• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "(Tax Avoidance != Tax Evasion)"

Collapse

  • thunderlizard
    replied
    "Tax avoidance" is an annoying term because it isn't legally defined. If you put money into an ISA or pension (like the government recommends) because the growth is tax-free, that's tax avoidance. If you buy less fags, booze or petrol than you used to because of the increasing duty on them, that's tax avoidance too. Hardly the ethical crime of the century.

    Leave a comment:


  • lambrini_socialist
    replied
    Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post
    BTW - the use of != for not equal isn't ANSI/ISO standard is it? Shouldn't it be <> ?
    java / c# / ruby, innit?

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    BTW - the use of != for not equal isn't ANSI/ISO standard is it? Shouldn't it be <> ?

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    Have a look at this blog which has dealt with this issue on various occasions

    www.hmrconline.com

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by beercohol View Post
    Is that Fapital Banes Tax?
    Family Business Tax - do keep up at the back.

    Leave a comment:


  • beercohol
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    My MP tried the Tax Avoiding line on me when we were dicsussing FBT. I pointed out the total tax bill for me and MyCo for the previous full year was a shade over £48k*, rather more than the average working man contributes to his MP's expense account, and if I'm doing tax avoidance then I'm really not very good at it.


    * I didn't mention I had two concurrent contracts for a big chunk of it though...)
    Is that Fapital Banes Tax?

    ...good point though. And it is a good response in the pointless-and-shouldn't-get-sucked-into-it-in-the-first-place tax debate with permies, to respond with dismissive "I pay more tax than you, so let's not go there."

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    The government says they are opposed to artificial measures, hence the attacks on offshore trust/loan schemes.

    However, you could argue that the following scenario is completely artificial:

    Married couple. Partner A is a 40% tax payer. Partner B doesn't work. The couple transfer all savings into Partner B's name, thus minimising tax by utilising B's personal allowance & 10% band, and avoiding A having to pay additional 40% tax.

    Were the couple to divorce, then all assets would be taken into account, including the savings in B's name. Therefore, it could be argued that A has a claim on the savings. Furthermore, since B isn't working, then the savings must presumably have come from A's salary ie. in effect the money really belongs to A.

    However, closing this "loophole" would be rejected on point (b) below.

    Government Definition: a tax avoidance arrangement is deemed to be artificial if closing it would (a) bring in loads of money and (b) not cost too many votes!

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    My MP tried the Tax Avoiding line on me when we were dicsussing FBT. I pointed out the total tax bill for me and MyCo for the previous full year was a shade over £48k*, rather more than the average working man contributes to his MP's expense account, and if I'm doing tax avoidance then I'm really not very good at it.


    * I didn't mention I had two concurrent contracts for a big chunk of it though...)

    Leave a comment:


  • beercohol
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    I think you're all a bunch of tax avoiders - avoiding tax by not earning as much as I do for my company. By not generating higher earnings, and therefore a higher tax bill, you are depriving the exchequer of much needed funds.
    I want you on my team immediately!

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    I think you're all a bunch of tax avoiders - avoiding tax by not earning as much as I do for my company. By not generating higher earnings, and therefore a higher tax bill, you are depriving the exchequer of much needed funds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Interesting that this should come up now - I wonder if there's a renewed interest in it because the government appears to be being advised by people like this wonk who tell them stuff they want to hear. He apparently makes no distinction.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    If people have an issue with Tax Avoidance, ask them if they use their personal allowance when calculating their annual tax bill... Avoidance is doing anything to reduce your tax bill that is not explicitly banned by law.

    Leave a comment:


  • beercohol
    replied
    famously impregnable and authentic

    Aha, Wikipedia (famously impregnable and authentic):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion

    "Public Opinion on Tax Avoidance

    Tax avoidance may be considered to be the dodging of one's duties to society, or alternatively the right of every citizen to structure one's affairs in a manner allowed by law, to pay no more tax than what is required. Attitudes vary from approval through neutrality to outright hostility. Attitudes may vary depending on the steps taken in the avoidance scheme, or the perceived unfairness of the tax being avoided.

    In the judiciary, different judges have taken different attitudes. As a generalization, for example, judges in the United Kingdom before the 1970s regarded tax avoidance with neutrality; but nowadays they regard it with increasing hostility."

    Leave a comment:


  • Likely
    replied
    Originally posted by beercohol View Post
    Yes, of course. Haven't you?
    Just a few months. But it has been with one of those loan thingies. I think I am jumping off next contract. It is smelly.

    Leave a comment:


  • beercohol
    replied
    Originally posted by Likely View Post
    Have you been avoiding a lot ?
    Yes, of course. Haven't you?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X