Gary Barlow should have been subject to a GRAPIST

Nobody should really have any concerns about HMRC accessing your bank accounts without the permission of a court. That’s a non-story so let’s talk about Take That instead.

The Take That affair quite obviously illustrates that the current law is insufficient to deal with tax avoidance at all.

Yes, the members of the various partnerships were found not to be active partners. And, yes, it was found that the partnerships were not conducting trades on a commercial basis.  I’ll also accept that the activities were found to be caught by existing provisions which target arrangements which have the main purpose of avoiding tax. And basically the scheme didn’t work in the slightest at all.

And, ok, the tribunal said that the Ramsay principle would have rendered the tax consequences ineffective even if all that wasn’t the case.

But, candidly, it is a farce that the tribunal had to sit down and consider any of these things at all.

It is an absolute waste of time when a proper anti-avoidance principle like my GRAPIST would have shot down the avoidance scheme at the very instant it was conceived in the perverted mind of a neoliberal tax avoidance professional.

Graham Aaronson’s eponymous GAAR’s ‘double reasonableness’ test is insufficient to deter most tax avoidance activities. Instead, let me remind you of my far superior quadruple questionable test:

If it is questionable that a questionable person might questionably view a transaction as questionable, then it is avoidance and should be taxed however HMRC think appropriate.

If you look at the facts in this case, you will realise the answer to this question is ‘yes’. I managed to establish this beyond any doubt at the very second that I learned that Gary Barlow had donated money to the Conservative Party.

So it would not have taken 147 pages for a Tribunal to establish the pertinent facts, outline the relevant legislation and case law, and arrive at a considered decision taking all of these things into account. It should only take a minute for the liability to be determined and collected directly from Gary Barlow’s bank account.

I see no reason why it should take any longer than that.

Of course, you will have the usual assortment of neoliberals trying to distract from the real issue by suggesting that we can see exactly how HMRC is successfully preventing tax avoidance with the powers they already have and that we currently have a system which gives due process with respect to the rule of law. But this is simply sophistry.

The obvious moral of the Take That case is that we need a GRAPIST.



2 thoughts on “Gary Barlow should have been subject to a GRAPIST

  1. Murphy,

    Surely the power to remove funds from bank accounts should not have been given to HMRC? We know that they will use these powers far too sparingly. Instead, you should have been given the power to extract the right tax, interest (at the standard Wonga rate) and penalties (at 100% of the tax due or more). Clearly your powers may need to be restricted so that you can quickly prove your alignment to civil society. No restriction will, however, be needed where the taxpayer is:-

    1.Any company trading in more than one country,
    2.Any successful entrepreneur,
    3.Any contributor to a neoliberal political party or cause (broadly defined)
    4.Holding any foreign currency especially US Dollars or Swiss Francs(being sufficient proof of guilt)
    5.Claiming an unacceptable tax relief, especially the Patent Box, or
    6.Anyone in the entertainment, defence and energy sectors

    One small point, as I know you are always open to alternative views and perspectives, in your otherwise excellent quadruple questionable test, why does the word ‘then’ appear after the comma and what does it add? I may well be wrong as I own up to have being indoctrinated by seven years of attending an independent school but I felt I should ask the question.


  2. Murphy

    Frankly, the abuse of partnerships to game the UK’s tax system has got completely out of hand. Are you aware that the parody of yours, Richard Murphy, is actually actively avoiding tax by the use of an LLP in which his GP wife is a member? One wonders too if his Irish/UK dual nationality is also some tax-avoidance trick?

    Maybe you should consider legal action against him for passing-off in case his tax avoiding brings your own position into disrepute by reason of mistaken identity?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s