Charity is a tax avoidance scheme?
Discussion
Anyone else seen this before:
One of Britain’s biggest charities is a front for tax avoidance, The Times can reveal.
Wealthy donors used the Cup Trust to avoid £46 million in tax in an extensive abuse of Gift Aid incentives designed to encourage charitable donations.
The registered charity raised £176 million between 2010 and 2011. In 2010 it attracted more donations than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Heart Foundation or the Salvation Army.
One of Britain’s biggest charities is a front for tax avoidance, The Times can reveal.
Wealthy donors used the Cup Trust to avoid £46 million in tax in an extensive abuse of Gift Aid incentives designed to encourage charitable donations.
The registered charity raised £176 million between 2010 and 2011. In 2010 it attracted more donations than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Heart Foundation or the Salvation Army.
HMRC are all over these funded tax relief schemes where the relief sought bears no likeness to the amount the claimant has actually risked/donated of his own.
Whilst it may work in terms of the law as stated, You can be assured that any relief would come under very close scrutiny and challenge - it may cost you a fortune in interest and penalties as well as repaying the tax "saved".
David
Whilst it may work in terms of the law as stated, You can be assured that any relief would come under very close scrutiny and challenge - it may cost you a fortune in interest and penalties as well as repaying the tax "saved".
David
sumo69 said:
HMRC are all over these funded tax relief schemes where the relief sought bears no likeness to the amount the claimant has actually risked/donated of his own.
Whilst it may work in terms of the law as stated, You can be assured that any relief would come under very close scrutiny and challenge - it may cost you a fortune in interest and penalties as well as repaying the tax "saved".
David
It is certainly true that there is much Sabre rattling at the IR concerning supposed illegal tax avoidance through charities. I doubt it is actually illegal. We must remember that the government declined to act against this abuse after charity objections. If it were already illegal why was there need to act?Whilst it may work in terms of the law as stated, You can be assured that any relief would come under very close scrutiny and challenge - it may cost you a fortune in interest and penalties as well as repaying the tax "saved".
David
There are also currently 41,000 separate tax avoidance schemes notified to the Revenue none of which are currently being pursued by the Revenue. By choice.
Sabre rattling and pontificating upon the immoral corruption that this supposedly represents is about as much as the Revenue and Government can manage. I seriously doubt that either of them can actually formulate a policy and create the complex legislation necessary to prevent such schemes from proliferating. If they could, they would. There would by now be 41,000 less schemes.
Waffle and cant is easy. Effective tax administration is not.
The charity's own website doesn't provide a lot of collateral to help fend off any enquiries from the authorities does it?
http://thecuptrust.com/
http://thecuptrust.com/
JPJPJP said:
The charity's own website doesn't provide a lot of collateral to help fend off any enquiries from the authorities does it?
http://thecuptrust.com/
JPJPJP I do not think that there is anything illegal in this approach. Hence the lack of concern in publication. Just as Starbucks were acting entirely legally in their tax avoidance so to IMO are this lot in theirs. That is why they are so open in their approach. They think it is perfectly legal. I suspect they are correct.http://thecuptrust.com/
If it is already illegal, why was there a suggestion by the Chancellor that the law should be changed? Subsequently scotched? I detest the approach om moral and personal grounds. But I do not think it is illegal.
No doubt I gonna take some stick here but....
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
jeff m2 said:
No doubt I gonna take some stick here but....
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Schemes like this would exist if the tax rate was 1%.If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
A number of accountants were recently jailed over a charity based tax avoidance scheme - which was deemed to be illegal and tantamount to fraud.
qureshia said:
I guess this only works because investment in gilts is not subject to CGT ??
It works because it is a clever (but appalling morally) use of charity law. That is why I think it is lawful. But detestable morally.The government drew back from changing the charity law because they realised that by doing so they would destroy many of the reliefs available to charities/ Tax avoidance is very difficult to eradicate. The government;s answer is to pretend to shame it out of existence.
They cannot and therefore Tax avoidance is growing steadily in the UK and will continue to grow. Up to individuals whether they become involved. Sad;y but factually taxpayers will be the poorer if they do not.
Eric Mc said:
jeff m2 said:
No doubt I gonna take some stick here but....
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Schemes like this would exist if the tax rate was 1%.If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
I find the public acceptance of higher taxation quite worrying.
jeff m2 said:
Eric Mc said:
jeff m2 said:
No doubt I gonna take some stick here but....
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Schemes like this would exist if the tax rate was 1%.If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Sometimes a nation has to make sacrifices for it to be rescued. Sometimes those sacrifices could be one's life. I think willingness to pay a bit more to get us out of a massive hole is not too much to ask.
Any scheme that legally makes a mockery of the ludicrously complex tax code to which we are subjected is, imo, marvellous.
Individuals can use their own moral compass to decide whether they wish to participate in legal schemes, just as they can decide how fast to drive on the motorway.
That very few of these schemes have yet to be tested in the courts is quite telling isn't it?
Individuals can use their own moral compass to decide whether they wish to participate in legal schemes, just as they can decide how fast to drive on the motorway.
That very few of these schemes have yet to be tested in the courts is quite telling isn't it?
JPJPJP said:
?.......
Individuals can use their own moral compass to decide whether they wish to participate in legal schemes, just as they can decide how fast to drive on the ......
I struggle with this dilemma personally (having paid out the best part of 45% of my gross salary for the last couple of years)Individuals can use their own moral compass to decide whether they wish to participate in legal schemes, just as they can decide how fast to drive on the ......
The way I see those that take advantage of these schemes is that they benfit twice .
They personally save tax and they also benfit from the fact the majority chose not to follow their example (and therefore enjoy living in a stable, reasonable well governed country with good defence and public services) if the majority followed this example we would end up with Greece or perhaps worse still.
Taking your example of motorway driving, perhaps it would be better to say they are like those drivers that charge down the outside lane when all the signs are indicating it is closed ahead (nothing illegal etc) however due to their behaviour they benefit by jumping the queue but equally due to their behaviour all the others that follow the polite way (and move across early) wait longer.....(pick up more of the burden)
qureshia said:
I struggle with this dilemma personally (having paid out the best part of 45% of my gross salary for the last couple of years)
The way I see those that take advantage of these schemes is that they benfit twice .
They personally save tax and they also benfit from the fact the majority chose not to follow their example (and therefore enjoy living in a stable, reasonable well governed country with good defence and public services) if the majority followed this example we would end up with Greece or perhaps worse still.
Taking your example of motorway driving, perhaps it would be better to say they are like those drivers that charge down the outside lane when all the signs are indicating it is closed ahead (nothing illegal etc) however due to their behaviour they benefit by jumping the queue but equally due to their behaviour all the others that follow the polite way (and move across early) wait longer.....(pick up more of the burden)
I could stretch that analogy further and say that they make that outside lane manouvere in a car that isn't registered to them and maybe they are sat in the back, rather than driving... That captures the anonymity of the tax avoider. The girl you are sitting next to right now could be up to her eyes in avoidance schemes and you wouldn't know.The way I see those that take advantage of these schemes is that they benfit twice .
They personally save tax and they also benfit from the fact the majority chose not to follow their example (and therefore enjoy living in a stable, reasonable well governed country with good defence and public services) if the majority followed this example we would end up with Greece or perhaps worse still.
Taking your example of motorway driving, perhaps it would be better to say they are like those drivers that charge down the outside lane when all the signs are indicating it is closed ahead (nothing illegal etc) however due to their behaviour they benefit by jumping the queue but equally due to their behaviour all the others that follow the polite way (and move across early) wait longer.....(pick up more of the burden)
On another note, the Commons Select Committee appearance by the Head Of Tax from the Big 4 isn't attracting them much favourable press this morning.
Eric Mc said:
jeff m2 said:
Eric Mc said:
jeff m2 said:
No doubt I gonna take some stick here but....
If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Schemes like this would exist if the tax rate was 1%.If the tax rates were not so high this would not work.
Charities would need alt funding, some probably coming from Income tax.
Also money escaping tax increases disposable income and benefits some sectors of the economy.
I assume we all agree that when money is not taxed it is not lost, it is still in circulation.
IMO that money is often put to better use by a wealthy individual than given to the Gov to hand out in benefits.
Sometimes a nation has to make sacrifices for it to be rescued. Sometimes those sacrifices could be one's life. I think willingness to pay a bit more to get us out of a massive hole is not too much to ask.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff