BBC Rogue Traders - Dan Penteado jailed for 12 weeks
Discussion
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".
Do you really think that some benefits inspector is going to trawl through everyone on TV just in case they're claiming benefits?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".
eccles said:
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".
Do you really think that some benefits inspector is going to trawl through everyone on TV just in case they're claiming benefits?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".
A scumbag was jailed locally for 20 weeks after stealing an unknown (thought to run into 10's of thousands) of pounds whilst posing as a Cancer Research collector, not one penny was actually handed over.
Who on earth would consider either offence as broadly similar, both should get 18 months longer without parole.
Who on earth would consider either offence as broadly similar, both should get 18 months longer without parole.
Eric Mc said:
The trouble is that tax mitigation techniques cover a vast swathe of activities from perfectly legitimate to right at the edge - or even over the edge - of legality.
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.
As they are being paid with public money and are avoiding paying tax or giving back public money, maybe the net pay Should be worked out and they just get that. 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.
Eric Mc said:
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.
Granted, I was thinking more of those civil servants who were only self employed in name. Will they get investigated for ir35? If not it will drag the coalition down. 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.
What surprised me was just how little he was being paid by the BBC - and how he doesn't appear to have had much else on, work-wise, when he wasn't doing BBC work.
I don't fully understand the full ins and outs of the case - but if he was averaging circa £14k / year for his BBC work and didn't have another job when he wasn't contracted to the BBC, I'd imagine that he didn't actually cheat the system by as much as the press are making out - because, inbetween contracts, he was actually entitled to claim.
I don't fully understand the full ins and outs of the case - but if he was averaging circa £14k / year for his BBC work and didn't have another job when he wasn't contracted to the BBC, I'd imagine that he didn't actually cheat the system by as much as the press are making out - because, inbetween contracts, he was actually entitled to claim.
markcoznottz said:
Granted, I was thinking more of those civil servants who were only self employed in name. Will they get investigated for ir35? If not it will drag the coalition down.
That's a rather different issue and one I would agree on in principle. Having heads of government departments being paid through their limited companies is very different to paying the production company of a presenter or entertainer - who also does work for entities other than the BBC.HeatonNorris said:
What surprised me was just how little he was being paid by the BBC - and how he doesn't appear to have had much else on, work-wise, when he wasn't doing BBC work.
I don't fully understand the full ins and outs of the case - but if he was averaging circa £14k / year for his BBC work and didn't have another job when he wasn't contracted to the BBC, I'd imagine that he didn't actually cheat the system by as much as the press are making out - because, inbetween contracts, he was actually entitled to claim.
So, if it wasn't for his income from the BBC he would have been eligible. Doesn't quite work like that. It's like saying, if I didn't have a job I could claim - so I'll claim anyway.I don't fully understand the full ins and outs of the case - but if he was averaging circa £14k / year for his BBC work and didn't have another job when he wasn't contracted to the BBC, I'd imagine that he didn't actually cheat the system by as much as the press are making out - because, inbetween contracts, he was actually entitled to claim.
I've often wondered what else he did for a luiving as he didn't appear to work in any other TV or radio programme.
singlecoil said:
markbigears said:
You guys obviously don't know him, he's actually a nice guy and he's a petrolhead
And that makes DD X 2 OK?Compete and utter cock.
HoHoHo said:
singlecoil said:
markbigears said:
You guys obviously don't know him, he's actually a nice guy and he's a petrolhead
And that makes DD X 2 OK?Compete and utter cock.
Interesting article in The Telegraph.
It seems that, in real life, he was a Private Detective.
He also failed to turn up in court for his sentencing - and there is now a warrant out for his arrest.
I wonder has he legged it back to Portugal?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/93312...
It seems that, in real life, he was a Private Detective.
He also failed to turn up in court for his sentencing - and there is now a warrant out for his arrest.
I wonder has he legged it back to Portugal?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/93312...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff