Steve Browning

No. I've used them for years without issue. I was fortunate to have a trip round the factory and watched them being made. The level of care was very impressive. I should note that I'm a Rotosound artist.

I would say they're not immediately as smooth as some other makes. They are also quite bright to begin with.

I suspect avoiding Amazon is illegal, like boycotting Tesla. 🙂

I don't know figures, but suggest that the bulk of share dealings are in 'second hand' shares and so no income goes to the issuing company. I would be inclined to tax share dividends at a lower rate in the hands of the original purchaser but they follow normal rules for subsequent 'investors'.

Unhappily there is no other logical conclusion that I can think of. Mind you, maybe it's just jealousy!

Tax law is far from clear in most cases. It becomes more so as a result of case law, but they often fail to be precise, for fear of drawing the line in the wrong place. There will be some clear situations but many will be open to interpretation. Hence the evolution through Tribunals and, ultimately, the Courts. Sorry, getting drawn in again. I'll get off my soapbox now!!

Quite so. My apologies. Probably should leave this to the main subject now.

That's true up to a point but the ever increasing amount of case law brings more focus. The overriding principle is whether something is done purely for a tax advantage. Back in my day, the case that established this was that of the Halifax Building Society. They established a complex structure that enabled them to recover VAT that would otherwise be lost. The case went all the way to the European Court where the structure was deemed to be purely for tax and the Court looked through the structure and found against them.

Without wanting to draw this out too much. The Duke of Westminster case states it is everyone's 'right'. Duty suggests you should always pay the most for everything because that maximises the amount of tax paid for anything. Noone in their right mind does that. Whatever the moral rights or wrongs, avoidance, in all its forms is legal, and noone can be criticised as long as they act within the Law. The onus is on any Government to construct Laws such that they achieve the aim of the Government enacting that Law. If there is a presumed loophole, it is for the Government alone to a) recognise it and b) legislate against it. Whether a Government will do that might be dependent on who lobbies who and whether they can convince the lawmakers that it should remain or not. Possibly (for us cynics) a perfect example of 'who you know'.

You are absolutely right from a moral standpoint but you're not getting away with anything if you act within the Law. This is rather straying from the topic. How we tax corporations is a whole different subject really.

Exactly.

Bear in mind that it is an established legal principle that people organise their affairs to pay the least amount of tax. Duke of Westminster case 1936.

Sorry Tim. I don't believe your interpretation is valid. Yes, fairness is important. You may view helping the unemployed as free money but I don't. Any company director earning more than the personal allowance would be able to take advantage of avoidance. I wouldn't define someone on 13k rich.