Dispatches: Taxing The Rich

[quackhandle]

Nothing new learned?

Fair play to Greg Wise in speaking out about it.

qh

[VectraMan]

You send your money to Belize where it gets sent back to your UK Ltd. company and so you pay 0% tax. How do you get the money out of the company paying 0% tax?

22,900 pages of tax code was interesting.

[JPC]

So using the tax laws to your advantage is immoral and wrong, what about inheritance tax what about stamp duty.

Seriously **** off.

Until the system is fair, as with all other scams out there it's fair game in my opinion. Dont blame the rich blame the chicken tulip who could change the tax laws but have far too many friends n family in high places doing the same, lets not rock the boat.

Instead they come after the low hanging fruit.

taxman=

[AtW]

22,900 pages of tax code was interesting.

Yeah, I remember how Gidiot was rambling about Labour's arcane tax code that's so big, promising to simply it ... now he is in power he is adding a lot of pages himself - totally crazy inheritance tax rules, savings taxes that are different for different tax bands - he can't even make tiny £1000 tax free allowance universal.

[DimPrawn]

So using the tax laws to your advantage is immoral and wrong, what about inheritance tax what about stamp duty.

Seriously **** off.

Until the system is fair, as with all other scams out there it's fair game in my opinion. Dont blame the rich blame the chicken tulip who could change the tax laws but have far too many friends n family in high places doing the same, lets not rock the boat.

Instead they come after the low hanging fruit.

taxman=

^ This

Make the man in the street feel bad about organising their tax affairs to save a pittance whilst the ruling elite and the super wealthy avoid billions in taxes and the authorities turn a blind eye.

The hand wringing liberals and the tax :nazi: can FOAD

[lifeisfunny]

You send your money to Belize where it gets sent back to your UK Ltd. company and so you pay 0% tax. How do you get the money out of the company paying 0% tax?

22,900 pages of tax code was interesting.

I couldn't quite understand this either. Have any of the schemes actually been shown to be illegal? If not, I don't see what the problem is.

[Contreras]

I couldn't quite understand this either. Have any of the schemes actually been shown to be illegal? If not, I don't see what the problem is.

The problem, if the schemes are not illegal, is that they should be, and if they are then the rules need to be enforced.

Good to see HMRC incompetance shown for what it is along with the so called OTS. Nothing new really and less of the finger wagging hysteria that I was expecting.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I couldn't quite understand this either. Have any of the schemes actually been shown to be illegal? If not, I don't see what the problem is.

You'd think there'd be a simple answer to that wouldn't you Tax avoidance (which is not illegal) schemes are devised by tax experts and lawyers who interpret the law as it is written. The problem comes when HMG and HMRC decide that that's not what they meant i.e. the law was badly written and they challenge the validity of the scheme in Court - sometimes they win and sometimes they lose and these cases then set precedents which are used in future disputes. Many cases are settled outside of the courts, usually because it ultimately works out cheaper for the tax payer - tax barristers are incredibly expensive and, even if you win against HMRC, you very rarely get your costs back. Cases which are going to determine something pretty fundamental can go on for years e.g. the Rangers case - this concerns EBT's so, an HMRC win means that anyone who's ever used an EBT is in their sights. The other thing is that, once they get their teeth into something, HMRC don't let go - I think it was the Arctic Systems case where HMRC lost and just kept taking the battle higher and higher through the Courts until they lost in the House of Lords.

[pr1]

Greg Wise hit with £2million tax bill for aggressive tax avoidance

<placeholder>

[BrilloPad]

You'd think there'd be a simple answer to that wouldn't you Tax avoidance (which is not illegal) schemes are devised by tax experts and lawyers who interpret the law as it is written. The problem comes when HMG and HMRC decide that that's not what they meant i.e. the law was badly written and they challenge the validity of the scheme in Court - sometimes they win and sometimes they lose and these cases then set precedents which are used in future disputes. Many cases are settled outside of the courts, usually because it ultimately works out cheaper for the tax payer - tax barristers are incredibly expensive and, even if you win against HMRC, you very rarely get your costs back. Cases which are going to determine something pretty fundamental can go on for years e.g. the Rangers case - this concerns EBT's so, an HMRC win means that anyone who's ever used an EBT is in their sights. The other thing is that, once they get their teeth into something, HMRC don't let go - I think it was the Arctic Systems case where HMRC lost and just kept taking the battle higher and higher through the Courts until they lost in the House of Lords.

If there is any doubt at all then people get an APN.