Tax Avoidance Vs Expenses...

[Du1point8]

Both are used as ways to make sure that the person using the system is not not out of pocket for working expenses...

Yet one is being clamped down heavily cause the MPs want to get their hands on more tax whilst the other (surprising its the one that MPs use) is allowed to be frauduantly abused.

Tax aviodance schemes that are to close down include:

• Groups of companies will be banned from using intra-group loans or derivatives to reduce their corporation tax bill.

• Tackle firms who "artificially split" the supply of their services to reduce VAT.

• company schemes used to reward employees which seek to avoid or defer the payment of income tax or National Insurance Contributions (NICs).

• Stop investment companies retrospectively changing the currency in which they prepare their accounts for tax purposes.

• Close down avoidance schemes involving the use of trusts.

• transfer of property into trust will be brought into the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime next April.

Ones already gone:

• Not forgetting the Montpelier, that whilst not completely ethical, it was legal... the government didnt like this and then decided to make it illegal and back date all people using it for 5 years.

Yet the Mps are allowed to get away with stuff like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-...

but wait it was already known about April 2009:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

SO let me get this right... I could be the MP of Hull and own a house up there... but because I need to come to London once a year I can claim all the expenses of a 2nd home and buy it using taxpayers money... but wait if I can rent that out for £2k a month whilst the taxpayer is paying £1500 for it and I go rent a third home for £500 a month (which I can claim also) Im better off again???

Then there is the just illegal stealing of the tax payers with false claims:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/dav...

Yet they still do it and get away with it...

Just how really....

One is tax avoidance (which is an incorrect term) it should be reducing your tax exposure using legal methods whilst still paying a lot of tax.

The other is just theft and fraud of the taxpayer's money.

So why is the legal way to reduce the exposure of tax getting beaten with a stick and the other one not being touched and they are still allowing people to do what they fk they feel like?

Oh and I mustn't forget the defence why you are deemed to have done something illegal:

One is guilty until proven innocent, then taken to the cleaners even though its legally allowed within the system.

Other is a shrug of the shoulders and state that its legally allowed in the system and therefore Im allowed to do it and there is nothing to stop me other than morals and they keep on doing it.

One rule for them and fk the rest I think...

[Tsippy]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Sadly there's not much more to say

[MaxAndRuby]

It was good while it lasted.

[Sticks.]

At least there has been a change, instigated by the last govt, in the MPs pension entitlement http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

It quotes after 15 years service an MP cold have retired with a £24k pension based on an accrual of 1/40th of salary.

[tomw2000]

[quote]One is tax avoidance (which is an incorrect term) it should be reducing your tax exposure using legal methods whilst still paying lots of tax.
[/quote]

Tax Avoidance is LEGAL. Tax Evasion is ILLEGAL. The media seems to be using both terms interchangably currently.

Great original post to. Our law makers sicken me.

Edited by tomw2000 on Wednesday 8th December 19:18

[Deva Link]

Du1point8 said:

Then there is the just illegal stealing of the tax payers with false claims:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/dav...

Yet they still do it and get away with it...

How is being prosecuted and pleading guilty, 'getting away with it'?

Best thing is to work for, and be paid by, a company based in another country. You can expense anything you like then.

[J T]

tomw2000][quote said:

One is tax avoidance (which is an incorrect term) it should be reducing your tax exposure using legal methods whilst still paying lots of tax.

Tax Avoidance is LEGAL. Tax Evasion is ILLEGAL. The media seems to be using both terms interchangably currently.

Great original post to. Our law makers sicken me.

Edited by tomw2000 on Wednesday 8th December 19:18

At least in my part of the Commonwealth, the Revenue will pursue tax avoidance with some vigour. Where avoidance 'not paying tax in the manner parliament intended' is found, the taxpayer is reassessed with added penalties of up to 100%. Did you mean avoidance is not a criminal offence?

[Du1point8]

J T said:

tomw2000][quote said:

One is tax avoidance (which is an incorrect term) it should be reducing your tax exposure using legal methods whilst still paying lots of tax.

Tax Avoidance is LEGAL. Tax Evasion is ILLEGAL. The media seems to be using both terms interchangably currently.

Great original post to. Our law makers sicken me.

Edited by tomw2000 on Wednesday 8th December 19:18

At least in my part of the Commonwealth, the Revenue will pursue tax avoidance with some vigour. Where avoidance 'not paying tax in the manner parliament intended' is found, the taxpayer is reassessed with added penalties of up to 100%. Did you mean avoidance is not a criminal offence?

Its not avoidance its reducing exposure by putting legitimate expenses through the company and is legal as the government advises you on this on how to do it... then they tell you its illegal and your not allowed to do it and then back date it back X years so you have to pay up or face the consequences.

[fluffnik]

Politics needs all the money taken out of it.

Parties should have membership subs at a single rate and NOTHING else.

MPs and Ministers should get a multiplier of average wage and those in government should have all their wealth held in escrow, returned after they leave office increased or diminished according to their governments performance.