.@_DavidQuentin explains the 'risk theory' here http://www.davidquentin.co.uk/Risk-Mining_The_Public_Exchequer.pdf …. To my mind, it's a valuable tool - it has its flaws - but even so.
-
-
-
Replying to @_ClairQuentin
@_DavidQuentin pleasure. Nice to have you back.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin So "evasion" must always be with deliberate intent and knowledge of illegality? Otherwise... 1/21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TimLawTax
@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin .."avoidance" successfully challenged in court then "evasion" and presumed innocence mean avoidance legal? 2/22 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TimLawTax
@TimLawTax @_DavidQuentin I don't follow, I'm afraid.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin If "legal avoidance" is a misnomer, that implies the existence of illegal avoidance. But isn't that "evasion"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TimLawTax
@TimLawTax@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin. I think mens rea always present in evasion. Failed avoidance can be bad planning, execution, etc.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @iaincampbell07
@iaincampbell07@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin But those are fact rather than law? Poor implementation is different?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TimLawTax
@TimLawTax@JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin. Hoffman wrote there is no such thing in law as avoidance. If it works it's legal. Fails, it's not.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@iaincampbell07 @TimLawTax @JolyonMaugham @_DavidQuentin This bit seems circular: reducing the ammount legally owedpic.twitter.com/j8AxdBaLDC
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.