Richard Tice - set to have a dose of his own medicine
Discussion
AbbeyNormal said:
There are lot of coulds and should in that piece. Contacting him on Saturday and expecting an immediate reply on a complex tax matter from 7 years ago seems a little desperate.Let's see how this one pans out.
Vanden Saab said:
There are lot of coulds and should in that piece. Contacting him on Saturday and expecting an immediate reply on a complex tax matter from 7 years ago seems a little desperate.
Let's see how this one pans out.
Thats what jumps out at me.Let's see how this one pans out.
Message at 12:42pm
Expects a reply by 17:00
Which he does via his representative and their childish response is to say "we're publishing it anyway"
Seems a bit silly. Especially if RT can prove he DID pay the tax.
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
But "prove it to us in 4 hours or else" is borderline illegal
AbbeyNormal said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Nothing to see here, something, polling, something, Labour, something, squirrel...
Lol, literally what has been responded by the usual apologists. lets see how it pans out
If he has defrauded, which he hasn't, boot him out
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
Literally
Literally is an adverb used to indicate that something is true in a strict, exact sense
BunkMoreland said:
Vanden Saab said:
There are lot of coulds and should in that piece. Contacting him on Saturday and expecting an immediate reply on a complex tax matter from 7 years ago seems a little desperate.
Let's see how this one pans out.
Thats what jumps out at me.Let's see how this one pans out.
Message at 12:42pm
Expects a reply by 17:00
Which he does via his representative and their childish response is to say "we're publishing it anyway"
Seems a bit silly. Especially if RT can prove he DID pay the tax.
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
But "prove it to us in 4 hours or else" is borderline illegal
Do you mean completely unfair or unreasonable, or do you think that a short response time triggers some sort of law?
BunkMoreland said:
Vanden Saab said:
There are lot of coulds and should in that piece. Contacting him on Saturday and expecting an immediate reply on a complex tax matter from 7 years ago seems a little desperate.
Let's see how this one pans out.
Thats what jumps out at me.Let's see how this one pans out.
Message at 12:42pm
Expects a reply by 17:00
Which he does via his representative and their childish response is to say "we're publishing it anyway"
Seems a bit silly. Especially if RT can prove he DID pay the tax.
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
But "prove it to us in 4 hours or else" is borderline illegal
Neidle usually gives a lot more time, I suspect the ST was pressuring for a response because they were going to press with the story regardless.
tting themselves.I’ve read the reporting, the responses and I’m buggered if I can establish what the actual hoohaa is given the claims of underpaying CT, overpaying IT and Tice claiming he shouldn’t be paying the maximum tax liable. And I say that as a bloke who just paid £lots in CT last month, so I’m not exactly the most sympathetic chap in the world to ppl underpaying their CT.
Tice's company should have withheld tax and paid it across to HMRC. It's clear from the Tax Policy Associates analysis that it didn't do so. The company therefore didn't comply with the relevant tax legislation and HMRC may look to issue a penalty and charge interest and ask for the relevant withholding tax to be paid over.
Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
Vanden Saab said:
Really,
lets see how it pans out
If he has defrauded, which he hasn't, boot him out
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
Literally
Literally is an adverb used to indicate that something is true in a strict, exact sense
It sounds like you've already decided.lets see how it pans out
If he has defrauded, which he hasn't, boot him out
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
Literally
Literally is an adverb used to indicate that something is true in a strict, exact sense
markh1973 said:
Tice's company should have withheld tax and paid it across to HMRC. It's clear from the Tax Policy Associates analysis that it didn't do so. The company therefore didn't comply with the relevant tax legislation and HMRC may look to issue a penalty and charge interest and ask for the relevant withholding tax to be paid over.
Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
What makes you think Tice made a partial payment? Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
Would his tax liability on £600,000 be less than 20% or more?
Countdown said:
Vanden Saab said:
Really,
lets see how it pans out
If he has defrauded, which he hasn't, boot him out
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
Literally
Literally is an adverb used to indicate that something is true in a strict, exact sense
It sounds like you've already decided.lets see how it pans out
If he has defrauded, which he hasn't, boot him out
If they stall or dont come back in a week, then fair game. Shout about it.
Literally
Literally is an adverb used to indicate that something is true in a strict, exact sense
Vanden Saab said:
markh1973 said:
Tice's company should have withheld tax and paid it across to HMRC. It's clear from the Tax Policy Associates analysis that it didn't do so. The company therefore didn't comply with the relevant tax legislation and HMRC may look to issue a penalty and charge interest and ask for the relevant withholding tax to be paid over.
Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
What makes you think Tice made a partial payment? Tice may have then paid income tax on the PID but that doesn't change the fact that the company should have withheld. If the company pays over the WHT then Tice can have a partial repayment (plus some interest).
There is a different question aa to what his offshore trust might or might not have paid. A UK dom/tax resident taxpayer having an offshore trust is also not common so who knows what it's hiding.
Would his tax liability on £600,000 be less than 20% or more?
The company should have withheld (and paid to HMRC) 20% of the PID.
Tice's payment should have been 45% less 20%.
As such if the company now pays the WHT it should have paid then Tice can have a partial repayment of his 45% (plus some overpayment interest).
The £600k was paid/deemed to be paid to a combination of Tice and his offshore trust. We don't know what the trust has paid because it's completely opaque.
Vanden Saab said:
AbbeyNormal said:
There are lot of coulds and should in that piece. Contacting him on Saturday and expecting an immediate reply on a complex tax matter from 7 years ago seems a little desperate.Let's see how this one pans out.
Either way, how is that an excuse.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff