English: The point is that tax avoidance, as Mike Hedges has already suggested, is a very wide-ranging issue in terms of its scope, in that if we were to try to find every single way of doing that. But what we have in the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 - they are new sections that have been included in the Act by later legislation - is an attitude towards tax avoidance that doesn't depend on identifying specific kinds of avoidance, which sets out a template, if you will, or puts a principle in place. And what it does is it creates this concept of steps that are taken in relation to your own tax affairs that, in the first instance, have been done with the intention of avoiding tax and, in second instance, are artificial in nature. So, if you think about what tax avoidance is, that's what it is. People do things for no other reason than to avoid tax, and they're artificial. That's where the moral boundary is that I mentioned earlier. So, because you have - . Under that legislation, it's a matter for the Welsh Revenue Authority to prove that something is done artificially; it's not a matter for the taxpayer to disprove that. And because we have that very wide-ranging overarching definition of 'tax avoidance', then it's difficult for me to see what we would gain by placing the same definition or a different definition in this Bill. What I would recommend is needed in this Bill is greater clarity about when this power could be used and what could be done through the use of this power to deal with tax avoidance. If the clause in the Bill were drafted as something related to closing the loopholes that it's possible to use, it would be a different matter, but it doesn't. As with the other power that we were talking about earlier in terms of the court cases, this is a very wide-ranging power, enabling almost any reform of the main legislation, and that, perhaps, could mean, for example, that it could change what I've just described as an overarching definition of tax avoidance, by, for example, placing the duty on the taxpayer to prove that something isn't done artificially rather than placing the duty on the WRA to prove that it is. And that's the kind of change, one might argue, that should be done on the floor of the Senedd and not through regulation. So, in summary, I think that if this power is to be pursued, then more of the main legislation needs to be exempted in terms of what can be amended. That's perhaps one way forward.
Welsh: Y pwynt ydy, mae osgoi treth, fel mae Mike Hedges eisoes wedi awgrymu, yn rhywbeth eang iawn, iawn ei rychwant, o ran petaswn ni'n ceisio dod o hyd i bob un gwahanol ffordd y mae modd gwneud hynny. Ond beth sydd gennym ni yn y brif Ddeddf, yn y Ddeddf Casglu a Rheoli Trethi (Cymru) 2016 - maen nhw'n adrannau newydd sydd wedi cael eu rhoi i mewn i'r Ddeddf gan ddeddfwriaeth ddiweddarach - ydy agwedd tuag at osgoi trethi sydd ddim yn dibynnu ar adnabod mathau arbennig o osgoi, sy'n gosod templed, os liciwch chi, neu ryw fath o egwyddor yn ei le. A beth mae'n ei wneud ydy creu'r cysyniad yma o gamau dŷch chi'n eu cymryd mewn perthynas â'ch materion treth chi sydd, yn y lle cyntaf, wedi'u gwneud gyda'r bwriad o osgoi treth ac, yn yr ail le, sydd yn artiffisial o ran eu natur. Ac os ydych chi'n meddwl am beth yw osgoi treth, dyna beth ydy o. Beth ydy o ydy bod pobl yn gwneud pethau nid am unrhyw reswm arall ond osgoi treth, ac mae e'n artiffisial. Dyma le mae'r ffin foesol, os liciwch chi, roeddwn i'n sôn amdani. Felly, oherwydd bod gennych chi - . Ac o dan y Ddeddf honno, mater i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru ydy profi bod rhywbeth yn artiffisial; nid mater i'r trethdalwr i wrthbrofi hynny. Nawr, oherwydd bod gennym ni'r diffiniad trosgynnol eang yna o 'osgoi treth', mae'n anodd gen i weld beth fyddem ni yn ei ennill drwy roi'r un diffiniad neu ddiffiniad gwahanol yn y Bil yma. Yr hyn y byddwn i'n argymell sydd ei angen yn y Bil yma ydy mwy o eglurder ynglŷn â phryd y gellir defnyddio'r pŵer yma, a beth ellir ei wneud drwy ddefnyddio'r pŵer yma er mwyn delio ag osgoi trethi. Pe bai'r cymal yn y Bil wedi ei ddrafftio fel rhywbeth sydd yn ymwneud â chau'r tyllau bach mae modd mynd drwyddyn nhw, mi fyddai'n fater gwahanol, ond dydy o ddim. Fel gyda'r pŵer arall roeddwn i'n sôn amdano gynnau yn ymwneud ag achosion llys, mae'r pŵer yma'n un eang iawn, yn galluogi bron â bod unrhyw ddiwygio o'r brif ddeddfwriaeth, a byddai hynny felly hefyd yn golygu, er enghraifft, y byddai modd newid yr hyn dwi newydd ei ddisgrifio fel diffiniad trosgynnol o osgoi treth, drwy, er enghraifft, gosod y ddyletswydd ar y trethdalwr i brofi bod rhywbeth ddim yn artiffisial yn hytrach nag ar Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru. A dyna'r math o newid a ddylai fod, byddai rhywun yn dadlau, yn cael ei wneud ar lawr y Senedd ac nid drwy reoliadau. Felly, yn fyr, dwi'n credu os bwriedir mynd ymlaen gyda'r pŵer yma o gwbl, yna mae angen eithrio mwy o'r brif ddeddfwriaeth o'r hyn y gellir ei newid. Dyna efallai un ffordd drwodd.