Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,847
Revenue would be laughed out. But it would never happen.
Revenue would be laughed out. But it would never happen.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?
Oddly enough, we received consultant-level advice a number of years back on the case of a taxpayer who had received a sizeable and unexpected inheritance of a farm from the estate of a farmer sibling, and the only way he could conceivably qualify for agricultural relief was if he divested himself before the valuation date of his half-share in the family home, in favour of his wife.Revenue would be laughed out. But it would never happen.
Hmmm! Making a call as to whether Revenue will catch you. I think this arises a lot with CAT. I have heard third hand of advisors saying "look the chances of Revenue chasing down this gift for a deposit in say 20 years' time is remote". This is a bit of an ethical conundrum. Presuming they are right shouldn't they advise their clients of that reality, albeit leaving it to their own (or indeed their dependants') conscience whether they declare it.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
That’s dishonest tax evasion though, so totally different, and not really a conundrum at all.Hmmm! Making a call as to whether Revenue will catch you. I think this arises a lot with CAT. I have heard third hand of advisors saying "look the chances of Revenue chasing down this gift for a deposit in say 20 years' time is remote". This is a bit of an ethical conundrum. Presuming they are right shouldn't they advise their clients of that reality, albeit leaving it to their own (or indeed their dependants') conscience whether they declare it.
I can’t comment on the specifics of the case, and I don’t know what ‘consultant level’ means either. Perhaps the facts of that case had some nuance to them?Oddly enough, we received consultant-level advice a number of years back on the case of a taxpayer who had received a sizeable and unexpected inheritance of a farm from the estate of a farmer sibling, and the only way he could conceivably qualify for agricultural relief was if he divested himself before the valuation date of his half-share in the family home, in favour of his wife.
We were told it would never wash with Revenue.
Were we misled?
Consultant-level means a tax consultant was hired to advise.I can’t comment on the specifics of the case, and I don’t know what ‘consultant level’ means either. Perhaps the facts of that case had some nuance to them?
Why? The legislation specifically allows this.But it does beg the question why Big 4/5 and Private Client legal advisers routinely structure Wills in a way that enables people to avail of reliefs such as Agricultural Relief by giving them time to meet the relevant criteria.
I'm pretty sure we weren't. The client was happy that the advice we received was sensible.So, on balance, I would say that you were misled, yes.
So you are saying that the Revenue have a call on what is tax evasion and can be influenced in that call by the personal circumstances of the taxpayer?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.
So, in simple terms, was the advice you received that Revenue ‘wouldn’t like’ a taxpayer divesting himself of non-Agricultural Property prior to an inheritance of Agricultural Property with a view to claiming Agricultural Relief?Consultant-level means a tax consultant was hired to advise.
There wasn't much nuance to it. The dilemma was pretty much as I described above.
Why? The legislation specifically allows this.
I'm pretty sure we weren't. The client was happy that the advice we received was sensible.
No. Didn't you read what I wrote?So, in simple terms, was the advice you received that Revenue ‘wouldn’t like’ a taxpayer divesting himself of non-Agricultural Property prior to an inheritance of Agricultural Property with a view to claiming Agricultural Relief?
Yes, I did read what you wrote.No. Didn't you read what I wrote?
Every student knows that's eminently possible.
The issue here was subtly different.
It made no sense for him to divest himself of his share of the family home in the absence of a tax advantage.
Ah, so it’s an irrelevant straw man argument.Whatever. Neither we nor the client were ultimately unhappy with the advice given. The man had no real appetite to surrender his share of the family home.
That's not what I said either.Some unnamed tax consultant advised a client of yours who didn’t want to transfer his share in the family home to his wife that he shouldn’t transfer it.
@Gordon Gekko is 100% correct here - this is all about the distinction between tax planning and tax avoidance
Yes, it is; I said what I meant and I meant what I said!@torblednam - is this the right vocab?!
I think you need to reread the entire thread!I always thought that the Revenue could do nothing about tax avoidance but tax evasion was a different story. Depending on your advices - for I do respect you! - I may have to revisit this belief!!
If, someone performed the highly contrived series of steps as you've described, the implication of your posts is that this is tax avoidance and that the Revenue could do something about it! It follows that tax evasion is never ok and tax avoidance may or may not be ok! Have I got this right?!
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?