Worse still, he got the politics wrong. He cut tax for the wealthy but not everyone else. He reduced tax for large companies but not small ones. He supported tax evasion through the Swiss tax deal. He encouraged large companies to take their financing operations to tax havens and in the process harmed developing countries. In other words, he did all he could to increase tax avoidance and evasion whilst increasing the wealth gap.
Let us, just for a moment, assume that as Ritchie states, Osborne intended all of these things.
So what is the definition of tax evasion: that doidging of taxes which is illegal. So, making legal various forms of tax dodging cannot be an increase in tax evasion. It must, in fact, be a reduction of such.
What is the definition of tax avoidance? According to Ritchie it is using the tax law in ways that those who made the law did not intend the law to be used in order to dodge taxes.
But Ritchie’s allegation here is that Osborne deliberately did this. So there can be no increase in tax avoidance as a result: because the law is being made to specifically allow this activity.
Thus there can only be reductions in tax avoidance and tax evasion as a result of these changes.
It is only possible for there to be an increase in either if avoidance and evasion are not defined as the law would have it, or Parliament or the Chancellor. Only if evasion and avoidance are to be described as whatever it is that a retired accountant from Wandsworth thinks they ought to be. Which is an absurd assumption as everyone will obviously agree.