Reply to: Is Fred Bloggs thick?

[northernladyuk]

The argument has been done many many times before on CUK. In summary, it is the duty of every taxpayer to minimize the tax they pay by legal means. 99% of the country believe income shifting and dividends are tax evasion. First they came for DT, then for loans, then PSCs. Next it will be ALL contractors. When Corbyn gets to power.

I never had a loan. Those "loans" did appear self assessment. However the judge has said its up to the employer.

You interruped a professional discussion with amateur comments.

Care you come to the next CUK meet up and repeat them?

So Ltd company contractors operating on a low salary / divis basis failed in their duty? Well it serves me right for that time I was out-competed on price by a contractor with a lower cost base (and greater sense of civic duty) due to some Jersey based scheme.

[Fred Bloggs]

What about a meat pie and sausage roll?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_50J94m84

Hmmmm...... Let me mull it over a few minutes.

[TheFaQQer]

Hard to disagree with much in the last post. Hector is after you all and is one of the reasons I'm not there any more. I'm afraid I won't be joining you anytime soon at your CUK RLM, ~10,000km is a tad too far just for a meat pie and a diet coke thanks.

What about a meat pie and sausage roll?

[Fred Bloggs]

Hard to disagree with much in the last post. Hector is after you all and is one of the reasons I'm not there any more. I'm afraid I won't be joining you anytime soon at your CUK RLM, ~10,000km is a tad too far just for a meat pie and a diet coke thanks.

[BrilloPad]

Trolled? Not as far as I can see. Merely pointing out that being paid currency, gold bars or ducks makes no difference. If it looks like salary (a duck) then you can be pretty sure it is a salary (a duck). You still have a duty to report un-taxed income to HMRC under self assessment. TBH, I'm quite surprised at your seeming level of concern, but that's OK too.

The argument has been done many many times before on CUK. In summary, it is the duty of every taxpayer to minimize the tax they pay by legal means. 99% of the country believe income shifting and dividends are tax evasion. First they came for DT, then for loans, then PSCs. Next it will be ALL contractors. When Corbyn gets to power.

I never had a loan. Those "loans" did appear self assessment. However the judge has said its up to the employer.

You interruped a professional discussion with amateur comments.

Care you come to the next CUK meet up and repeat them?

[TheFaQQer]

The intention was to say that the learned gentlemen (Ladies too?) at the supreme court

One Lady (Lady Hale).

Judgement can be read here.

[Fred Bloggs]

And the judge concluded it was a duck. Therefore not a loan. Therefore subject to PAYE.

Therefore the duck is in the IoM.

So you trolled in professional? tut tut tut.....

Trolled? Not as far as I can see. Merely pointing out that being paid currency, gold bars or ducks makes no difference. If it looks like salary (a duck) then you can be pretty sure it is a salary (a duck). You still have a duty to report un-taxed income to HMRC under self assessment. TBH, I'm quite surprised at your seeming level of concern, but that's OK too.

[BrilloPad]

For the defence -

In all seriousness, actually the duck posting was not intended as a frivolous post. The intention was to say that the learned gentlemen (Ladies too?) at the supreme court might be asked - "this thing we put before you, it waddles and it quacks and it is found on ponds and rivers. The Chinese guys serve it with rice pan cakes and hoi sin sauce."

One surely hopes that the learned gentlemen would conclude that if I was paid in ducks, sprinkled them with pixie dust, sent them to the nice bloke in the IoM who then lent me some duck portions without any liability to tax and no expectation of repayment, then the conclusion would be that I had indeed been paid in ducks and that ducks were indeed taxable. The pixie dust would be set aside as a sham, as indeed would magic beans if they had been used instead.

I rest my case.

Thank you for reading.

And the judge concluded it was a duck. Therefore not a loan. Therefore subject to PAYE.

Therefore the duck is in the IoM.

So you trolled in professional? tut tut tut.....

[northernladyuk]

What's the difference between a duck?


One of it's legs is both the same.

One of it is legs is both the same?

You have ruined one of my favourite jokes. I hope you're happy now.

[TheFaQQer]

What's the difference between a duck?


One of its legs is both the same.

[Fred Bloggs]

He's clever.

Oh, I like this one, best to quote it quick.

[Fred Bloggs]

For the defence -

In all seriousness, actually the duck posting was not intended as a frivolous post. The intention was to say that the learned gentlemen (Ladies too?) at the supreme court might be asked - "this thing we put before you, it waddles and it quacks and it is found on ponds and rivers. The Chinese guys serve it with rice pan cakes and hoi sin sauce."

One surely hopes that the learned gentlemen would conclude that if I was paid in ducks, sprinkled them with pixie dust, sent them to the nice bloke in the IoM who then lent me some duck portions without any liability to tax and no expectation of repayment, then the conclusion would be that I had indeed been paid in ducks and that ducks were indeed taxable. The pixie dust would be set aside as a sham, as indeed would magic beans if they had been used instead.

I rest my case.

Thank you for reading.

[northernladyuk]

Sounds like roadkill

[BrilloPad]

Who is it who knows 2 things about ducks and both of them are wrong?

[BrilloPad]

Duck Surprise.

I remember when AtW served that up at the Birmingham meet up. Do Birmingham ducks really have fluffy tails?