Matt Upson tax Dodger?

[beorhthelm]

Doesn't Ed Milibland want to close all these tax avoidance loopholes when Labour win the 2015 General Election ?

no, Miliband says he wants to close all tax avoidance loopholes, but if he gets to power will quietly drop the subject as he's told by the Treasury that most are created by the occupant of No 11 to serve the government's purposes.

Depends, if these loopholes exist, people/accountants will try and use them. It can be risky, but it may still work out better than paying full tax, for them anyway.

lets be clear about this one, it is a based on a tax break deliberatly created to encourage investments. it wasnt found, it was provided by government and taken up by those with money. the thing most immoral about this is HMRC trying to retrospectivly change the tax laws.

 

[BensGrandad]

Winning the lottery 14,000,000/1

Labour winning next general election 7/4 (Tories 3/1)

He said if I die in the next 8 months, not sure of the odds on that. I did however read that if you are over 65 and do the lottery after 5.00pm on the day of the draw you stand more chance of dieing before the draw than winning the jackpot.

 

[fat old seagull]

He said if I die in the next 8 months, not sure of the odds on that. I did however read that if you are over 65 and do the lottery after 5.00pm on the day of the draw you stand more chance of dieing before the draw than winning the jackpot.

On the upside BG that would save you any misery should Labour win next year. Buy more tickets that would lower the odds.

 

[spring hall convert]

I find it interesting the people that don't understand/refuse to acknowledge the distinction between illegal and immoral. It says a lot about them.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's a legitimate avoidance scheme. Where's the issue?

It's being investigated so that may not be the case….

 

[wakeytom]

I find it interesting the people that don't understand/refuse to acknowledge the distinction between illegal and immoral. It says a lot about them.

But only you can decided if something is immoral or not, when it comes to tax it is very subjective and there is no rule book on morality

 

[wakeytom]

It's being investigated so that may not be the case….

This is another case of the horse having bolted and HMRC trying to close an existing loophole and back dating, for me that is very immoral

 

[Greg Bobkin]

In Private Eye a few months ago, there was a piece on how many footballers are setting up companies and invoicing the clubs for wages, by way of becoming more 'efficient' with their tax payments...

 

[wakeytom]

In Private Eye a few months ago, there was a piece on how many footballers are setting up companies and invoicing the clubs for wages, by way of becoming more 'efficient' with their tax payments...

I think things like that has been happening for years - image rights used to be the big thing for shirt sales etc

 

[spring hall convert]

But only you can decided if something is immoral or not, when it comes to tax it is very subjective and there is no rule book on morality

Which is exactly my point, it says a lot about them as an individual. I'm not judging.

The accountants making a living ripping off the public purse on the other hand. Yuck.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is another case of the horse having bolted and HMRC trying to close an existing loophole and back dating, for me that is very immoral

Maybe, but it says HMRC are going to court to try to show it was against the old rules. The thing about avoidance schemes is that they exploit grey areas in the wording of tax legislation, hence loop hole. It means many of them do straddle a thick grey line of what could be argued as being legal or illegal.

I really can't see what is immoral about any government chasing taxes it believes are due.

 

[wakeytom]

Which is exactly my point, it says a lot about them as an individual. I'm not judging.

Generally speaking I do not have an issue with it - one of the big reasons for it is to encourage entrepreneurs, the UK is built on non PLC's small owner managed businesses and the tax laws are relaxed to keep them doing what they do personally and to invest in growth. If I could reduce my tax bill I would and I suspect most people would as well

 

[wakeytom]

Maybe, but it says HMRC are going to court to try to show it was against the old rules. The thing about avoidance schemes is that they exploit grey areas in the wording of tax legislation, hence loop hole. It means many of them do straddle a thick grey line of what could be argued as being legal or illegal.

I really can't see what is immoral about any government chasing taxes it believes are due.

Because a scheme cannot be set up to encourage investment in a sector and when they leave the wording so loose people make the most of it they then cannot say they dont like that any longer so lets back date everything. They cannot have it both ways which is why I say I feel its immoral

 

[spring hall convert]

Generally speaking I do not have an issue with it - one of the big reasons for it is to encourage entrepreneurs, the UK is built on non PLC's small owner managed businesses and the tax laws are relaxed to keep them doing what they do personally and to invest in growth. If I could reduce my tax bill I would and I suspect most people would as well

I disagree vehemently. If tax is on a voluntary basis for some, it should be for all. And the threat of rich indivduals or businesses leaving the country, lets call their bluff. This country provides an educated workforce for these people and healthcare for that workforce, where does the money for that come from?

And at current levels of taxation, I wouldn't be seeking to reduce my liabilities.

However, people do and that's legal. I just feel it says a lot about them as people.

 

[severnside gull]

YUP. That Gary Barlow. The ****.

Or - at a time when other telephone providers are struggling to stay afloat - Vodaphone

 

[Bold Seagull]

Because a scheme cannot be set up to encourage investment in a sector and when they leave the wording so loose people make the most of it they then cannot say they dont like that any longer so lets back date everything. They cannot have it both ways which is why I say I feel its immoral

Then you'd have to say it's immoral by all concerned.

 

[father_and_son]

Ultimately, I can see 99.9% of the footballers who invested in this scheme as "innocent" [excepting the fact that ignorance is no defense in UK Law]. I imagine the conversations went something like this...


Matt: I don't understand my tax situation, I earn so much, from multiple sources, that its too difficult for me to know how to deal with it legally. I just kick a football, I don't have a masters degree in Tax Law. I'll pay someone to do it for me...

Tax Specialist: Matt. What we could do is move some of this money here into this scheme here. You are backing the UK Film industry and last Labour government gave loads of tax breaks to do it - so basically you don't pay tax on the money you invest. If the films aren't successful then you can offset the money you lose against future tax liabilities - so that's even more tax you don't pay. If they are successful you get your money back and a nice profit, but you'll pay tax on the profit.

Matt: Sounds complex. Is it legal?

Tax Specialist: Yes, the Labour government introduced it to help the UK film industry and encourage companies from overseas to work in the UK. The money has to be accounted for and is spent in the UK on people paying UK tax, so the government get the money in the end.

Matt: Oh, ok then. Let's do that.

I have a degree in Maths, but on those sorts of salaries I would pay a Tax Specialist to help me stay legal and the only question I would ask is "Is it legal?".

I now imagine the current conversation is running like this...

Matt: But you said it was legal you c**t!

Tax Specialist: It WAS! The treasury have now decided that they want to make it illegal.

Matt: Well, let's not do it any more.

Tax Specialist: But they are making it retrospectively illegal!!

Matt: That's f*cking immoral!

 

[Gritt23]

lets be clear about this one, it is a based on a tax break deliberatly created to encourage investments. it wasnt found, it was provided by government and taken up by those with money. the thing most immoral about this is HMRC trying to retrospectivly change the tax laws.

Completely this! Most of these "tax avoidance loopholes" that people throw their Daily Mails in the air in shock and moral outrage at, are no more "immoral" than using your ISA entitlement each year, as opposed to paying tax on your savings with the Bradford and Bingley.

 

[wakeytom]

Ultimately, I can see 99.9% of the footballers who invested in this scheme as "innocent" [excepting the fact that ignorance is no defense in UK Law]. I imagine the conversations went something like this...


Matt: I don't understand my tax situation, I earn so much, from multiple sources, that its too difficult for me to know how to deal with it legally. I just kick a football, I don't have a masters degree in Tax Law. I'll pay someone to do it for me...

Tax Specialist: Matt. What we could do is move some of this money here into this scheme here. You are backing the UK Film industry and last Labour government gave loads of tax breaks to do it - so basically you don't pay tax on the money you invest. If the films aren't successful then you can offset the money you lose against future tax liabilities - so that's even more tax you don't pay. If they are successful you get your money back and a nice profit, but you'll pay tax on the profit.

Matt: Sounds complex. Is it legal?

Tax Specialist: Yes, the Labour government introduced it to help the UK film industry and encourage companies from overseas to work in the UK. The money has to be accounted for and is spent in the UK on people paying UK tax, so the government get the money in the end.

Matt: Oh, ok then. Let's do that.

I have a degree in Maths, but on those sorts of salaries I would pay a Tax Specialist to help me stay legal and the only question I would ask is "Is it legal?".

I now imagine the current conversation is running like this...

Matt: But you said it was legal you c**t!

Tax Specialist: It WAS! The treasury have now decided that they want to make it illegal.

Matt: Well, let's not do it any more.

Tax Specialist: But they are making it retrospectively illegal!!

Matt: That's f*cking immoral!

100% my point, it really is immoral to change the law/rules and then retrospectively prosecute based on the new law when it didn't stand at the point of the new offence (or something like that I am not a lawyer)

 

[Frampler]

There hasn't been a retrospective changing of the rules. What has happened is that HMRC has been given greater resources to investigate some of the larger tax avoidance schemes and have taken the view that the tax due is more than was paid.