Accountancy Age has noted that the new General Anti-Abuse Rule panel of independent experts has been appointed. All six are tax professionals.
As I predicted, the GAAR panel is now populated by tax professionals who, by definition, are psychotic individuals who are hell-bent on destroying the NHS. I am not one for making sweeping generalisations about a naturally diverse group of people, but it is a fact that every single tax professional is like that.
What’s worse is that none seem to have a non-business background!
We don’t want people who understand what is going on to decide these sort of things. They will use their knowledge of tax laws and how business is done in the real world to decide how whether the taxpayer’s actions can be considered reasonable.
No, we want somebody who knows nothing about tax or business to look at the transactions in question and have a stab at deciding whether the taxpayer’s actions might be considered questionable. The less information they have to provide a frame of reference, the better.
This reminds me that the GAAR’s double-reasonableness test is simply a mockery of my GRAPIST’s quadruple questionableness test. I would therefore urge all HMRC officers to use my GRAPIST instead of the GAAR.
Although the GRAPIST hasn’t been ratified by the House of Commons or House of Lords, it is effectively in law. Because it applies retrospectively without any time limits, and given the infinite nature of time and the universe all things will ultimately come to pass, it is therefore active law right now. That is a fact.
But back to my main point.
People who work in tax disagree with me even though I am always right, so all people who work in tax must all be evil. And as I do not work in tax (although I am a tax expert who knows what he is talking about because I work in tax), all people who do not work in tax must not be evil, because they do not work in tax and are therefore not evil. That logic is irrefutable except by sophists.
So why didn’t they appoint me or other members of the Justice for Taxes Network? Patrick Mear’s answer nonsensical answer is that is because we didn’t apply.
However, applying for the role would have made us inappropriate for the role. Instead, they chose to appoint people who actually applied for the role, which defies common sense.
The moral is a simple one: I should be in charge of everything.