|
iphonedyou
2,511 posts
26 months
|
bigbubba said:
The pole on this thread seems to disagree with that view.
I've said it before - his career will do anything but tank. He's never pretended to be whiter than white, and his audience certainly don't want him to be.
|
|
|
bigbubba
833 posts
88 months
|
iphonedyou said: I've said it before - his career will do anything but tank. He's never pretended to be whiter than white, and his audience certainly don't want him to be. This. I think the way he handled it on 8Oo10C was just right. If he had gone on there being defensive that would have harmed him more than anything the PM can say. Seriously, does CMD think he is more popular?
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
Can't believe that 90% say yes!
I am in an industry where this is rife, I don't do it. I 'lose' many k pa as a result. Greed is a terrible motivator IMHO. This case though just advertises how easy it is and how it is seemingly risk free.
Shame they can't go back after the tax and a fine. That would put an end to it.
|
|
|
sinizter
3,346 posts
55 months
|
Gazzab said: Shame they can't go back after the tax and a fine. That would put an end to it. They can. It doesn't put an end to it.
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
sinizter said: Gazzab said: Shame they can't go back after the tax and a fine. That would put an end to it. They can. It doesn't put an end to it. Really..? No one i know who is in the scheme could afford to repay the tax they have avoided. Certainly if a fine was levied. I am led to believe that these are risk free and no one gets 'caught'.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,413 posts
125 months
|
Gazzab said: Really..? No one i know who is in the scheme could afford to repay the tax they have avoided. Certainly if a fine was levied. I am led to believe that these are risk free and no one gets 'caught'. Then you are very misinformed. That your colleagues could not pay these amounts if approached is neither here nor there. They will potentially suffer badly if they can't and the schemes they were using are ajudged evasion rather than avoidance. I have known people needing to cover several years back taxes for these things (and mistakes made by HMRC. So it doesn't even have to be a case of the individual being sly!). Ref using avoidance...it's not about greed. It's about paying what you are legally obliged to. If I want to give money to charity, I'll decide which are worth the contribution on my own terms thank you. The govt are piss poor arbiters on this front, and if I must see my money wasted, I'd prefer it to be the least amount possible.
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
Murph7355 said: Gazzab said: Really..? No one i know who is in the scheme could afford to repay the tax they have avoided. Certainly if a fine was levied. I am led to believe that these are risk free and no one gets 'caught'. Then you are very misinformed. That your colleagues could not pay these amounts if approached is neither here nor there. They will potentially suffer badly if they can't and the schemes they were using are ajudged evasion rather than avoidance. I have known people needing to cover several years back taxes for these things (and mistakes made by HMRC. So it doesn't even have to be a case of the individual being sly!). Ref using avoidance...it's not about greed. It's about paying what you are legally obliged to. If I want to give money to charity, I'll decide which are worth the contribution on my own terms thank you. The govt are piss poor arbiters on this front, and if I must see my money wasted, I'd prefer it to be the least amount possible. Sorry - I wrote my reply without explaining in detail. I have always assumed that there is a risk of tax being chased and fines being applied in these situations. This was one of the reasons why I said no (but there were many other reasons). The schemes however pride/advertise themselves on these approaches being risk free. So my point is that the users of these schemes can often believe that they are without risk when in fact there is a real risk and also the realisation of the risk could be huge for them. I doubt they have mitigation plans or any concerns. Personally I define these schemes as 'greed'. I agree that minimising ones tax bill is good - that isnt greed. I am not getting at you (didnt know you existed until you posted the reply).
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,413 posts
125 months
|
Gazzab said: ...
Personally I define these schemes as 'greed'. I agree that minimising ones tax bill is good - that isnt greed. I am not getting at you (didnt know you existed until you posted the reply). I wasn't taking it personally  I don't understand the contradiction above though...tax avoidance is greed. Minimising one's tax bill isn't greed....?
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
Murph7355 said: Gazzab said: ...
Personally I define these schemes as 'greed'. I agree that minimising ones tax bill is good - that isnt greed. I am not getting at you (didnt know you existed until you posted the reply). I wasn't taking it personally I don't understand the contradiction above though...tax avoidance is greed. Minimising one's tax bill isn't greed....? Making a decision to use an off-shore 'loans' based solution is often driven by greed. The sales pitch opening line is along the lines of 'Are you interested in reducing your tax liability from c40% to nearly 0%' (that was how they tried to sell it to me). That can drive irrational greed based decision making in my view. I can only judge on my own experiences. The motivations here are not to minimise the tax paid whilst still paying a 'fair' amount (the normal spirit of 'avoidance' surely?), it is to say I am sticking 2 fingers up at it and paying virtually nothing. The subject of whether our tax levels are right or whether the government provides good value are different topics :-)
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
I just googled "off shore contractor loans scheme" - scarey reading some of the links....
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,413 posts
125 months
|
You're then on the slippery, arbitrary slope of what constitutes "enough" avoidance and a "fair" contribution though. It will differ for everyone.
For example, is minimising your bill from 40% to 25% ok? What about to 20%?
And irrespective of the %age, is say £35k per year direct to HMRC a suitable contribution for any one individual to make?
Bearing in mind all the other taxes that get paid, and the results from that taxation, there are few people who would genuinely not reduce their tax bill as far as possible if they had the opportunity to do so and *know* the scheme involved would not be overturned (ie the risk element were removed).
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,413 posts
125 months
|
Gazzab said: They are fortunately (or perhaps ironically) named  Haven't read all of it but there don't seem to be any big promises in writing on there. Just aims to improve your net income?
|
|
|
BoRED S2upid
9,428 posts
109 months
|
Murph7355 said: You're then on the slippery, arbitrary slope of what constitutes "enough" avoidance and a "fair" contribution though. It will differ for everyone. I think thats the main question here some of the cases highlighted in the paper the individuals were reducing their tax to a few %. Everyone should have to pay the basic rate of Income Tax and reducing it down from the higher rates is fair enough if you ask me.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,413 posts
125 months
|
BoRED S2upid said: I think thats the main question here some of the cases highlighted in the paper the individuals were reducing their tax to a few %. Everyone should have to pay the basic rate of Income Tax and reducing it down from the higher rates is fair enough if you ask me. It's the player v the game argument. The govt need to find a better tax construct that discourages people even wanting to consider such schemes. They appear incapable of doing so, and shuffle around and tinker like buffoons. Often pandering to people who seem to think that punitive, progressive rates of personal taxation are in some way "fair". Someone else mentioned it somewhere, but I quite like the idea (despite the myriad issues) of shifting the main burden of taxation onto consumption. No real way of avoiding it then if you live and operate in this country. Akin to putting the road fund license onto fuel and scrapping the former. Which will also never happen as the greedy b  ds prefer to have it both ways...
|
|
|
johnfm
9,013 posts
119 months
|
How has the off shore loan thing not been caught by the commercial transaction test?
IIRC, a recent £11m scheme failed at teh appeal court as the original court deemed the connected transaction had not commercial merit (ie any movement in the underlying indexes produced the same result).
|
|
|
Gazzab
15,112 posts
151 months
|
The revenue are probably playing the long game...the longer they wait, the bigger the value of the fines and interest.
|
|
|
jezzaaa
1,478 posts
128 months
|
Murph7355 said: Then you are very misinformed.
... They will potentially suffer badly if they can't and the schemes they were using are ajudged evasion rather than avoidance... This seems to be a common misconception. As I understand it, most of these schemes declare all the income on the SA return, so nothing is hidden...and then argue that most of it is not taxable for whatever reason (it's a loan, it's subject to DTA etc). These arguments as to why the income is non-taxable are an interpretation of the rules...which may be a different interpretation than HMRC would take. Nevertheless, on this point, it's no different to claiming an expense against tax, and then the revenue disagreeing that it is is allowable. In either case, the only consequence (assuming the revenue wins) is that the back tax becomes due and the revenue apply interest to it from the point at which the tax should have been paid. I understood that evasion is hiding taxable income by not declaring it. As such, these schemes that do declare all income can never be found to be evasion and no fraud will have been committed and no penalties or prosecutions will occur. These are purely civil matters, as evidenced by the fact that the poor BN66 guys and gals went through the civil court structure, and not through criminal proceedings.
|
|
|
MKnight702
768 posts
83 months
|
VinceFox said: Yes.
And frankly a prime minister describing legal tax avoidance as immoral is one of the most ridiculas things ive heard this year. I have an ISA, I didn't realise that it stood for Immoral Savings Account. I see nothing wrong or Immoral about using every legal method to reduce my tax burden, especially given the profligate waste in the Public Sector. Until I see every public body use the funds I give them in a cost effective manner they can whistle. It gets my goat when I hear "cuts in public spending" must equal "cuts in services" . Do you really expect me to believe that Public Sector spending is so efficient that there are no savings to be made to deliver the same service for less? Why can't I turn the tables and say wasting public money is Immoral and should be stamped out? That way the tax take would be less of a burden for all.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
MKnight702 said: I have an ISA, I didn't realise that it stood for Immoral Savings Account.
I see nothing wrong or Immoral about using every legal method to reduce my tax burden, especially given the profligate waste in the Public Sector. Until I see every public body use the funds I give them in a cost effective manner they can whistle. It gets my goat when I hear "cuts in public spending" must equal "cuts in services" . Do you really expect me to believe that Public Sector spending is so efficient that there are no savings to be made to deliver the same service for less?
Why can't I turn the tables and say wasting public money is Immoral and should be stamped out? That way the tax take would be less of a burden for all. How inefficient do you think public services are? 10%? 30%? 80%?
|
|
