>>No. Fabulous contructs avoid tax. Some of them don't work, in which case the tax is due.
>>Tax evasion is the result of dishonesty
I think the principle that Gordon Brown was seeking to establish was that if tax planning included fabulous constructs or obvious artifices, then the tax so avoided should be payable. The distinction between that and evasion is that you can get sent to jail for evasion, whereas if your fabulous construct doesn't work then the worst that should happen is that you have to pay the tax.
For obvious reasons, this is hard to enforce; HMRC might not even know about the fabulous construct. When they do spot it, inevitably you will have HMRC taking a position that more tax should be paid, and a taxpayer with counsel's opinion that it is legal avoidance. Commonly there is a test case and a judgement resolves it.
It has also resulted in a fair number of "deals"; taxpayer says no tax due, HMRC says £n due. HMRC offers to accept <£n, with the proviso that the taxpayer will desist from future "fabulous constructs" or wheezes as they have become known.
These deals themselves create scope for cronyism and corruption, in my opinion.
A large part of the problem is the sheer volume and complexity of tax legislation. It would have been surprising if an industry had not grown up based on finding loopholes.
|
Swiss HSBC 
Swiss HSBC 
