BBC Rogue Traders - Dan Penteado jailed for 12 weeks
Discussion
17/07/2012 BBC Rogue Traders presenter Dan Penteado jailed for 12 weeks for council tax and housing benefit fraud.
Link working on BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-188673...
Link working on BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-188673...
Edited by RESSE on Tuesday 17th July 11:30
Mr_B said:
How to they decide on jail times in these cases. You can read cases in the papers all day long about false claims in 6 figures where they don't go to jail and pay a tiny fine next to what they stole.
He's a biker. All bikers get very harsh penalties for their misdemeanors. It's the law.Guam said:
Eric Mc said:
What presenters are they then?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1173959&mid=13948&nmt=The+ultimate+in+hypocrisyLink to the article is on that thread
140+ of them dodging tax
About 12 years ago HMRC looked very carefully at how actors, presenters and other entertainers were taxed and came to the conclusion that self-employment and/or limited companies were legitimate for these activities.
Jasandjules said:
Odd isn't it. The Police Camera Action type presenter got done for DD.. Is there some sort of rule that the presenters of such shows must be at least as bad as the people on the show?!?
Absolutely! It is so they can really understand their foe and, get into the mindset. Thus being able to present the show with real feeling. 
Eric Mc said:
I think you will find that running your operation through a limited company (or as a sole trader) is a perfectly legitimate method of aranging your affairs if you work in the entertainment or media industry. Most people who work in this area are looked on as "running a business" and, if HMRC accept this in principle (which they usually do), then there are no restrictions on operating that business as a limited company.
About 12 years ago HMRC looked very carefully at how actors, presenters and other entertainers were taxed and came to the conclusion that self-employment and/or limited companies were legitimate for these activities.
Let's watch like a hawk if those public sector types working self employed for years doing the same job get IR35 used against them. About 12 years ago HMRC looked very carefully at how actors, presenters and other entertainers were taxed and came to the conclusion that self-employment and/or limited companies were legitimate for these activities.
Laurel Green said:
Jasandjules said:
Odd isn't it. The Police Camera Action type presenter got done for DD.. Is there some sort of rule that the presenters of such shows must be at least as bad as the people on the show?!?
Absolutely! It is so they can really understand their foe and, get into the mindset. Thus being able to present the show with real feeling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFfM_dili4
A brilliant video and tune..
miniman said:
Astonishing stupidity from both sides IMHO.
Him for thinking he could get away with it.
The benefits clowns for not spotting his name and thinking "surely he's getting paid for riding that bike".
Very few people would've actually had authorised access to this records and details. The few who did may not watch the show. If you accessed a benefit claimants records on the internal DWP computers without a good reason then you get the sack on the spot.Him for thinking he could get away with it.
The benefits clowns for not spotting his name and thinking "surely he's getting paid for riding that bike".
ETA: In fact not just benefit claimants. You could type anybodies name in to that computer and view their details if you were willing to become unemployed.
Edited by martin84 on Tuesday 17th July 15:51
Guam said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you will find that running your operation through a limited company (or as a sole trader) is a perfectly legitimate method of aranging your affairs if you work in the entertainment or media industry. Most people who work in this area are looked on as "running a business" and, if HMRC accept this in principle (which they usually do), then there are no restrictions on operating that business as a limited company.
About 12 years ago HMRC looked very carefully at how actors, presenters and other entertainers were taxed and came to the conclusion that self-employment and/or limited companies were legitimate for these activities.
Thats not the point now is it Eric?About 12 years ago HMRC looked very carefully at how actors, presenters and other entertainers were taxed and came to the conclusion that self-employment and/or limited companies were legitimate for these activities.
These are the same guys who harangue business owners <and Ceo's> for similar "wrinkles" on a regular basis <Hence the title of the thread>
Working as a legitimate self employed individual and opting to run that business through a limited company is so far on the "safe" side of tax mitigation that it hardly falls into the same category as benefit fraud - which is so far beyond legality that the perpetrator has received a jail sentence.
markcoznottz said:
Let's watch like a hawk if those public sector types working self employed for years doing the same job get IR35 used against them.
IR35 is only an issue if the activity the individual is engaged in could never be construed as self-employed.HMRC have acceeded to the idea that, in the entertainment industry and the media. many of the engagements that people undertake are of a self-employed type - which means that opting to run their business through a limited company will never trigger IR35.
HOWEVER, if the individual is acting in a MANAGEMENT category and directing and controlling a division of an organisation (rather than acting, performing or presenting), then trying to avoid tax using a limited company should not work as the engagement could not really be construed as that of self employment/trading.
Many media people set up limited companies because their services are not "used" by just one organisation. A singer, for instance, may present a TV show on a regular basis, perform to the public, perform on radio, be a guest on a panel show, be interviewed on a programme, receive royalties for their recordings, appear at charity functions etc etc etc.
For many of these types of people, having one "catch-all" limited company to receive all this income from multiple sources may make life easier and more manageable - as well as helping them mitigate their overall tax liabilities.
Most of them are not just working for one entity all the time.
joe_90 said:
Spot on! 
Great tune too.Jasandjules said:
Ah, like method acting.... 
That's the gist of it. Soon to be appearing with Gordon Ramsay in behind bars!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff