Tax avoiders to be deliberately bankrupted.....?..

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

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.

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.

Exactly.

They couldn't possibly have known or believed that this was a sure fire thing so should have provided for just this eventuality, until they knew for sure.

[Hosenbugler]

Must admit, this all comes across to me, as being a bit nasty. To me, it comes across as a goal post changing witch hunt. Either what the people concerned have done is legal or illegal. If the former, leave them alone , if the latter , then indeed recoup monies that should have been paid. Plus of course,if the legal routes used are upsetting government , close the legal loopholes as to prevent further use not bully people who appear to have acted in good faith.

From my perspective , I have never come across anyone who has gone to work to pay tax , anyone, wealthy or poor. From what I can make of things, those avoiding the tax have "Done nothing wrong" .

Therefore, irrespective of who they are , if they have indeed "Done nothing wrong" , then this is indeed a "goal post changing witch hunt." akin to the stealing from private bank accounts by the EU in Cyprus.

All from the least worst party in government, lord knows what thay evil little turd McDonnell would get up to if given chance.

Politicians, eh, the mind boggles.

Edited by Hosenbugler on Sunday 20th November 09:46

[Alpinestars]

There are a number of variants to the film partnership schemes, some of which fund our infrastructure assets!

A lot are sold by specialist firms, who themselves might not exist today making any PI insurance redundant in respect of any claims. For those firms that are still around, and still selling such high risk schemes, the Autumn Statement is likely to bring law which enables HMRC to tackle promotors of such schemes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tax-avoidance-e...

And as others have said, HMRC are seeking 100% of the tax avoided, and no doubt interest on late paid tax. Penalties, which could double the liability are unlikely to be imposed as I suspect proper disclosure would have been made.

[EddieSteadyGo]

turbobloke said:

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.

Quite agree we all take steps to reduce tax, whether it is pension, ISAs, EIS investments etc etc.

I was just saying everyone who signed up to this scheme knew the risks.

Just like the people who pay themselves via interest free loans, or use undeclared offshore accounts etc etc.

[turbobloke]

Hosenbugler said:

Must admit, this all comes across to me, as being a bit nasty. To me, it comes across as a goal post changing witch hunt. Either what the people concerned have done is legal or illegal. If the former, leave them alone , if the latter , then indeed recoup monies that should have been paid. Plus of course,if the legal routes used are upsetting government close the legal loopholes as to prevent further use not bully people who appear to have acted in good faith.

...

Politicians, eh, the mind boggles.

Some of them give the appearance of not having much of a mind to boggle.

The BBC looks both ways, as well it might given the willingness it shows to pay its propagandists through limited companies, take Naga Munchetty Ltd for example.

Even when playing a straight bat, the beeb likes to drop in a barbed quote and in this case gets something supposedly from a HMRC "spokesman" say n'more.

Two Faced Beeb said:

Of course everyone is allowed to avoid paying tax if they possibly can. It is perfectly legitimate - indeed the government encourages us - to save in a tax-free Individual Savings Account (Isa), for example.

That means you do not pay any income tax on the interest you receive, or capital gains tax when you come to sell.

Spot on.

Beeb also said:

Tax avoidance currently costs the taxpayer £4bn a year, according to the latest figures from HMRC

Hang on, see above, it's to be encouraged etc and it doesn't cost the general taxpayer a penny, it simply means that useless politicians get less of other people's money to waste.

The beeb finally said:

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended," said a spokesman for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Translation: politicians and their salaried minions couldn't frame effective legislation to save their expenses, so when other people spot this and act accordingly, bluff it out and blame them for politician and mandarin incompetence.

[EddieSteadyGo]

RYH64E said:

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.

100% correct.

[turbobloke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

RYH64E said:

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.

100% correct.

Sure, I wouldn't go near one either, but both posts above sidestep the fact that schemes also go right rather than go wrong. About 20% apparently as I recall reading somewhere on a HMRC site that the taxman wins 8 out of 10 cases they bring. Poor odds, but not 10 out of 10. Then there'll be cases not brought, we may never know how many.

[kev b]

Every now and then HMRC get themselves into the headlines with a few celebrity prosecutions or sending out a message they will be coming after plumbers or market traders etc., the last I recall was ebay sellers being warned they must declare their profits.

All this seems to be bluster because cutbacks mean there are far too few staff to do a proper job, thus leaving a media storm as the only way they can possibly influence the situation.

The taxman will soon be forgotten until the next " Allotment Owners have to pay tax on their veg" type story.

[EddieSteadyGo]

turbobloke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

RYH64E said:

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.

100% correct.

Sure, I wouldn't go near one either, but both posts above sidestep the fact that schemes also go right rather than go wrong.

The difficulty is that the tax rules now set a very high bar before these schemes are considered legal.

I can't recall the exact words but the essence is that if in the view of a reasonable person the scheme is designed to avoid tax as one of its main objectives, it isn't legal.

[Sylvaforever]

Hosenbugler said:

Must admit, this all comes across to me, as being a bit nasty. To me, it comes across as a goal post changing witch hunt. Either what the people concerned have done is legal or illegal. If the former, leave them alone , if the latter , then indeed recoup monies that should have been paid. Plus of course,if the legal routes used are upsetting government , close the legal loopholes as to prevent further use not bully people who appear to have acted in good faith.

From my perspective , I have never come across anyone who has gone to work to pay tax , anyone, wealthy or poor. From what I can make of things, those avoiding the tax have "Done nothing wrong" .

Therefore, irrespective of who they are , if they have indeed "Done nothing wrong" , then this is indeed a "goal post changing witch hunt." akin to the stealing from private bank accounts by the EU in Cyprus.

All from the least worst party in government, lord knows what thay evil little turd McDonnell would get up to if given chance.

Politicians, eh, the mind boggles.

Edited by Hosenbugler on Sunday 20th November 09:46

[alock]

turbobloke said:

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.

Isn't the difference with this one that people could invest a small amount to claim a grant that allowed them to claim tax relief toyaling more than they earned?

They are now being asked for the tax relief on the large grant which is equivalent to several years income.

I'm not excusing it, just trying to understand why people are more likely to become bankrupt by this particular scheme.

[clarkey]

The numbers dont make sense to me.

£50m invested
£790m borrowed

So total capital £840m?

Spend £503m on film rights
Leaves £337m

Pay first 10 years interest - £293m
Leaves £44m

Where did this £44m go? This is nearly enough to pay back the £50m originally invested, regardless of tax relief. The £1.022b return over 20 years will pay back the £790m borrowed. I wonder what fees the advisors took.....

I just can't see where the 20x sum invested comes from, doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone on here explain it, or don't we have enough detail?

[turbobloke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

turbobloke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

RYH64E said:

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.

100% correct.

Sure, I wouldn't go near one either, but both posts above sidestep the fact that schemes also go right rather than go wrong.

The difficulty is that the tax rules now set a very high bar before these schemes are considered legal.

I can't recall the exact words but the essence is that if in the view of a reasonable person the scheme is designed to avoid tax as one of its main objectives, it isn't legal.

TPTB try to put the frighteners on people with phrases like that, but in essense avoidance remains lawful and evasion unlawful. The devil is in the detail, as always, but it's not reasonable for HMRC or anyone else to tar all schemes with the same brush. I still wouldn't go near one but don't consider it reasonable to label all of those who do as greedy, when keeping as much of your legitimate earnings as you are lawfully entitlted to do is an aim I agree with in principle (but not always in method as per the movie scheme and others).

[BigMon]

turbobloke said:

Spittle flecked diatribe against 'the left'

Can't you give it a rest for five minutes for christ sake? No-one had mentioned the right or the left until you turn up with another of your narcolepsy inducing rants against the left.

[turbobloke]

BigMon said:

turbobloke said:

Spittle flecked diatribe against 'the left'

Can't you give it a rest for five minutes for christ sake? No-one had mentioned the right or the left until you turn up with another of your narcolepsy inducing rants against the left.

Clearly you didn't have anything relevant to post - thanks for your unsolicited advice, but it's a waste of pixels as per others of its pointless and aggressive type aiming to stifle debate by attacking people rather than addressing the issues. As you can see from my post count it doesn't always work but toddle on by all means.

[BigMon]

turbobloke said:

Clearly you didn't have anything relevant to post - thanks for your unsolicited advice, but it's a waste of pixels as per others of its pointless and aggressive type aiming to stifle debate by attacking people rather than addressing the issues. As you can see from my post count it doesn't always work but toddle on by all means.

And how is another one of your leftist rants relevant to this thread? Read all the posts before your nonsense, and show me one which refers to right or left.

[turbobloke]

BigMon said:

turbobloke said:

Clearly you didn't have anything relevant to post - thanks for your unsolicited advice, but it's a waste of pixels as per others of its pointless and aggressive type aiming to stifle debate by attacking people rather than addressing the issues. As you can see from my post count it doesn't always work but toddle on by all means.

And how is another one of your leftist rants relevant to this thread? Read all the posts before your nonsense, and show me one which refers to right or left.

When I said 'toddle on' it wasn't compulsory.

Your second personal pop is equally pointless and notably inconsistent, for example where is there another post before yours whining that somebody mentioned not posting about left or right in such a critical manner? But hey ho you did! If you don't like it being mentioned, that's your problem.

Anything on-topic to add? If not you're derailing the thread with this aggressive personal attack, others may well be as bored as I am. Have the last word by all means but don't expect to dictate what others can and cannot post, there are posting rules for that (and you might like to read them).

Onwards and sideways.

[anonymous-user]

Sylvaforever said:

Hosenbugler said:

Must admit, this all comes across to me, as being a bit nasty. To me, it comes across as a goal post changing witch hunt. Either what the people concerned have done is legal or illegal. If the former, leave them alone , if the latter , then indeed recoup monies that should have been paid. Plus of course,if the legal routes used are upsetting government , close the legal loopholes as to prevent further use not bully people who appear to have acted in good faith.

From my perspective , I have never come across anyone who has gone to work to pay tax , anyone, wealthy or poor. From what I can make of things, those avoiding the tax have "Done nothing wrong" .

Therefore, irrespective of who they are , if they have indeed "Done nothing wrong" , then this is indeed a "goal post changing witch hunt." akin to the stealing from private bank accounts by the EU in Cyprus.

All from the least worst party in government, lord knows what thay evil little turd McDonnell would get up to if given chance.

Politicians, eh, the mind boggles.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 20th November 09:46

So what you guys are saying is that it would be OK for me to claim against my tax bill for anything HMRC hasn't made illegal? That's what happened here and is generally the case with these schemes. This was a clear piss take of the agreement for tax relief to be available in the film industry.

For instance I know there are tax breaks for farmers. I live near some farms so decide I should get relief for some associated reason; or I claim relief for various expenses I incur. HMRC hasn't made any of my 'schemes' illegal so that's OK is it?

Be assured of one thing. The advisors and investors in this film 'investment scheme' would have been well aware of the risks investing in such a large scheme which was bound to be examined. They gambled and lost and have only themselves to blame if they didn't provide for the risk.

[turbobloke]

alock said:

I'm not excusing it, just trying to understand why people are more likely to become bankrupt by this particular scheme.

Likewise; the article linked mentions something like 700 people likely to be bankrupted iirc.

HMRC has words of advice for others like them, as expected!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pay-the-tax-you-owe-ge...

[AW111]

BigMon said:

Can't you give it a rest for five minutes for christ sake? No-one had mentioned the right or the left until you turn up with another of your narcolepsy inducing rants against the left.