Tax Avoidance = Immoral
Discussion
Politicians from all ends of the political spectrum now equate complex tax avoidance schemes with immorality. Yet these very same politicians are quite happy to accept donations from companies who help to set up these very schemes.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/01/chukas-takes-don...
"Chuka Umunna has received a £2,500 donation from a firm which advises its clients on how to swerve HMRC rules to help them avoid tax. Signature Tax paid the sum two weeks ago, with the money “received through the Labour Party to support the office of Chuka Umunna”
http://order-order.com/2014/09/01/chukas-takes-don...
"Chuka Umunna has received a £2,500 donation from a firm which advises its clients on how to swerve HMRC rules to help them avoid tax. Signature Tax paid the sum two weeks ago, with the money “received through the Labour Party to support the office of Chuka Umunna”
BlackLabel said:
Politicians from all ends of the political spectrum now equate complex tax avoidance schemes with immorality. Yet these very same politicians are quite happy to accept donations from companies who help to set up these very schemes.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/01/chukas-takes-don...
"Chuka Umunna has received a £2,500 donation from a firm which advises its clients on how to swerve HMRC rules to help them avoid tax. Signature Tax paid the sum two weeks ago, with the money “received through the Labour Party to support the office of Chuka Umunna”
He's a politician.http://order-order.com/2014/09/01/chukas-takes-don...
"Chuka Umunna has received a £2,500 donation from a firm which advises its clients on how to swerve HMRC rules to help them avoid tax. Signature Tax paid the sum two weeks ago, with the money “received through the Labour Party to support the office of Chuka Umunna”
Pleb rules and regs don't apply.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Gary Lineker is on the hook for £1.3m allegedly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11381479/Gary-Line...
Now known as 'Mr Big Arrears'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11381479/Gary-Line...
Now known as 'Mr Big Arrears'.
NicD said:
not just Lineker, apparently all who played that Ingenious system have received demands.
Which, when paid, will get the taxpayers concerned a larger rebate (interest) if and when Ingenious win - playing away at a series of tax tribunals later in the year, which should be televised on Tax Of The Day with running commentary.I actually agree that Avoidance is immoral as its only certain sections of society that can get away with it.
Do away with PAYE and make everybody Self Employed with the same options to avoid tax as the rich then perhaps it might become a little more palatable.
Of course at that point I suspect other issues will rear their head.
Do away with PAYE and make everybody Self Employed with the same options to avoid tax as the rich then perhaps it might become a little more palatable.
Of course at that point I suspect other issues will rear their head.
Ingenious have been trying to get HMRC into court for over two years on this.
The long and the short of HMRC case, as I have been told, is that film partnerships were set up to make fictitious losses and not films for commercial gain. Ingenious as opposed to other film schemes actually made money, in fact shed loads. Thus the HMRC position would seem to be somewhat at odds given that films they produced included Avatar, The Life of Pi etc etc.
It looks to be a somewhat similar situation to the case of Business Premises Renovation Allowance schemes. The schemes were legal and HMG had put them in place. When they proved to be more successful than had been anticipated HMRC decided they wanted to change the rules as they'd like a slice of the profits.
It's as a result of HMRC deciding to make pre-payment on new schemes a feature going forward, and Ingenious wanting certainty for their clients that Ingenius have brought the case, not HMRC. I find that rather telling irrespective of the outcome.
As a side point I'm sick and tired of talking heads telling me about the morality of tax avoidance. I find it morally repugnant that my taxes are spent outside the UK when there are people at need here, but I have no choice.
Anything that is legal is fine with me. Don't like the law? Change it, you're the Government that's your job and you have the power to do it. Don't b
h when people take legal steps to keep their own bloody cash.
The long and the short of HMRC case, as I have been told, is that film partnerships were set up to make fictitious losses and not films for commercial gain. Ingenious as opposed to other film schemes actually made money, in fact shed loads. Thus the HMRC position would seem to be somewhat at odds given that films they produced included Avatar, The Life of Pi etc etc.
It looks to be a somewhat similar situation to the case of Business Premises Renovation Allowance schemes. The schemes were legal and HMG had put them in place. When they proved to be more successful than had been anticipated HMRC decided they wanted to change the rules as they'd like a slice of the profits.
It's as a result of HMRC deciding to make pre-payment on new schemes a feature going forward, and Ingenious wanting certainty for their clients that Ingenius have brought the case, not HMRC. I find that rather telling irrespective of the outcome.
As a side point I'm sick and tired of talking heads telling me about the morality of tax avoidance. I find it morally repugnant that my taxes are spent outside the UK when there are people at need here, but I have no choice.
Anything that is legal is fine with me. Don't like the law? Change it, you're the Government that's your job and you have the power to do it. Don't b
h when people take legal steps to keep their own bloody cash.HMRC can close down "legal" avoidance schemes - if they can convince the courts that the scheme doesn't really do what the scheme creators thought it would. It doesn't make the scheme illegal, it just means the scheme didn't work.
No one will go to jail having used such a scheme. All they will have to do is pay the tax they thought they had avoided - with interest and possibly penalties.
If HMRC can convince the courts - which doesn't always happen.
No one will go to jail having used such a scheme. All they will have to do is pay the tax they thought they had avoided - with interest and possibly penalties.
If HMRC can convince the courts - which doesn't always happen.
ugofirst said:
I actually agree that Avoidance is immoral as its only certain sections of society that can get away with it.
Do away with PAYE and make everybody Self Employed with the same options to avoid tax as the rich then perhaps it might become a little more palatable.
Of course at that point I suspect other issues will rear their head.
So I presume that you don't have any pension savings or ISAs as these are tax avoidance schemes.Do away with PAYE and make everybody Self Employed with the same options to avoid tax as the rich then perhaps it might become a little more palatable.
Of course at that point I suspect other issues will rear their head.
Tax avoidance is legal and the vast majority of the working population take advantage of it in some way shape or form. Those that push it too far are told that they have done so and have to pay the tax owed plus interest so no loss to the state or society. Those that have only taken advantage of schemes (put in place by governments to encourage certain behaviours) have not done anything wrong. They have merely done what the government was encouraging them to do.
TTmonkey said:
Can anyone tell me, in simple terms, how investing £1.3 million in some scheme designed to lose money, is somehow magically worth doing? How is this supposed to work?
Keep it simple, like me... Ta
The trick is, you PRETEND you lost the money - even though you didn't.Keep it simple, like me... Ta
OR
You receive income from such schemes but the income is described as a LOAN which means it can't be taxed. A loan to a person is not normally treated as taxable income as, after all, the essence of a loan is that you only have the money temporarilly and then have to give it back. The clever part is that the loan is magically written off and never has to be repaid - but never gets reclassified after this event as income. So, voila, tax free income.
NicD said:
If you looked, you would find that those complaining about a particular 'tax avoidance scheme' were really thinking that it was 'tax evasion' and so none of the things you attribute. In this and many other cases, so does HMRC.
But the thread is about tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal and moral. It is not about tax evasion which is illegal / immoral - and always has been. The parts of the tax code which allow avoidance are generally created by the government to encourage behaviour that they find important - saving for retirement, increasing savings rates, investing in film production, entrepreneurship etc. Just because someone else takes advantage of them (and someone else does not) does not make them immoral. The quarrel should be with the government which created the tax avoidance possiblity rather than the person exercising their legal right to use it.As I said earlier, if you push it too far, you get told you have done so and are required to make full restitution including interest. If you haven't pushed it too far than you have only done what the government expected (and presumably) wanted you to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff