 billion and 83 favoured Murphy’s estimate of £120 billion, a further 151 readers said that both were ‘wrong’.
Not all respondents were ‘tax professionals’. While the survey invited the views of tax experts, it was freely available. The responses to two ‘open’ questions reflected a wide range of opinion. A selection of responses follows:
Q: What else should the government do to tackle avoidance, if anything?
'Decrease the starting rates of taxation for all the mainstream taxes [to] encourage better compliance' (Jaz Hussain, Principal, Premier Tax Services).
'Demand automatic information exchange from tax havens and country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations' (Anon)
'Tax avoidance is applying the tax rules as they stand and therefore cannot form part of the "tax gap"' (Cormac Marum, Tax Partner, Harwood Hutton Tax Advisory LLP).
'Flatter, simpler taxes with fewer allowances' (Tim Worstall).
Q: Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the ‘tax gap’?
'Radically simplify the wording and structure of tax law so tax revenues are more clearly predictable and their relationship to economic performance is more transparent' (Charles Keene, Director, Continuum Ltd).
'Put more effort into the black economy and "reduced price for cash job" culture' (Anon).
'Results that do conflict with the clear purpose of the law are part of the tax gap; however it would be absurd to suggest that all planning is part of the tax gap' (Bill Dodwell, Head of Tax Policy, Deloitte).
The UK should not have a general anti-avoidance rule, according to two thirds of respondents to a Tax Journal online survey. More than 300 of the 400 respondents did not agree that legal tax avoidance should be regarded as part of the ‘tax gap’.
Six out of ten said they believed that the government is doing enough to tackle avoidance, and a similar proportion considered that HMRC should not be given further resources, in addition to those already announced, to tackle the tax gap. Half of the respondents said the avoidance scheme disclosure rules had been effective in reducing avoidance.
Four hundred responses were received to the survey promoted at taxjournal.com on 9 March, when Tax Journal news reported that David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said it was unhelpful to ‘try to exaggerate the scale of the problem’ of what he called ‘the overly aggressive pursuit of lower tax bills’.
Avoidance is legal, but Gauke said it was generally regarded as ‘the use of legal structures and allowances to reduce tax bills in manners not intended by Parliament when enacting the legislation’.
He has criticised the widely-quoted estimates produced by Richard Murphy and claimed that Murphy’s methodology was ‘deeply and systematically flawed’.
Readers were asked whose was the better estimate of the tax gap. While 166 favoured HMRC’s estimate of £42 billion and 83 favoured Murphy’s estimate of £120 billion, a further 151 readers said that both were ‘wrong’.
Not all respondents were ‘tax professionals’. While the survey invited the views of tax experts, it was freely available. The responses to two ‘open’ questions reflected a wide range of opinion. A selection of responses follows:
Q: What else should the government do to tackle avoidance, if anything?
'Decrease the starting rates of taxation for all the mainstream taxes [to] encourage better compliance' (Jaz Hussain, Principal, Premier Tax Services).
'Demand automatic information exchange from tax havens and country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations' (Anon)
'Tax avoidance is applying the tax rules as they stand and therefore cannot form part of the "tax gap"' (Cormac Marum, Tax Partner, Harwood Hutton Tax Advisory LLP).
'Flatter, simpler taxes with fewer allowances' (Tim Worstall).
Q: Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the ‘tax gap’?
'Radically simplify the wording and structure of tax law so tax revenues are more clearly predictable and their relationship to economic performance is more transparent' (Charles Keene, Director, Continuum Ltd).
'Put more effort into the black economy and "reduced price for cash job" culture' (Anon).
'Results that do conflict with the clear purpose of the law are part of the tax gap; however it would be absurd to suggest that all planning is part of the tax gap' (Bill Dodwell, Head of Tax Policy, Deloitte).
