£180M for 4G Interference solution ...

In article , Robin wrote:
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.

Nor have I.

(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.)

As do I.

So your comments seem partly to be based on your misunderstanding some
of what I wrote.

More generally, the problem is that we are discussing areas where a group
of professionals may have carefully devised schemes that seek to dodge tax
that might otherwise be paid, yet may either:

1) Turn out when tested in court to be judged as evasion, and/or that tax
is due.

2) When the rest of us - inc HMRC lawyers or politicians - see them, feel
justify a change in regulation/law to stop the scheme being a way of
dodging tax.

[snip the rest which was largely based on misunderstanding my wording,
etc]

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?

Where is the evidence they did not? The reports tell us that they *did*
think tax was due, and expected the scheme would be ruled as either
invalid or evasion.

If you have a more direct line to their thinking, I guess we'd be
interested in knowing about that. Otherwise I can only be guided by the
many reports from various sources that I happen to have read.

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.

I've certainly read both opinions that disagree with yours, and reports
that the HMRC lawyers thought it would be determined to be evasion. As I
said, I'd be inclined to take said lawyers seriously. Also reports that
Vodafone set aside large sums on the expectation that they'd have to
pay the tax. I note your personal opinions, though, even if I can't say
I share them.

There is a good way to resolve this. Let us require HMRC and Vodafone to
take the issue to court and let it be decided there. Then we can all
know the situation without worrying about whose opinions or reports to
trust.

Indeed, we can take that further. Let us also require any company or
person who uses any 'novel' scheme that reduces tax compared with the
basic situation to have to declare full details in advance and get
advance approval from HMRC. [Here 'novel' can be defined by HMRC as being
any scheme or basis outwith a specific list of ones they have already
agreed.]

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

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.

Which tax case was that please? I don't read tax journals any more so
the only one which has impinged on me is the USD 2.5 billion one
reported in the national press here in which currently Vodafone has won
in the Surpeme Court (of India). The tax office has called for a
revieew of that decision but Vodafone have not "chose to pay in full".
See eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...nce-again.html.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 22/02/2012 14:48, Terry Casey wrote:

See link:

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/...to-fund-4g-tv-
interference-solutions/

or

http://tinyurl.com/86erlnp


Sorry to jump in late on this, but I did attempt to
read the Ofcom documents when they came out, and found
them rather worrying. While the main report skirted
around the specific issue of exactly who would be
affected, the very detailed test reports included a
number of maps which seemed to indicate interference
over quite a wide area - maybe up to a km from the
base station. Give that these base stations could be
quite dense in urban areas, that's an awful lot of
potentially unhappy users.

Perhaps someone with better knowledge than me can scan
the reports and provide some reassurance that this
isn't the disaster it looks.

There was an odd result reported in the tests. When
the team were using their VHF radios to change
settings, they noticed that the interference to test
receivers was less severe. They supposed this was
down to some effect the VHF transmitter was having on
receiver AGC.