{"id":11790,"date":"2023-10-02T14:14:32","date_gmt":"2023-10-02T13:14:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=11790"},"modified":"2024-01-04T08:33:19","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T08:33:19","slug":"kc_insurance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2023\/10\/02\/kc_insurance\/","title":{"rendered":"Tax avoidance scheme myths: “we have a KC opinion” and “we’re fully insured”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
There are a surprising number of people still promoting tax avoidance schemes. Of course, they say they’re not tax avoidance schemes, but the <\/b>giveaway is that they are promising a much better tax result than you’d normally get. Often this makes people nervous. Two lines the promoters use to get round this are “we have an opinion from an independent KC” and “don’t worry, we’re fully insured”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s why this should make you more, not less, worried. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n A KC avoidance scheme opinion in practice provides you, the client, with zero comfort. In fact it potentially makes your position worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. The opinion is probably wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Most KCs are outstanding lawyers with an excellent reputation – they will give the correct legal answer, whether it’s convenient or not. But there are some who, even when faced with dubious tax avoidance schemes, give the answer the client wants. Jolyon Maugham described them as “T<\/a>he Boys Who Won’t Say ‘No’<\/a>“. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And The Boys usually turn out to be wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The taxpayer has lost almost every single tax avoidance case to come before the courts in the last 25 years. I’m aware of only two cases1<\/a><\/sup>the SHIPS 2<\/a> case, essentially because the legislation in question was such a mess that the Court of Appeal didn’t feel able to apply a purposive construction, and D’Arcy<\/a><\/em>, where two anti-avoidance rules accidentally created a loophole.<\/span> where the taxpayer won, and the response was to enact the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) so that it wouldn’t happen again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Boys provided opinions for many of these, and all of them were wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mostly we don’t get to see the opinions, or even know which KC issued them, but in some cases we have the details:<\/p>\n\n\n\n KC opinions in general are (in my experience) usually sensible and astonishingly right (i.e. they successfully predict the outcome when the point is later tested in court). So why are these opinions so wrong? <\/p>\n\n\n\n The charitable answer is that the KCs are advising on the basis of their instructions from the promoter, which usually puts forward the most favourable possible legal and factual position – very possibly making assumptions of fact which don’t apply to your individual case. And it is not uncommon for the structure that the “KC” approved to be markedly different from the structure the promoters end up implementing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are other obvious, but less charitable, answers…<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. You’re not the client<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You’re not the KC’s client. The promoter is the KC’s client. So, even if the KC is completely wrong, you can’t sue him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In that film relief case, even though the taxpayers relied on the KC’s advice, their claim for negligence failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. The opinion makes it harder for you to sue the promoter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If everything goes wrong, the only person you can sue is the promoter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You’ll sue them for negligence, which means you have to show that no reasonable adviser would have given the advice they gave. That is a harder task if they have a KC opinion, because they can then say they were following the advice of an eminent KC, which (they will argue) must have been a reasonable thing to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The KC opinion can make your position worse<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. Normal people don’t need KC opinions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A KC opinion can be very useful if you’re in a dispute with HMRC, to get an independent view of your prospects of success. And people with complex affairs often have a legitimate reason to seek a KC’s advice (e.g. large companies, very wealthy people with assets all over the world).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But normal people shouldn’t be doing anything so complicated and uncertain that it requires a KC opinion (I’d certainly never put myself in that position).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The best approach to tax is to be boring, stick with the crowd, and do what everyone else is doing. That’s true for taxpayers of all kinds. When I was a practicing lawyer, I advised some of the largest and most sophisticated businesses in the world. If I’d told them I had a unique way to save tax, different and better than everyone else’s approach, they would have fired me on the spot.<\/p>\n\n\n This is a typical claim from the “Head of Estate Planning” at Less Tax for Landlords, an adviser\/promoter we’ll be reporting on soon.2<\/a><\/sup>Video is \u00a9<\/strong> Less Tax for Landlords Ltd, and excerpted by us as fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe problem with KC opinions<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
The truth about insurance<\/h2>\n\n\n