Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
Alpinestars said:
I was referring to your classic cars point.
Same as any asset classAlpinestars said:
You're missing the point. People generally make losses on cars. So net net, unless HMRC drafts the wasting asset rules not to allow losses, or tight enough to only allow some losses, it'll be a net loss in tax terms.
Maybe they link it to the cars older than the VED free date?Welshbeef said:
Alpinestars said:
You're missing the point. People generally make losses on cars. So net net, unless HMRC drafts the wasting asset rules not to allow losses, or tight enough to only allow some losses, it'll be a net loss in tax terms.
Maybe they link it to the cars older than the VED free date?Welshbeef said:
Alpinestars said:
And what happens to losses? That'll be the biggest issue. Losses and enhancement expenditure.
The same as selling a second home - keep receipts of work done to it, original purchase price and sell price job done desolate said:
Welshbeef said:
Alpinestars said:
And what happens to losses? That'll be the biggest issue. Losses and enhancement expenditure.
The same as selling a second home - keep receipts of work done to it, original purchase price and sell price job done desolate said:
Alpinestars said:
You just have.
Can you give us a clue???Welshbeef said:
They are worried as they broke the law took home far too much cash didn't pay the correct tax levels and lapped it up.
You play with fire you get burnt.
Pay the tax you are due avoid as much as possible be it ISA tax free allowance pension contributions fine wine etc.
(Watch out the Govt will be changing the law on classic cars soon to scoop up some of the lovely tax from all those stratospheric gains)
We've just gone off on a tangent. You play with fire you get burnt.
Pay the tax you are due avoid as much as possible be it ISA tax free allowance pension contributions fine wine etc.
(Watch out the Govt will be changing the law on classic cars soon to scoop up some of the lovely tax from all those stratospheric gains)
TTmonkey said:
Do I feel sorry for some of the stars involved in this? Yes I do. They've been badly advised and most are not qualified to understand the rules, laws and implications.
I have zero sympathy. I've been offered every type of scheme imaginable, it is obvious from the moment you accept the call that this is aggressive tax avoidance, that's only legal because it isnt specifically illegal, yet, the further you delve the more obvious it is. 'I didn't know' or I was badly advised are horses
t excuses fblm said:
TTmonkey said:
Do I feel sorry for some of the stars involved in this? Yes I do. They've been badly advised and most are not qualified to understand the rules, laws and implications.
I have zero sympathy. I've been offered every type of scheme imaginable, it is obvious from the moment you accept the call that this is aggressive tax avoidance, that's only legal because it isnt specifically illegal, yet, the further you delve the more obvious it is. 'I didn't know' or I was badly advised are horsest excuses Even somebody without relevant qualifications must be able to make such an assessment.
fblm said:
TTmonkey said:
Do I feel sorry for some of the stars involved in this? Yes I do. They've been badly advised and most are not qualified to understand the rules, laws and implications.
I have zero sympathy. I've been offered every type of scheme imaginable, it is obvious from the moment you accept the call that this is aggressive tax avoidance, that's only legal because it isnt specifically illegal, yet, the further you delve the more obvious it is. 'I didn't know' or I was badly advised are horsest excuses You're as right as the aptly named TTmonkey is wrong. One doesn't need to be qualified to understand the rules and who lets an advisor handle large amounts of hard earned without having a good idea what they're going to do with it.
A greedy group of chancers caught out.
fblm said:
I have zero sympathy. I've been offered every type of scheme imaginable, it is obvious from the moment you accept the call that this is aggressive tax avoidance, that's only legal because it isnt specifically illegal, yet, the further you delve the more obvious it is. 'I didn't know' or I was badly advised are horsest excuses
There was a tax avoidance scheme a few years back that not only wasn't specifically illegal, but that was the subject of an official HMRC statement to the effect that they intended to make it illegal within the next few years. Not unreasonably, many contractors took the view that if HMRC was proposing to make it illegal it must currently be legal. Once a lot more money had been put through the scheme HMRC then decided to 're interpret' the existing rules in such a way that the scheme had been illegal all along. One guy I knew lost his house.t excuses HMRC should be there to make sure everyone pays the correct amount of tax, to the penny. Not to try to suck as much as possible into govt coffers. They actually refer to extra tax being collected after such reinterpretations' as 'recovered', as though it was theirs in the first place.
So can we assume that he doesn't own the house in the gated community that he lives in? Is it owned perhaps by a company, which lets him live there for free, in some other tax avoiding scheme?
Its also interesting that these people don't have the money they've been asked for by the taxman, and then go bankrupt. Does this mean he's paid all he has but its not enough, or does it mean he has nothing to pay, or is it all hidden away where the HMRC cant get it?
Its also interesting that these people don't have the money they've been asked for by the taxman, and then go bankrupt. Does this mean he's paid all he has but its not enough, or does it mean he has nothing to pay, or is it all hidden away where the HMRC cant get it?
Can't be bothered reading the entire thread - but there is a distinction in my view between the obvious tax evasion scams (Chris Moyle being a 'car dealer' making huge losses when he never in fact ever traded any cars) and the Ingenious Film projects - which have recently been through the courts and deemed to be avoidance schemes.
Ingenious made a shedload of successful films as far as I can tell. How they've been put in the same class as an avoidance scheme is beyond me.
Ingenious made a shedload of successful films as far as I can tell. How they've been put in the same class as an avoidance scheme is beyond me.
johnfm said:
How they've been put in the same class as an avoidance scheme is beyond me.
My uneducated guess would be that the substance of the company was deemed that of a tax avoidance scheme not a film finance one, even if it did invest in some successful films. AIUI in some schemes using loan leverage and claiming relief on future interest payments an 'investment' of x can generate 4x in tax relief, which is clearly taking the pi55. Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th July 16:21
One of my friends was a supply teacher for a while and is now being chased by HMRC for tax evasion, he worked at a state acadamy and didn't realise he wasn't being paid in the conventional way by the temping agency he was working for.
Is there any leeway for those who were only earning 20k per year and had no idea that they weren't paying the correct tax?
Feel quite sorry for him as he had no say in the matter plus you don't expect stuff like that to hapoen to people who earn minimal amounts.
Is there any leeway for those who were only earning 20k per year and had no idea that they weren't paying the correct tax?
Feel quite sorry for him as he had no say in the matter plus you don't expect stuff like that to hapoen to people who earn minimal amounts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff