PCG have won the Arctic S660a case

[tim123]

doubt it! Entertaining yourself is not an allowable expense is it?

Actually (subject to some qualifying rules which includes partners) it is. It is entertaining others that isn't deductable.

tim

[DimPrawn]

BBC report on the win

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4531994.stm

[BoredBloke]

Nice the way they put the leftie spin on this. Effing leftie bolluxs.

[DimPrawn]

Yes BBC summary.

Husband and wife pretending to be a "real" business in order to avoid paying tax, win case and cost Revenue millions/billions.

[zathras]

Yes BBC summary.

Husband and wife pretending to be a "real" business in order to avoid paying tax, win case and cost Revenue millions/billions.

Cut and paste reply (they sent an email worded in exactly the same way to someone else)

Thanks for your e-mail.

Well, the Professional Contractors Group, who funded the case of Mr and Mrs Jones, have said themselves that about £1 billion in annual tax revenues depended on the outcome of this court case.

I therefore believe that our description is indeed correct.

[threaded]

Well, if that is not one of the most biased pieces of reporting ever on the BBC web site. Really quite, well, obscene.

[malvolio]

Hmmm... for them to be using a copied reply implies to me that they have had to answer a lot of similar questions from RealWorld. And to think they used to be the best in the world...

On the other hand, none of the other major news channels have said anything and even Google only reports small people like Shout99 and Bytestart, so maybe PCG and the Jones should be grateful for any coverage at all.

Tomorrow's papers maybe more fun though.

[zathras]

Tomorrow's papers maybe more fun though.

Wonder if the PCG will get the front page of the Express again.

Common Sense Makes Shock Return to English Tax Law!

[tim123]

Well, if that is not one of the most biased pieces of reporting ever on the BBC web site. Really quite, well, obscene.

It looks to be a simple reporting of the facts to me.

Oh, you mean that it isn't cock-a-hoop about Mr Taxpayer winning a famous victory over Mr Nasty the tax collector. But that would be biased though, wouldn't it!

Sorry, to be un-biased you have to be un-biased in *both* directions and if you think that a simple reporting of the facts creates a biased report, then your expectations are wrong.

tim

[malvolio]

Small spherical objects. The whole point of the case was that no additional tax was due, and that HMRC were acting outside their remit in trying to charge Arctic (and at least 200,000 other small companies at a minimum) higher rate tax on legitimate dividend payments where no additional tax was warranted or due.

For the BBC to report this as a loss to HMRC is clearly biasing it towards the HMG side, as much as claiming it as a tax saving would be taking it the other way. Or to put it another way, you locking your house at night is unacceptable since you are thereby denying that nice chap down the road the right to a free DVD player and television.

The report could (should) have said, quite neutrally, that the question of £1bn taxation has been resolved in favour of the taxpayer. The aim of the Sun is to bias its readership towards a given political stance, the aim of the BBC is to report actuality - remember?

Of course, since 95% of the UK no longer knows how to use English, such bias can usually go unremarked. This time they've bumped into a community that understands the point.