highlands wrote:

DG wrote:

I want the multi millionaire Gary Barlow to realise that some in society need him to be parting with his normal tax remit in order that they can perhaps be given an opportunity to survive.

I am working with a Midlands based engineering firm who have developed some ground-breaking (no, not fracking ) power generation technology.
They have it working on the bench but needed about another £10m to get it to a commercial product.
We got some money in from government but by far the majority of the money was from wealthy UK individuals who get a tax break for investing in the firm. It directly results in about 20 full-time engineering jobs, lots of UK supply chain benefits and, hopefully, a world-leading engineering product coming from the UK.
Without the tax breaks it wouldn't have been worth the risk for the rich UK taxpayers and we would not have got funding. As it was we reached 2 weeks money left in the business before we closed the funding. So we went from 30 high-skilled UK employees losing their jobs to an additional 20, for now, gaining them.

I would be careful what you wish for.

Quote:

Besides, it goes against your point that Barlow et al should just pay their due tax which, of course, we assume he will

DG wrote:

Quote:

Besides, it goes against your point that Barlow et al should just pay their due tax which, of course, we assume he will

I did say "normal tax remit" which I would include "Normal" and fully accepted methods of reducing their tax which this scheme was clearly not. I think we all know the type of schemes which cause such public disgruntlement and I'm sure whether legal or not most people would like to see the back of them.

This type of scheme is a fully accepted method of allowing tax relief for investors. It's jut not "normal" unless you're very wealthy. It's just that this particular one was not accepted in full by HMRC.

No right minded person wants to see this legislation abused, not least the actual investors, as eventually the HMRC will, as in this case, catch up with them. Don't forget all these schemes are registered with HMRC in the first place. They're not hidden away.

As highlands has pointed out, these schemes can mean the difference between a project happening or not.

DG wrote:

I did say "normal tax remit" which I would include "Normal" and fully accepted methods of reducing their tax which this scheme was clearly not.

Quote:

Judge Colin Bishop told the court that “Icebreaker is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be, a tax avoidance scheme.”

“The aim was to secure [tax] relief for members, and to inflate the scale of the relief by unnecessary borrowing,” he explained. “No serious or even moderately sophisticated investor, genuinely seeking a profit... would rationally have chosen an Icebreaker partnership.”