> Not quite
> This appears to be a simplification of
the Tax Avoidance Schemes
Regulations 2006. This requires the
disclosure of arrangements securing
a tax advantage where those
benefiting wish to keep it confidential
in order to facilitate repeated benefits:
the desire for confidentiality is
regarded as a hallmark of an
unacceptable tax arrangement.
IANAL, but this seems to be bordering on "If you think it's illegal, it is! If you think it's not illegal, it isn't!"
Apparently the tax code is now so difficult that we can no longer decide what is and isn't legal, and have to resort to deciding based on whether the defendant thinks it is.
I'm all for tougher laws on tax avoidance, but I don't think "Look! He tried to hide it! He must be guilty of something!" is a valid argument.
> "The Madhouses Act 1774 made it an
offence to keep “more than one
Lunatick” without a licence for a
madhouse. It has now been repealed."