I'm not privy to any inside knowledge but the bottom line is that HMRC wants as much money going through PAYE as possible. It's simple to check, the employer pays extra through employers NI and the employee gets hit for tax and employee NI with very very little scope for being able to offset any business expenses against it.It is illegal to evade tax but not to avoid tax but by the answers given on here I would assume that nobody knows the answers as to what part of their earnings they would consider they are not liable to pay tax on.
i gather that for a while ordinary players have been given considerably large "image rights" amounts as part of their remittance, which they can filter through a Ltd company rather than going through PAYE. may be just pub talk. i can certainly see why the tax man would want to run the rule over them, especially if they are daft/greedy enough to not pay any tax from the Ltd company.
Are you being obtuse for a reason? I'm not sure why you've started this thread when [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] has requested that we don't comment on a certain individual's relationship with HMRC.
Some people pay tax and some people try to evade and/or avoid paying tax. People in the latter camp are trying to keep more money in their own bank accounts. Everyone knows that income will be subject to tax unless it is deemed tax free through a government backed scheme.
He is unable to stop himself discussing matters such as this. Every time there is a legal matter. Every time.
Sole trader? More likely to be a limited company. There's plenty on public record at Companies House, i.e. Glenn Murray's Seventeen Media Ltd, Lewis Dunk's LD5 Ltd
...To me it seems that you earn your money, claim back what you can to reduce your liability and then pay your tax. why should football or players be any different?
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".
The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.
The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?
I disagree completely. The problem with being prescriptive is that it is still open to debate about definitions of words and also it doesn't future proof against new situations and also requires the declaration of what is and isn't to be absolutely watertight. With the best will in the world, it rarely is ever the case.I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".
The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.
The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?
I think deleting just your post here should suffice.Links to Glenn Murray stuff in this thread, so indirectly there's gossip about him again.
Inevitable, as some can't help themselves.
Respectfully, [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] should close this thread down too IMO.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not.
As I said in the OP this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular player or club but it appears a general problem within football so why should it not be discussed as to the basic reason and justification of HMRC to act. To me it seems that you earn your money, claim back what you can to reduce your liability and then pay your tax. why should football or players be any different?
I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually think it is the responsibility of the Revenue to EXPLICITLY declare what is allowed and what is not. The very reason these situations occur is because the code is so complicated and all these loopholes exist because they have been allowed to exist. I don't find it remotely surprising that when someone asks a 'wealthy person' the question "How much tax would you like to pay" the answer is obviously going to be "whatever the legal minimum is".
The 'moral amount' or 'socially acceptable' amount is a ridiculous concept. The GOVERNMENT need to sort this out and hurry up about it. Some of these loopholes are farcical and so clearly abusive that it defies belief, however HMRC and the Gov have known about them for decades. To answer BG's original question, the reason there are so many of these is very likely because the Treasury promised the government that they'd claim back some massive number in unpaid / avoided / whatever tax by a certain point in time, and they are nowhere near getting to that promised figure.
The concept that they are going after companies though. That's laughable. They are clearly not chasing super rich companies on this stuff, on the whole they are going after 'one man bands' that have no hope of defending themselves. Bear in mind that in the vast majority of these cases, the people have been advised by an accountant (who are not liable of course) and are fully, 100% complying with the law. We might find it reprehensible, but what the hell do we expect when the law allows people to avoid tax in these ways?