Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,767
I would have thought it was good tax planning. But maybe Revenue would pursue the widow or widower in this case?
Brendan
Sounds like artificial tax avoidance.
A transaction that makes no sense in the absence of a tax advantage is the essence of artificial tax avoidance.I would have thought it was good tax planning. But maybe Revenue would pursue the widow or widower in this case?
Brendan
No it isn’t. You might as well say that moving assets around so a spouse with no income can use his/her Standard Rate Cut Off Point is artificial tax avoidance.A transaction that makes no sense in the absence of a tax advantage is the essence of artificial tax avoidance.
False conflation.No it isn’t. You might as well say that moving assets around so a spouse with no income can use his/her Standard Rate Cut Off Point is artificial tax avoidance.
General anti avoidance has no relevance whatsoever to a scenario where assets are transferred to a spouse who has three months to live.False conflation.
Tbe scenario mentioned above was that the recipient spouse had three months to live.
What is your definition of anti-avoidance and how does it differ from mine, viz.?General anti avoidance has no relevance whatsoever to a scenario where assets are transferred to a spouse who has three months to live.
It’s not ‘false conflation’…they’re both scenarios in which it’s ridiculous to suggest that Revenue would invoke general anti avoidance.
A transaction that makes no sense in the absence of a tax advantage is the essence of artificial tax avoidance.
Hi Brendan,Hi Tommy
It's not really your definition or Gordon's definition.
It is what sort of transactions which spur Revenue to invoke the legislation.
I very much doubt that they would pursue a widow because she transferred €300k worth of assets to her dying husband and saved €100k CGT.
They might do it if it were a transaction of €100m.
Brendan
It’s why textbooks are no substitute for real life and tax practice. Have you ever worked on a Section 811 case? Do you have any idea how ridiculous these posts of yours are? General anti avoidance provisions exist to capture aggressive tax planning.Hi Brendan,
In a real-life situation, would you stake your livelihood on a recommendation that you knew breached the textbook definition of a tax-avoidance transaction, in the hope that Revenue probably wouldn't invoke anti-avoidance legislation if the transaction came to their attention?
Hi Brendan,
In a real-life situation, would you stake your livelihood on a recommendation that you knew breached the textbook definition of a tax-avoidance transaction, in the hope that Revenue probably wouldn't invoke anti-avoidance legislation if the transaction came to their attention?
general anti avoidance would only apply if some clever tax adviser found a technical way to make the CGT rules on death apply to companies or pets or something equally as silly.
It wouldn't make sense in the absence of a tax advantage to transfer any asset to a dying spouse.there’s no CGT on death, so spouses moving assets to a dying spouse is using the relief or abatement for what it’s there for.
It would never make it to a Tax Appeal because Revenue would never raise an assessment because it’s not a general tax avoidance transaction.It wouldn't make sense in the absence of a tax advantage to transfer any asset to a dying spouse.
I think you'd be foolish going to the Tax Appeal Commission trying to argue that your client is a widow who shouldn't be hounded by the Revenue.
Revenue raise assessments all the time when they find irregular transactions that do not take sense except as a tax dodge. Try disposing of your half share in your house to your spouse in order to contrive your satisfying the agricultural value test for agricultural relief, and you'll soon find that out.It would never make it to a Tax Appeal because Revenue would never raise an assessment because it’s not a general tax avoidance transaction.
You are having a go, and it's frankly none of your business.You do know that there are detailed tests and steps in Section 811? Genuine question, and I’m not having a go, have you ever handled a Section 811 case?
Are you aware of Revenue successfully winning a Section 811 case on the basis of someone getting rid of non-agricultural property to satisfy the farmer test and obtain agricultural relief?Revenue raise assessments all the time when they find irregular transactions that do not take sense except as a tax dodge. Try disposing of your half share in your house to your spouse in order to contrive your satisfying the agricultural value test for agricultural relief, and you'll soon find that out.
You are having a go, and it's frankly none of your business.
Your latter point here is capable of being read in different ways. Can you rephrase it please?I’m guessing that never happened, because in that example it wouldn’t be a ‘misuse or abuse’ of the interspousal exemptions. It would be nonsense, and laughed out of an Appeal Hearing.
I have zero clue what you’re getting at now.Your latter point here is capable of being read in different ways. Can you rephrase it please?
I have zero clue what you’re getting at now.
I'll respectfully ask again. Are you saying in the above context that the Revenue or the taxpayer would be laughed out of the Appeal Hearing?Are you aware of Revenue successfully winning a Section 811 case on the basis of someone getting rid of non-agricultural property to satisfy the farmer test and obtain agricultural relief?
I’m guessing that never happened, because in that example it wouldn’t be a ‘misuse or abuse’ of the interspousal exemptions. It would be nonsense, and laughed out of an Appeal Hearing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?