This article presents us with several terms i.e. tax evasion (illegal), tax avoidance (bad), tax mitigation (?), tax planning. It does not mention tax compliance, the aleady high administrative and professional costs of keeping to the rules.

A key point is ""much tax avoidance runs along conduits specifically created by the tax authorities in sovereign nations". These can be split into 3 catagories

1. There are bilateral treaties which cover transactions over which more than one nation claims jusisdiction. These more or less follow the OECD model. These affect how you sell to overeas residents, payment of dividends, management charges etc, etc. These teaties are there so that businesses and individuals can benefit from them.

2. There are different tax treatments in different jurisdictions for perfectly good domestic reasons. These affect for example telephone and internet gambling, the postal supply of CDs and DVDs. The most important area here is downloads and streaming media. The law originates from an age whre sales were made face to face, by mail or telephone. Although the principles can be applied, the internet means that the place of supply can be easwily moved.

3. Then there is tax competition between nations. There is the classic tax haven whichworks on the basis that say 1% of something is better than nothing. Then there is the "race to the bottom" that reckons that 20% of a big pie is better than 25% of a small pie. Here the aim is to attract economic activity rather than paper transactions. The UK government wants low corporation tax rates to attract ultimate holding companies of quoted groups, banking and insurance. They then complain when companies take advantage other countries doing the same sort of thing!

Leaving aside the international aspect, tax planning is unavoidable. The founder, main director and principle shareholder of a profitable company has to decide what to do with the profits. He can leave them in the company, pay himself a bonus, make pension contributions, extract the profits and then loan them to the company, issue bonus shares, make charitable donations personally or through the company etc. All these options have tax consequences, he would be a fool to ignore them. A business, particularly a loss making business need to consider the tax effects of how it leases or buys vehicles. 

I understand how tax avoidance becomes tax evasion. The answer is that it involves concealment, misrepresentation or false returns. I do not anderstand the distinction between legitimate tax planning and agressive tax avoidance other than it is deemed to efficient.

David

Ian.

I don;t like the program either. The only bits that interest me are the mini episodes. More seriously:

1. I 've just looked at the comic Relief website and it is not clear where the money goes. I lot is spent in the UK but no figures.

2.There is an element of corporate advertising when collection done by employees

3. The program reaches where other means do not. The news only covers the most extreme emergencies. Documentaries are only watched by those who are already interested.

On the whole it must be a good thing.

Dave

The new Archbishop has called for "little less heat and a little more clarity" on welfare reform in his blog. He is right to acknowledge Ian Duncan Smith's knowledge in this area and to avoid calling him evil. Indeed it is not him personally who is evil but the Toryism which would have cut benefits in cash terms as Mr Farron has revealed. Welfare reform is a slow moving process. there are probably still reforms from the Brown era which have not impacted on individuals. The initial aims of Mr Smith's reforms seemed good. That is to bring together the administration of benefits dealt with by national and local government and dealing with their relationship with tax credits to ensure that work always paid. They way this is achieved seems to always be in the same direction, a cut here, a cut there. It is only achieved by a high claw back of benefits. The current proposal is not part of this scheme. It is a move to reduce the standard of living of those on benefits so that they do not benefit in percentage terms compared with those in work even though they are on substantially lower incomes.     Mr Smith justifies these cuts by talking about welfare dependency but the cut affects many who are unable to work. Mr Smith has tried to move people back into work but the work program is proving worse than useless due to the governments failure to support growth.

The bishops concentrate on the effect on children. Is this shrewd politics or an admission that the effect on adults does not matter. Are they proposing separate unemployment benefit rate for adults with children or is this a wrecking measure in heavy disguise?

David

Angela,

I don't think the people were criticized for their enthusiasm or praise. In fact they are not criticized atall. Rather Jesus cools their enthusiasm which was in danger of leading in the wrong direction. The wrong thinking was misunderstanding the nature of his Messiahship. The danger was political unrest which could have brought an early end to his teaching ministry.

I find the Pope's retirement encouraging. It says that the leader of the Church is just a human being who is now old and frail. His legacy of teaching and example remains without the risk of personal adulation which ties in with the above.

David

I can;t remember if we are discussing this at the moment.

I have just received an e-mail, telling me that the February issue of Christianity magazine has several articles on the subject including one by Steve Chalke on why he changed his mind.

Details here:http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/sexuality.aspx

David

David Cameron and George Osborne have launched an unprecedented attack on the poor and vulnerable in our society. Yet Tony Baldry remains a church commissioner whilst supporting this evil policy. The bishops remain silent. Is this the price of an established church? It is certainly a denial of Christ. He is their judge

Dave

Nice poem Graham, but something of a flight of fantasy. In the cold light of day, the time has come to stop eualgising Rowan Williams. In his period in office, the church has contimued to decline, tensions in the church and communion have increased. The moral teaching of the church has become confused and the gospel it preaches is increasingly unceartain. In short a failure.

Dave

Andrew,

Where do the CPAS do this? I assume that this is a quote from the translation in the for Everyone series. The preface to the collected edition states that Tom Wright intends it as a translation rather than a paraphrase and comments on the translation philosophy,

David

The Church seems to be making the right pragmatic decision, without an adequate moral basis. At a parish level priests in a civil partnership have been accepted in some parishes but would be unacceptable in others. Opposition could be expected to their elevation to bishop which would mean they would not be a focus of unity.

The arguments presented, however, are moral and akin to those against divorced priests. These go back to the biblical discussion of eldership and are equally applicable to priests and bishops.

David

Angela

You raise a lot of important points here.

Mintaining people in their home is not a matter of new loans. It is a matter of fairer benefits system. Housing benefis are now being limited for several vunerable groups. There is a particular problem for mortages where benefits were withdran in the expectation that people would cover this by the now discredited income protection plans.

Benefits leave little scope for the payment of interest and repayments. They are far lowe than a living wage.

Pay day loans,log book loans etc are only inted for short term finance. This is the sort of finance which most people have free on a credit card. Such loans may well be xheaper than an unauthorised overdraft.

Small loans to those with irregular employment, previous CCJs etc are necessarily expensive. These are dealt with for some by specialist, hifh interest rate credit cards. For other, help is needed from the charity sector due to the high mon itoring and counselling costs.

Loans to small businesses are a separate matter. Banks rightly regard them as a higher risk. The rational reponse to this is higher interests rates. However it is easier to withdraw from the market.

David 

The official advice is at http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/our-buildings/churches/chancel-repair-liability-qas-2012.aspx. It does mention a diocesan registrar who should be able to help. I wonder if these liabilities only exist on churches built before 1541 or they relate to the parish and transfer to new buildings or even split and merge on parish reorganizations? They certainly attach to land so one rectory could now be a whole housing estate. I think that this places an obligation on the PCC where their collective memory suggests that there may be something. The new law will give greater certainty as to the liabilities which means they may be dealt with by insurance. I suppose that the PCC will need to investigate further  and a common approach will emerge and diocesan level. Make your problems known to the bishops and archdeacons.

David 

None the less a new ABC is needed

The CNC should not be afraid to admit defeat. If they decide that they cannot agree they should prepare a confidential report on their voting and reasoning. 

Who should consider the report? I offer two suggestions:

1. The Queen, who is free to consult whoever she decides.

2.All the bishops of the Canterbury diocese and the diocean bishops not on the shortlist. Or vaiations on this theme such as all the bishops entitled to sit in the House of Lords.

Any other suggestions?

David