Alex - if you can get Damian to authorise the Easyjet return fare to|Alicante, I can introduce you to any number of people who are/have avoided tax. British, German and Dutch and of course Spanish. How many do you need for a good story given that you won't get their proper name but - hey who said you could have it all? Bonus: I'll lob in some of the best tapas you'll find in Spain. And no - I ain't one - been a legit French resident for many years, transitioning to Spanish residence. And no hidden cameras :)

In the early 90s I was active in creating tax avoidance schemes in conjunction with the then Arthur Anderson. In those days, there was a tacit acceptance - get the steps right, ensure commercial reality and you're pretty much there. Today's a lot different. I've written about that at my place.

To the more substantive point. When you have KPMG slapped with a $456 million fine for selling illegal tax schemes, asking for time to pay when it took in $15.6 BILLION in fees last year, gleefully trumpeting much of the rise was compliance related then there is something not quite right.

The problem comes in 4 complementary flavours - tutti frutti style:
1. A state of war between pros and HMRC - look at HMRC triumphalism at M&S/Halifax and the dogged pursuit of crazy interpretations like Arctic Systems - see also Nichola Ross Martin (for Arctic litigants) - triumphal too.
2. A government politically motivated to tinker through stealth taxes and ill-advised tweaks rather than radical and unequivocal change that reflects today's economic need.
3. A highly developed avoidance profession tuned in to any weakness in legislation
4. Murphy's tax gap report that none of the Big Four has managed to explain away to anyone's satisfaction.

Very good of you to admit to your tax avoiding past, Dennis. Did you really never get involved in any 'schemes'? The thirty step, tax loss, paperwork only-type tax planning? I'm thinking it would be good to have a running column here about that sort of thing. The Independent runs a 'my worst mistake' column for journalists. I think a 'my most embarrassing tax scheme' column would be good for tax advisers.

Obviously there'd be a few problems with that, but if anyone wants to post anonymously...

Alex

It would be good if the profession could explain why avoidance is acceptable

It would be even better if they would follow the rules of professional ethics and fund research to show why it is contrary to professional standards of conduct

Any takers?

Richard

Been off the radar for a while. Tsk, tsk Alex, I'll not be tempted into treading on that particular banana skin and am not one of those who hidews behind anonymity.

Remember I'm going back 13-15 years, when buying gold bars for a day, container leases and any other number of exotic wheezes were considered perfectly acceptable and legitimate fare at year end. And that's before we look at corporate structures involving offshore trusts pre-incorporation, pre-contract etc etc when those types of arrangement were never challenged but accepted as within the law.

Today, it seems any form of tax mitigation is regarded as a no-no. The whole thing is getting out of hand. On both sides.