• 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!

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 "Is anything inherently wrong, immoral or unlawful in mitigating one’s tax liability?"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Sounds like the Duke was aggressive tax evoider...

    they are the same thing to HMRC how dare you spend their money?

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    What's "mitigating"?
    Cutting the ends off the fingers of gloves, to turn them into mitts.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    What's "mitigating"?
    Mitigate - to leak information about flying RAF jets with a bowl of spaghetti on your lap.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthWestPerm2Contr View Post
    Any way you can reduce the amount your bank account is violated is fair game so long as it's legit. I can't see how it can ever be justifiable to pay 50% tax under any circumstances. I'd say the same for 40%. 20% is very fair and reasonable and if there was a blanket 20% on every penny earned then there would be no need for tax avoidance or tax evasion.
    Higher taxes are very much justifiable to all those who are not going to pay them.

    It's democracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    What's "mitigating"?
    I was stoned, m'lud.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthWestPerm2Contr
    replied
    Any way you can reduce the amount your bank account is violated is fair game so long as it's legit. I can't see how it can ever be justifiable to pay 50% tax under any circumstances. I'd say the same for 40%. 20% is very fair and reasonable and if there was a blanket 20% on every penny earned then there would be no need for tax avoidance or tax evasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by RetSet View Post
    Duke of Westminster v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 19 TC 490:
    Sounds like the Duke was aggressive tax avoider...

    Leave a comment:


  • RetSet
    replied
    Duke of Westminster v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 19 TC 490:

    ‘Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.’

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    What's "mitigating"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Is anything inherently wrong, immoral or unlawful in mitigating one’s tax liability?

    duplicate thread please ignore
    Last edited by BrilloPad; 16 January 2016, 19:44.

Working...
X