HMRC blunder leaves millions in unpaid business tax

[AtW]

But unfortunate that so many honest folk could make such an easy mistake.

Honest?

[bobspud]

Thing is, Google and other corps actually have genuine multiple businesses around the world, this makes it a lot less artificial, and they also employ lots of people who get paid very high salaries, so tax take from them is pretty good compared to those who dodge the whole lot.

Perhaps corp tax should go down to 0, that would deal with it nicely.

Something needs evening out. I don't know if that should be through corporation taxes or by helping to reduce income tax bands to 10% across the board but to my mind, the economy needs a kick where people can use the extra money for making their lives better, not giving the likes of Starbucks or Apple another 200 billion to hide off shore and hoard.

[Old Greg]

Something needs evening out. I don't know if that should be through corporation taxes or by helping to reduce income tax bands to 10% across the board but to my mind, the economy needs a kick where people can use the extra money for making their lives better, not giving the likes of Starbucks or Apple another 200 billion to hide off shore and hoard.

I need an evening out.

[bobspud]

Honest?

If you remember a number of the people that got screwed by the retrospective tax cluster ****. Invested in schemes that the UK government wanted them to invest in. It was a big fan fare in the budget and described as a way to help the UK film industry. I never liked the idea of the schemes but I can still remember people talking about what a great idea it would be and how it would help fund film investment.

I have no idea how it went from: "Here is a great idea come and help"... to the sheer scale of horror that it has caused those that did.

But no-one should have the goal posts moved of advice previously sanctioned even if the outcome was not what was intended.

[Old Greg]

If you remember a number of the people that got screwed by the retrospective tax cluster ****. Invested in schemes that the UK government wanted them to invest in. It was a big fan fare in the budget and described as a way to help the UK film industry. I never liked the idea of the schemes but I can still remember people talking about what a great idea it would be and how it would help fund film investment.

I have no idea how it went from: "Here is a great idea come and help"... to the sheer scale of horror that it has caused those that did.

But no-one should have the goal posts moved of advice previously sanctioned even if the outcome was not what was intended.

Especially not for what was such an easy mistake for honest folk to make.

[bobspud]

Especially not for what was such an easy mistake for honest folk to make.

They say you can't con an honest man but I'm not sure that honesty is the only criteria involved. Its like the companies that sprang up to help the government get solar panels on as many roofs as possible then those same companied had their subsidies slashed when the government realised what it had caused.

I am sure that solar panels will be the next PPI time bomb to go bang when vendors realise that a corporate administrator just gained squatters ownership of their roof because the company that owned the panels went bust.

[AtW]

If you remember a number of the people that got screwed by the retrospective tax cluster ****. Invested in schemes that the UK government wanted them to invest in. It was a big fan fare in the budget and described as a way to help the UK film industry. I never liked the idea of the schemes but I can still remember people talking about what a great idea it would be and how it would help fund film investment.

UK Govt wanted to make more UK movies, NOT have schemes which involved buying rights to loss making movies, which then got booked as artificial losses to write off existing tax liabilities.

It was quiet right that HMRC shut down those big schemes which involved very rich very famous "investors" whose desire was to reduce tax on their hefty incomes rather than actually help create new UK movies.

The dishonesty of people taking part in those schemes is shocking - moral aspect is not defensible, at least not by an honest person, unless they earn their living by defending the dishonest.

[bobspud]

UK Govt wanted to make more UK movies, NOT have schemes which involved buying rights to loss making movies, which then got booked as artificial losses to write off existing tax liabilities.

It was quiet right that HMRC shut down those big schemes which involved very rich very famous "investors" whose desire was to reduce tax on their hefty incomes rather than actually help create new UK movies.

The dishonesty of people taking part in those schemes is shocking - moral aspect is not defensible, at least not by an honest person, unless they earn their living by defending the dishonest.

And yet for all this repugnance HMRC are still in bed with schemes...

Dispatches - Articles - Secrets of the Taxman - Reporter Feature - Channel 4

[AtW]

And yet for all this repugnance HMRC are still in bed with schemes...

Dispatches - Articles - Secrets of the Taxman - Reporter Feature - Channel 4

HMRC is not perfect, they should have been taking hard line many years ago, including zero tolerance for their suppliers - any company that dodges tax should not get Govt contracts.

Having said that just because HMRC isn't perfect, that does not make it right for dishonest people to avoid paying tax using artificial schemes when vast majority of honest people pay.

That should have been treated as tax evasion actually - creating artificial scheme to evade tax due.

[bobspud]

HMRC is not perfect, they should have been taking hard line many years ago, including zero tolerance for their suppliers - any company that dodges tax should not get Govt contracts.

Having said that just because HMRC isn't perfect, that does not make it right for dishonest people to avoid paying tax using artificial schemes when vast majority of honest people pay.

That should have been treated as tax evasion actually - creating artificial scheme to evade tax due.

How is one morally repugnant scheme different from another? HMRC knowingly sold their own property to a company that they knew to be based in a tax haven thus avoiding any stamp duty or corporation tax.

There is no reason for the business to be set up there. The whole scheme is artificial so why the double standards?