Tax Avoidance

[SueEllen]

Getting into tulip like pretending you don't get income and instead sham loans that never get called in is tax evasion in my book.

Not if the accountants call some of the loans in.

[AtW]

Not if the accountants call some of the loans in.

What I don't understand is whether such loans are subject to market interest rates, surely if they are then whole affair won't be worthwhile (paying 5-7% on ever growing loans without income), and if they are 0% then surely it's clear sign the loans are scam?

[minestrone]

I don't think ISAs should be tax free to begin with, but since they are explicitly so and it's a simple well understood transaction - save money and get tax free income, then it's fine. It's very limited as well to the point of being useless for large scale "tax avoidance" if you like.

Getting into tulip like pretending you don't get income and instead sham loans that never get called in is tax evasion in my book.

You should read Major's only budget speech where he brought in tax free saving schemes. A compelling case to why the public should be given incentives to save.

Sadly the next mob in went in a completely different direction and we are now in this mess.

[SupremeSpod]

What I don't understand is whether such loans are subject to market interest rates, surely if they are then whole affair won't be worthwhile (paying 5-7% on ever growing loans without income), and if they are 0% then surely it's clear sign the loans are scam?

Alexei, there are volumes that could be written on what you don't understand. The unfortunate thing is that although you don't understand these things you're wading in with a half baked opinion based no doubt on your jealousy.

Tax avoidance is not illegal - live with it.

[AtW]

Tax avoidance is not illegal - live with it.

Tax evasion is.

So there is just a small matter of whether what is done actually qualifies - due to high level of proof required it's a bit difficult to prove such cases under existing legislation so iHMRC chooses a tad easier way of saying "scheme does not work" and then charging penalties.

That's not enough - until people actually go to jail for organising such schemes OR using them nothing will change.

[minestrone]

They aren't all useless.

I was refering to the entity that is HRMC, useless, unless we have more than one tax collecting governmental agencies then you have changed that to HRMC staff which is shifting the goal posts and quoting me out of context.

[SupremeSpod]

Tax evasion is.

So there is just a small matter of whether what is done actually qualifies - due to high level of proof required it's a bit difficult to prove such cases under existing legislation so iHMRC chooses a tad easier way of saying "scheme does not work" and then charging penalties.

That's not enough - until people actually go to jail for organising such schemes OR using them nothing will change.

This topic is about "avoidance", go and start your own if you want to discuss "evasion".

Learn the difference between the two first though, eh? There's a good lad.

[minestrone]

It's unlikely he would pay VAT on the tickets personally but the company who sells the tickets for him would pay the VAT etc before giving him the profits.

IN the context of the Cameron argument about tickets HRMC are getting VAT from what people are offering to pay him to see him.

I think the chap is a bit of an arse to be honest but don't say he does not put a shed load of money into HRMC in upstream money raising areas from his take home.

[AtW]

This topic is about "avoidance", go and start your own if you want to discuss "evasion". Learn the difference between the two first though, eh? There's a good lad.

I know the difference and in my view this is tax evasion - if it isn't yet then it certainly should be, and that's the job for Govt to make sure such schemes are easily convictable in court.

[AtW]

he does not put a shed load of money into HRMC in upstream money raising areas from his take home.

And? Everybody else is subject to same rules and in addition to this paying income tax on earnings.

It's totally bogus idea that somebody can put in £X quid as investment and then write off bigger loses than money put in, WTF!?!?!? He can't lose more than money he put into that scheme, hence it should not be possible to offset taxes by higher amount.