Batten down the hatches
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!
/QUOTE]
Following on from Blightboys wake-up call, I’d like to share a practical view with you:
Let’s assume you’ve been happily working away with all income properly taxed (yes, some people actually do this !). Let’s further assume that your agent is taking a massive whack (as they generally do) and for some reason, the authorities take a look at the agents books (perhaps simply because they provide a load of IT folk who by their definition tend to be a slippery lot),
The authorites look at the big difference between what the agent charges and what you receive, they put 2 and 2 together to make 5 and assume that you must be filching some amount away in a hideyhole. Herein lies the problem: according to the GE law, the onus is on the individual to prove otherwise. (By the by I stumbled across an opinion on that on the net from a major accounting firm who considered that to try to prosecute on that basis would not be enforceable because it conflicts with GE constitution). Continuing on…..to prove your case they expect you to present them with all bank and savings account info and explain where every penny came from. What then stops them then trying to claim that everything and anything in those accounts was “worldwide income subject to GE tax”. So then your are faced with paying a tax lawyer 100 euro per hour (min) to essentially prove that you are squeaky or have only some small underdeclaration. Bolloks to that.
There are or course cases in between. Some people may have (knowingly or unknowingly) underdeclared nothing, something or a lot. And we have the authorities very sensitised because of the O2 debacle and some significant abuses using MSCs. If you are squeaky or let’s say “small fish” then you could easily end up forking out serious dosh and even then they could try to take you unjustly for amounts that are not “income” at all.
Therefore we can conclude that Blightboy is indeed right – assuming that your affairs are “in order” then tell them to bring it on - because if they don’t have sufficient evidence, they wont. It WONT stop them trying the bullyboy tactics. They will ask for papers etc because they know fine well they cant easily get them or get them at all. But if you open up your affairs in good faith, their unjust crap law about “onus of proof” can end up getting you shafted.
(Selected idioms included for the benefit of our resident agent provocateurs)
CK
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!
/QUOTE]
Following on from Blightboys wake-up call, I’d like to share a practical view with you:
Let’s assume you’ve been happily working away with all income properly taxed (yes, some people actually do this !). Let’s further assume that your agent is taking a massive whack (as they generally do) and for some reason, the authorities take a look at the agents books (perhaps simply because they provide a load of IT folk who by their definition tend to be a slippery lot),
The authorites look at the big difference between what the agent charges and what you receive, they put 2 and 2 together to make 5 and assume that you must be filching some amount away in a hideyhole. Herein lies the problem: according to the GE law, the onus is on the individual to prove otherwise. (By the by I stumbled across an opinion on that on the net from a major accounting firm who considered that to try to prosecute on that basis would not be enforceable because it conflicts with GE constitution). Continuing on…..to prove your case they expect you to present them with all bank and savings account info and explain where every penny came from. What then stops them then trying to claim that everything and anything in those accounts was “worldwide income subject to GE tax”. So then your are faced with paying a tax lawyer 100 euro per hour (min) to essentially prove that you are squeaky or have only some small underdeclaration. Bolloks to that.
There are or course cases in between. Some people may have (knowingly or unknowingly) underdeclared nothing, something or a lot. And we have the authorities very sensitised because of the O2 debacle and some significant abuses using MSCs. If you are squeaky or let’s say “small fish” then you could easily end up forking out serious dosh and even then they could try to take you unjustly for amounts that are not “income” at all.
Therefore we can conclude that Blightboy is indeed right – assuming that your affairs are “in order” then tell them to bring it on - because if they don’t have sufficient evidence, they wont. It WONT stop them trying the bullyboy tactics. They will ask for papers etc because they know fine well they cant easily get them or get them at all. But if you open up your affairs in good faith, their unjust crap law about “onus of proof” can end up getting you shafted.
(Selected idioms included for the benefit of our resident agent provocateurs)
CK
UBS to reveal Swiss Bank records
Comment