Re: UKIP ranter I expect
@Dr Stephen Jones.
It's a shame you can't reason beyond studios..........angels and Dotcom..........devil.
I can see there are all sorts of shades of grey and that both are neither fully angels nor devils, but somewhere inbetween. However, this level of reasoning seems beyond you. You see everything as perfect black and white with corporates seemingly white and anyone doing anything against them/opposing them as black. Basic binary thinking of the most limited nature.
I also explained to you why the difference you cite between evasion and avoidance is very blurred now in the UK at least. In the UK, if you setup something with the sole reason to avoid taxation (what would have been called tax avoidance), this is now considered evasion and illegal. A new law was passed by this government that brought this into effect and several people have fallen foul of it already.
For an example, see Jimmy Carr. He setup a mechanism that was prior to this law perfectly legal tax avoidance. It was a financial mechanism (involing the Channel Islands) with the sole purpose of avoiding income tax. I can tell you how it worked if you like, but I suspect it's beyond you. As it was determined by the HMRC that its sole purpose was to avoid income tax, this law made it tax evasion and therefore he got into a lot of trouble, has had to pay a lot of money to HMRC and took a lot of stick in the press. You could also look up Gary Barlow for another example of a famous name who has come a cropper on this one.
Indeed, the new law is slightly at odds with some other laws. There are special tax arrangements for people who invest in certain things, like films for instance. However, as these arrangements would be used solely to avoid tax, the new law could make them evasion!! Various tax laws are potentially at odds. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) taken a case to the courts for a judgement and I suspect none will as the new law appears to be used only in selected cases.
So, if you're based in the UK and looking to try and avoid tax, I would suggest you contact an accountant first as your rather poor knowledge of the law around this would put you at serious risk.
If you read my post, I think you'll find that I acknowledged both evasion and avoidance and that they were different. I simply pointed out that the new law was making a lot of avoidance into evasion and therefore blurring the lines. Ask any accountant, this is the case. Of course, this doesn't match your binary nature where everything has to be either good or bad, so you made up what I said. Effectively, I was saying that avoidance is a grey area with the new law, but as grey areas don't exist to you..............