Many footballers facing financial ruin by HMRC

[Thunder Bolt]

I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.

Fiddling taxes is tax evasion not tax avoidance.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I agree but I go back to my previous point that this would apply to people who were signed up to legitamite hmrc approved schemes.

Okay. It's a legitimate scheme but this will not always stop people fancifully interpreting the rules for their benefit. And if this is proven then they have to pay it back. It's no different to me being self-employed and buying myself a 10k watch and claiming it as a business expense as I need to know the time at work. Business expenses are legitimate. I can argue it's a genuine business need/expense until I'm blue in the face but some might say I am being a little imaginative with my interpretation, it's really just a regular watch, and I'm just saying this to get the VAT and 40% off. And will a jury be convinced by my story?

 

[dwayne]

I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?

The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.

We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.

Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.

Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?

You are not comparing apples to apples

Unemployed people were not deducted from.previous claims?! The law changed and they were charged accordingly.

Which is disgraceful and DID cause outrage!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fiddling taxes is tax evasion not tax avoidance.

Fiddling taxes is a crime. I'm not sure whether it's evasion or avoidance

 

[dwayne]

Okay. It's a legitimate scheme but this will not always stop people fancifully interpreting the rules for their benefit. And if this is proven then they have to pay it back. It's no different to me being self-employed and buying myself a 10k watch and claiming it as a business expense as I need to know the time at work. Business expenses are legitimate. I can argue it's a genuine business need/expense until I'm blue in the face but some might say I am being a little imaginative with my interpretation, it's really just a regular watch, and I'm just saying this to get the VAT and 40% off. Would a jury be convinced by my story?

Fair argument. Don't disagree with most of that. As some have mentioned here people are being ordered to pay money before being even allowed to challenge in court and that a violation of one's civil rights.

 

[Triggaaar]

It is absolutely disgraceful.

HMRC backed many of these schemes at the time and have now decided to rob the poor buggers that signed up. Most people on this thread seem to have any clue about this topic.

If the players have put money into schemes in accordance with HMRC's advice, then surely a court will rule in their favour? Of course we know that a lot of the rich aren't investing money into government schemes, but they're moving it abroad using dodgy loopholes.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Fiddling taxes is a crime. I'm not sure whether it's evasion or avoidance

You go to prison for tax evasion.

 

[beorhthelm]

Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not.

well yes, so why is it right for HMRC decide a investment is outside of the law before the completion of a judicial process. and while some of the investments using this tax relief may have been artificial companies, many where real businesses putting the money into the film industry, as the article refered lists. end of the day, even where people did take advantage, the government wanted investment and provided a vehicle for this. they could have limited it, put conditions around it, they did not.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fair argument. Don't disagree with most of that. As some have mentioned here people are being ordered to pay money before being even allowed to challenge in court and that a violation of one's civil rights.

I agree with this latter point. When did this law come in as it seems to go against the innocent-until-proven-guilty idea.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

well yes, so why is it right for HMRC decide a investment is outside of the law before the completion of a judicial process. and while some of the investments using this tax relief may have been artificial companies, many where real businesses putting the money into the film industry, as the article refered lists. end of the day, even where people did take advantage, the government wanted investment and provided a vehicle for this. they could have limited it, put conditions around it, they did not.

I agree the HMRC should wait until the judiciary has decided. It's wrong that they can demand money in advance of a judgement. And as I understand it there are plenty of people who have invested in the film industry using this scheme as it was intended and who have nothing to fear. It's just the piss-takers who will most likely get a knock on the door.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You go to prison for tax evasion.

I will take your word for it. I don't know the exact legal definitions of evasion and avoidance.

 

[Tight shorts]

I think you will find that these tax avoidance schemes are not approved by HMRC. They are registered because scheme promoters have to register them and those who invest in the schemes have to disclose this by supplying the scheme reference number. HMRC cant usually go back more than a year or two if taxpayers make full disclosure. I think we have had a cultural shift in attitude towards tax avoidance which is generally no longer seen as unacceptable and there are doubtless people caught up in this partly as a result of poor advice from greedy advisors. If it looks too good to true it usually is.
https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-of-tax-avoidance-schemes-overview

 

[beorhthelm]

...It's just the piss-takers who will most likely get a knock on the door.

if only that where the case. they have already shown their hand going in before a judgment (yep, assumption of guilt), and they are pursuing everyone involved in the vehicles concerned, which could as well be the self-employed taking up an investment for their retirement as a footballer or band member. these investments weren't exclusive, i recall having paper work for one.

 

[Driver8]

As a financial adviser who has seen these "schemes" come and go over the years, offered by people who think they have found loopholes in the legislation, I have absolutely no sympathy with those now getting tax bills be it a footballer or a contractor.

Tax planning is fine and everyone should do what they can to pay as little tax as possible using legitimate means such as pension contributions and ISAs etc but these "schemes" are just taking the piss.

If you had paid your taxes like everyone one else you wouldn't have a problem. These people are basically stealing from other taxpayers.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

if only that where the case. they have already shown their hand going in before a judgment (yep, assumption of guilt), and they are pursuing everyone involved in the vehicles concerned, which could as well be the self-employed taking up an investment for their retirement as a footballer or band member. these investments weren't exclusive, i recall having paper work for one.

I'm not disagreeing on the "going in before a judgement". And I'm not suggesting the schemes were exclusive. But if you take one out it's your responsibility to ensure you are within the law. At times this isn't black and white and I agree it can difficult but ultimately it's your responsibility to do the research, get advice, and make a judgement call. If you find this difficult or are not comfortable with the perceived vagueness of tax law interpretation then maybe it's not for you?

I have been in this situation a number of times myself. I was once offered a "legitimate" scheme to save heaps of tax on a house purchase but declined. I admit I was tempted, and looked into it, but ultimately decided I was not totally happy with it and could not be sure the tax man would never come knocking. Had I decided to run with it then it would be my responsibly. And I am pretty certain it was subsequently deemed illegal and people got tax demands.

 

[Creaky]

As a financial adviser who has seen these "schemes" come and go over the years, offered by people who think they have found loopholes in the legislation, I have absolutely no sympathy with those now getting tax bills be it a footballer or a contractor.

Tax planning is fine and everyone should do what they can to pay as little tax as possible using legitimate means such as pension contributions and ISAs etc but these "schemes" are just taking the piss.

If you had paid your taxes like everyone one else you wouldn't have a problem. These people are basically stealing from other taxpayers.

All the above is fair enough BUT if HMRC were claiming the people they are currently chasing were guilty of tax evasion then there would have to be a court case to prove tax was due and the individual had deliberately evaded payment then a successful hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act BEFORE they could force an individual to pay up.

In the cases in question they are using the civil courts to force individuals to pay tax on the basis that those they are claiming from have no right to dispute the amount due because legislation has been passed giving HMRC the final say on this until such time as a court decides otherwise - this just seems contrary to natural justice.

I know there was in the minds of government good reason for this legislation because some of these disputes were taking years to resolve but surely the answer was to speed up the dispute resolution rather than pass legislation like this.

 

[Dick Head]

I don't understand. This thread is too taxing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

All the above is fair enough BUT if HMRC were claiming the people they are currently chasing were guilty of tax evasion then there would have to be a court case to prove tax was due and the individual had deliberately evaded payment then a successful hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act BEFORE they could force an individual to pay up.

In the cases in question they are using the civil courts to force individuals to pay tax on the basis that those they are claiming from have no right to dispute the amount due because legislation has been passed giving HMRC the final say on this until such time as a court decides otherwise - this just seems contrary to natural justice.

I know there was in the minds of government good reason for this legislation because some of these disputes were taking years to resolve but surely the answer was to speed up the dispute resolution rather than pass legislation like this.

Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the HMRC should not send demands until a judgment has been made. When did this law come in though?

 

[fat old seagull]

I think it's very harsh that HMRC is chasing these chaps for unpaid tax. Whilst I'm at it, it's not fair that poor Myleene Klass might have to pay extra tax on her zillion pound house. It wasn't her fault she got lucky and was saved from becoming a supermarket cashier by virtue of a very ordinary singing voice.......very sorry for their misfortune. .........snigger.....snigger

 

[Driver8]

All the above is fair enough BUT if HMRC were claiming the people they are currently chasing were guilty of tax evasion then there would have to be a court case to prove tax was due and the individual had deliberately evaded payment then a successful hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act BEFORE they could force an individual to pay up.

In the cases in question they are using the civil courts to force individuals to pay tax on the basis that those they are claiming from have no right to dispute the amount due because legislation has been passed giving HMRC the final say on this until such time as a court decides otherwise - this just seems contrary to natural justice.

I know there was in the minds of government good reason for this legislation because some of these disputes were taking years to resolve but surely the answer was to speed up the dispute resolution rather than pass legislation like this.

But why should we the taxpayers be out of pocket whilst the process goes on? Pay the tax you should have and in the unlikely event HMRC loses you get it back with interest. Tax isn't voluntary.