£180M for 4G Interference solution ...

On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 09:55:31h +0000, Mark wrote:

There's different levels of tax dodging.
^^^^^^^

This is addressed not just to you, but also to a number of other
posters in this newsgroup.

Please can we stop misusing the persons of the verb "to be"?

There is -- singular

There are -- plural

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:44:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 09:55:31h +0000, Mark wrote:

There's different levels of tax dodging.
^^^^^^^

This is addressed not just to you, but also to a number of other
posters in this newsgroup.

Please can we stop misusing the persons of the verb "to be"?

There is -- singular

There are -- plural

I suggest you post this to alt.grammar.pedants.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:42:27 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:44:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 09:55:31h +0000, Mark wrote:

There's different levels of tax dodging.
^^^^^^^

This is addressed not just to you, but also to a number of other
posters in this newsgroup.

Please can we stop misusing the persons of the verb "to be"?

There is -- singular

There are -- plural

I suggest you post this to alt.grammar.pedants.

Arm the kill filter button :-)

Phasers already set 'to boldly go'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:42:27 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:44:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 09:55:31h +0000, Mark wrote:

There's different levels of tax dodging.
^^^^^^^

This is addressed not just to you, but also to a number of other
posters in this newsgroup.

Please can we stop misusing the persons of the verb "to be"?

There is -- singular

There are -- plural

I suggest you post this to alt.grammar.pedants.

We discuss this from time to time in alt.usage.english.

Many people there accept, some of them reluctantly, that in spoken
English "there's" is used instead of the contraction "there're".

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

There's different levels of tax dodging. There's tax avoidance where
you legally exploit loopholes to avoid tax and there's tax evasion
which is illegal. Vodafone tried the latter, failed, but then was let
off anyway.

Care to cite your evidence that the big tax at stake (arising from what
Vodafone got up to in Luxenmbourg, Greece and Germany IIRC) was evasion
as opposed to the typical issues with big business where there are
differences of view on technical aspects of tax law? The efforts of
UK Uncut et al to blur the line between avoidance and evasion may have
worked well but do you really think you could achieve criminal standards
of proof on technical issues which can get different answers from
successive appeals all the way to the Supreme Court? And would you then
also count as tax dodgers others such as the charities which meet
similar tax adjustments from HMRC in their trading subsidiaries?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:11:54 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

There's different levels of tax dodging. There's tax avoidance where
you legally exploit loopholes to avoid tax and there's tax evasion
which is illegal. Vodafone tried the latter, failed, but then was let
off anyway.

Care to cite your evidence that the big tax at stake (arising from what
Vodafone got up to in Luxenmbourg, Greece and Germany IIRC) was evasion
as opposed to the typical issues with big business where there are
differences of view on technical aspects of tax law? The efforts of
UK Uncut et al to blur the line between avoidance and evasion may have
worked well but do you really think you could achieve criminal standards
of proof on technical issues which can get different answers from
successive appeals all the way to the Supreme Court? And would you then
also count as tax dodgers others such as the charities which meet
similar tax adjustments from HMRC in their trading subsidiaries?

I don't know every case in detail. However Vodafone tried to channel
a large sum money through a subsidurary in Luxembourg. The courts
deemed this in breach of tax avoidance laws.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article , Robin wrote:
There's different levels of tax dodging. There's tax avoidance where
you legally exploit loopholes to avoid tax and there's tax evasion
which is illegal. Vodafone tried the latter, failed, but then was let
off anyway.

Care to cite your evidence that the big tax at stake (arising from what
Vodafone got up to in Luxenmbourg, Greece and Germany IIRC) was evasion
as opposed to the typical issues with big business where there are
differences of view on technical aspects of tax law?

If you are asking others for that, I guess you should cite your own
evidence to the contrary view.

All I can do is point out the reports that the lawyers, etc, inside HMRC
were unhappy about the 'deal' cut with Vodafone and that they were said to
be confident they'd have won the court case they wished to bring. Plus the
various details in many, many reports on this and related cases over a long
period. Have you not read any of these reports, inc those from the relevant
Parliament Committee(s)?


The efforts of UK Uncut et al to blur the line between avoidance and
evasion may have worked well

As have those of the big companies and rich individuals who also beaver
away employing tax experts to blur to their own advantage.

FWIW two of our good friends for many years were a pair, one a tax
specialist, the other a lawyer, who regularly devised wheezes to tax
'reduction'. Some of which stood up. Others ended up being struck down or
closed.


but do you really think you could achieve criminal standards of proof on
technical issues which can get different answers from successive appeals
all the way to the Supreme Court?

My understanding is that the HMRC lawyers thought so, but were prevented
from bringing the case because their chief at the time did a confidential
deal over their heads and ordered them to cease. They are the lawyers who
investigated. So it seems possible their judgement on the matter would be
better than yours or mine.

And would you then also count as tax dodgers others such as the
charities which meet similar tax adjustments from HMRC in their trading
subsidiaries?

I guess that would depend on the individual 'charity' and what it gets up
to.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

If you are asking others for that, I guess you should cite your own
evidence to the contrary view.

Perhaps we should take this elsewhere (eg ULM?) if you want chapter and
verse. But in summary I'd start with the fact that the reports from the
NAO, PAC etc do not accuse Vodafone of evasion. (I've only read PE's
early reports but they too did not discuss evasion, only avoidance. But
then PE and their lawyers will appreciate the distinction.)

All I can do is point out the reports that the lawyers, etc, inside
HMRC were unhappy about the 'deal' cut with Vodafone and that they
were said to be confident they'd have won the court case they wished
to bring. Plus the various details in many, many reports on this and
related cases over a long period. Have you not read any of these
reports, inc those from the relevant Parliament Committee(s)?

Winning a court case would *not* have meant that Vodafone were guilty of
"evasion" in the sense any tax specialist uses the term. That may be a
"bad thing" but despite many decades of work no one has found a
practicable way of taking penalties (ie more than tax and interest) for
such complex, technical issues. And the Parliamentary reports I've
read do not accuse Vodafone of evasion. Care to point me to one from
the NAO, PAC etc which does?

My understanding is that the HMRC lawyers thought so, but were
prevented from bringing the case because their chief at the time did
a confidential deal over their heads and ordered them to cease. They
are the lawyers who investigated. So it seems possible their
judgement on the matter would be better than yours or mine.

Again, you may well think so but where's the evidence that those lawyers
thought Vodafone were guilty of "evasion" rather than avoidance? Even
in the Goldman Sachs case (which is often confused with Vodafone) I have
seen nothing which suggests HMRC's lawyers felt a criminal investigation
could have succeeded.

--
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Monday, February 27th, 2012, at 17:35:07h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Many people there accept, some of them reluctantly, that in spoken
English "there's" is used instead of the contraction "there're".

It is commonly mis-used in spoken English,
but it is not grammatically correct.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0000, "Robin" wrote:

My understanding is that the HMRC lawyers thought so, but were
prevented from bringing the case because their chief at the time did
a confidential deal over their heads and ordered them to cease. They
are the lawyers who investigated. So it seems possible their
judgement on the matter would be better than yours or mine.

Again, you may well think so but where's the evidence that those lawyers
thought Vodafone were guilty of "evasion" rather than avoidance? Even
in the Goldman Sachs case (which is often confused with Vodafone) I have
seen nothing which suggests HMRC's lawyers felt a criminal investigation
could have succeeded.


It's worthy of note that Vodafone faced a similar situation in India.
There was no backroom deal there - they were told in effect to 'pay up
or go' and chose to pay in full.
That's what should have happened here.