Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..
Discussion
Seems that the HMRC intends to ruin many people that used tax avoidance schemes....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3952162/Hu...
I wonder if this is 'just' treatment.... .?
Seems heavy handed. 20 times the amount they evaded....? Hey?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3952162/Hu...
I wonder if this is 'just' treatment.... .?
Seems heavy handed. 20 times the amount they evaded....? Hey?
And presumably the advisors who advised these types of investment are covered contractually? Otherwise they'd be in the frame for some liability on this loss.
I don't disagree with the deterrant aspect - we either take paying tax seriously, or we don't.
Shame this approach can't be done with other forms of illegal wealth, or types of fraudulant income.
Ian
I don't disagree with the deterrant aspect - we either take paying tax seriously, or we don't.
Shame this approach can't be done with other forms of illegal wealth, or types of fraudulant income.
Ian
316Mining said:
Seems that the HMRC intends to ruin many people that used tax avoidance schemes....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3952162/Hu...
I wonder if this is 'just' treatment.... .?
Seems heavy handed. 20 times the amount they evaded....? Hey?
Nope, it's 100% of the tax evaded. nothing more, nothing less.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3952162/Hu...
I wonder if this is 'just' treatment.... .?
Seems heavy handed. 20 times the amount they evaded....? Hey?
I'm in favour. Tax rules should apply to all. If the rules are wrong, lets change em, but tax evasionis corruption and nowt good comes from corrupt practices.
Jockman said:
Interesting one to follow.
You're not just talking about celebrities but also dentists, accountants, lawyers, Company Directors.
I believe that dentists are forced by the BDA to pay hem selves as an employee on PAYE. It is very difficult for them to hide any takings or do deals for cash.You're not just talking about celebrities but also dentists, accountants, lawyers, Company Directors.
MarshPhantom said:
Fergie and Sven. BBC News on 5 Live yesterday kept saying "not that they've done anything wrong".
Well they've just been busted for tax avoidance.
If I was them I'd probably be thinking the same. It's not like they were funding something any reasonable person would know is illegal, like drug running. Instead they'd have met with legitimate accountants in swanky offices and it would all have appeared above board.Well they've just been busted for tax avoidance.
Fair enough they now have to pay it back. I'd like to see the accountants personally liable for an amount equal to all the tax evaded too. This way they might decide in future to spend their time on more worthwhile tasks, like a trial balance.
gruffalo said:
I believe that dentists are forced by the BDA to pay hem selves as an employee on PAYE. It is very difficult for them to hide any takings or do deals for cash.
So wrong.1: BDA is the dentist trade union, so can't force them to do anything
2: Dentists in independent practice are almost all self employed. Big fight between the BDA and HMRC a few years ago to allow them to stay that way.
3: Quite a lot of cash still changes hands in practice.
Sparkyhd said:
<snip>
If I was them I'd probably be thinking the same. It's not like they were funding something any reasonable person would know is illegal, like drug running. Instead they'd have met with legitimate accountants in swanky offices and it would all have appeared above board.
<snip>
I think you are being too kind in giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their motive and whether it would have seemed legitimate at the time.If I was them I'd probably be thinking the same. It's not like they were funding something any reasonable person would know is illegal, like drug running. Instead they'd have met with legitimate accountants in swanky offices and it would all have appeared above board.
<snip>
The only reason the vast majority of these schemes existed was to avoid tax.
If people wanted to invest in film production, that's fair enough.
The reason for leveraging their investment with large loans was to create artificially inflated tax relief enabling them to reduce the tax owed on their main earnings.
I would suggest anyone getting into this at the time knew full well the risks.
Maybe though they didn't anticipate HRMC's appetite for clawing it back.
It would perhaps be fair enough if the legislation was to tackle the big bad boys. The Googles or even the hypocrites like Viscount Rothermere (whose rag the Daily Mail has a lot to say on the subject, despite him screwing the system from every angle). However HMRC dont like taking on the big boys, they like bullying small businesses.
Nothing wrong with tax avoidance, we all do it. As I understand it 'Tax avoidance schemes' that haven't been approved by HMRC have the potential to become tax evasion if, as often happens, HMRC rule them inadmissible.
In that case, if one continues in such a scheme then it's illegal. If one doesn't continue, no law has been broken but there'll be a liability for any tax avoided up to that point, plus costs and interest.
The least any investor should do is make provision for the potential liability until the scheme is approved, so hard to have sympathy in this case. Any half decent accountant or FA should know that and advise accordingly.
Over the years I was offered a number of such 'opportunities' (not on this scale!). The risks were always made clear(ish). The fact that it was the investor's risk was always made very clear.
As I said, as I understand it; others may be better informed.
In that case, if one continues in such a scheme then it's illegal. If one doesn't continue, no law has been broken but there'll be a liability for any tax avoided up to that point, plus costs and interest.
The least any investor should do is make provision for the potential liability until the scheme is approved, so hard to have sympathy in this case. Any half decent accountant or FA should know that and advise accordingly.
Over the years I was offered a number of such 'opportunities' (not on this scale!). The risks were always made clear(ish). The fact that it was the investor's risk was always made very clear.
As I said, as I understand it; others may be better informed.
smileymikey said:
It would perhaps be fair enough if the legislation was to tackle the big bad boys. The Googles or even the hypocrites like Viscount Rothermere (whose rag the Daily Mail has a lot to say on the subject, despite him screwing the system from every angle).
Remember the Trust that was set up to help The Guardian to keep Left - did somebody mention tax avoidance? The Left are just as bad, lefty comedians too.MarshPhantom said:
Fergie and Sven
...
Well they've just been busted for tax avoidance.
Not quite 'busted' as tax avoidance isn't against the law, tax law or any other law, except of course the hypocritical law of the famous Left who preach against it while doing it (Benn) or while supporting it (BBC, who are largely silent about the Ltd Co's through which their lefty mouthpieces are paid to avoid tax)....
Well they've just been busted for tax avoidance.
If a scheme is found to be something else, then the tax is due presumably with interest and rightly so.
EddieSteadyGo said:
The only reason the vast majority of these schemes existed was to avoid tax.
Sure, why not? Avoiding tax, aka paying the amount due in law and no more, is lawful and quite reasonable.Out of interest it would be helpful to know how much extra tax the avoidance critics would be willing to pay voluntarily, and how much extra they actually pay.
Willy Nilly said:
Is this more of a consequence of complex tax laws?
More a consequence of greed.If you go onto the police and law thread, for every speeder who complains there is a plethora of 'if you can't do the time, don't do the time' replies.
They took a risk; it didn't pay off.
In some ways I do sympathise with them. They no doubt took advice and believed the 'Nah, perfectly legal loophole'. A moment's greed and it will cost them. Their families will suffer as well, but then they got the benefits when the hubby/wife were riding high. I invested a lump sum in a high risk, but perfectly legal, account about three and a half second before the stock market crash in 2008. Anyone sympathise?
Derek Smith said:
They took a risk; it didn't pay off.
In some ways I do sympathise with them. They no doubt took advice and believed the 'Nah, perfectly legal loophole'. A moment's greed and it will cost them.
A moment of not wanting to pay more tax than due may involve greed or it may not, it depends on the person surely. We can safely assume that millions of people pay no more tax than is due, and they don't want to pay a penny more either, are they greedy? Presumably the difference is that they aren't perceived as "rich" and therefore not really worthy of a bashing.In some ways I do sympathise with them. They no doubt took advice and believed the 'Nah, perfectly legal loophole'. A moment's greed and it will cost them.
As posted a moment ago, if a scheme turns out to be something else then back tax is due and presumably with interest, and rightly so.
However, as to whether it will 'cost them' depends on what they did with the tax in the interim. They'll have to pay the tax due of course, but that's not quite the same thing as 'costing them' which appears to imply that they will be worse off. Your phraseology sounds a bit like you hope it will cost them - a touch of revenge mentality perhaps? If that wasn't your point, then disregard my remarks.
I don't want to pay any more tax than the bare minimum that is due, but I've always been very suspicious of these convoluted, artificial schemes. You just know that if (when) they go wrong the advisors will point out various clauses in the small print that mean it's not their fault, and the investors will be the ones handing over another pound of flesh to HMRC. Not worth it, imo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff