Reply to: Ross Thompson's Loan Charge Suspension Petition

[CryingSheep]

The thicko here is you - it’s self evident since you were thick enough to take part in one or more of those “schemes”.

In fact you are the King of Thickos because you’ve gone on path of vendetta with HMRC, now that’s really moronic.

Now if you had any brains you’d understand that proper wealthy operate on different level - HMRC closed eyes on it because they could bugger off anywhere in the world, so it made sense to keep them in the UK.

When “scheme providers” gone mass market it created existential threat to core tax base - where 40% taxpayers bear the brunt of taxation, so it obviously could not be allowed.

So knowing all this it was obviously strategically stupid to get involved in any of this tulip - those who made decision otherwise did so out of greed and are responsible for their own actions.

This! And really don't get it how hard this can be to understand...

[AtW]

The thicko here is you - it’s self evident since you were thick enough to take part in one or more of those “schemes”.

In fact you are the King of Thickos because you’ve gone on path of vendetta with HMRC, now that’s really moronic.

Now if you had any brains you’d understand that proper wealthy operate on different level - HMRC closed eyes on it because they could bugger off anywhere in the world, so it made sense to keep them in the UK.

When “scheme providers” gone mass market it created existential threat to core tax base - where 40% taxpayers bear the brunt of taxation, so it obviously could not be allowed.

So knowing all this it was obviously strategically stupid to get involved in any of this tulip - those who made decision otherwise did so out of greed and are responsible for their own actions.

[BrilloPad]

I'm curious as well... Can anyone detail it!? Please...

There are probably less than 50 people in the UK that can. Do you really think you will find them on CUK?

CUK - the cesspit of the contractor world.....

[BrilloPad]

It’s pretty clear that some proper wealthy people will be affected too, but the whole matter is too high profile and public for HMRC to back down

Oddly the DTA schemes were used by rich people from 1989 until 2000. Badger Lamont was asked by Alex Salmond if he was aware that Padmore had left a loophole. He said he did not care.

It was only when DTA was used by poor people that the government objected.

Go figure. Oh wait, you are too thick to.....

[CryingSheep]

What I find telling is that nobody bus prepared to accept the invitation to detail exactly how their scheme worked. It's almost as if they're ashamed.

I'm curious as well... Can anyone detail it!? Please...

As for comparing loan schemes with ISAs...

[fullyautomatix]

What I find telling is that nobody bus prepared to accept the invitation to detail exactly how their scheme worked. It's almost as if they're ashamed.

Some scheme users come to the tax avoidance forum and try to admit that they probably did something dodgy but they are immediately told to join this group or that group and small group or big group and fight HMRC and pay some other outfit more money. Again activists trying to garner more cash to fight and almost making it seem like there is a iron clad case to fight and win. It's almost like they want to go down fighting but don't want to do it alone but ensure everybody else goes down too.

[AtW]

It’s pretty clear that some proper wealthy people will be affected too, but the whole matter is too high profile and public for HMRC to back down

[Old Greg]

Two arguments are generally used to justify tax avoidance and criticize retrospective action. ISA and speed limits.
Both have no merit really and are really absurd. ISA is government endorsed and used by the majority of the savers.
Changing speed limit and penalizing everyone for speeding is so absurd in logic it does not merit any discussion.

Back to the loan charge issue then. So contractors earned 150k a year and got paid most of it as loans and paid some dodgy outfit some fees. In theory no tax was paid and there have been cases where this scheme.e was used for almost 10 years and I have heard 700k being mentioned. It means no tax paid on 700k income!

No government will endorse this and accept it as legit. Except maybe UAE etc.
The loan charge activists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of MPs etc. How many disclosed their entire income when arguing their case? None. All of the arguments presented are being very economical with the truth. The moment MPs are told that contractors earned a million and paid zero tax, they will drop this like a hot potato.

What I find telling is that nobody is prepared to accept the invitation to detail exactly how their scheme worked. It's almost as if they're ashamed.

[fullyautomatix]

Two arguments are generally used to justify tax avoidance and criticize retrospective action. ISA and speed limits.
Both have no merit really and are really absurd. ISA is government endorsed and used by the majority of the savers.
Changing speed limit and penalizing everyone for speeding is so absurd in logic it does not merit any discussion.

Back to the loan charge issue then. So contractors earned 150k a year and got paid most of it as loans and paid some dodgy outfit some fees. In theory no tax was paid and there have been cases where this scheme.e was used for almost 10 years and I have heard 700k being mentioned. It means no tax paid on 700k income!

No government will endorse this and accept it as legit. Except maybe UAE etc.
The loan charge activists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of MPs etc. How many disclosed their entire income when arguing their case? None. All of the arguments presented are being very economical with the truth. The moment MPs are told that contractors earned a million and paid zero tax, they will drop this like a hot potato.

[AtW]

You want to talk lives let’s talk about it.

How many people committed suicide because of inadequate mental care which was due to lower tax revenues from tax avoidance?

How many lives would be saved with 200-300 mln extra per year put into NHS to cut waiting periods?

It follows that tax avoiders got blood on their hands.

[BrilloPad]

I am within spirit and word of the law on that matter.

Not for long......

[AtW]

You are consciously investing your money in a vehicle that does not tax your interest. However you try and justify it, you are making that decision.

You dirty little tax avoider!

Obviously lack of tax encouraged my investment decision, which was the whole intended objective for ISAs.

I am within spirit and word of the law on that matter.

This isn’t “tax avoidance” - term that now means “tax evasion but too expensive to bring criminal prosecution to beyond reasonable doubt standard”.

[Old Greg]

You are consciously investing your money in a vehicle that does not tax your interest. However you try and justify it, you are making that decision.

You dirty little tax avoider!

Tax saver, not tax avoider.

[Zigenare]

I do both.

ISA is essentially equivalent to tax free allowance for income, it’s designed to motivate people to work and save, at 0 rate of tax as intended by the Parliament, there is no tax avoidance here, but I guess subtlety like this is too fine of a detail for a thicko like yourself.

You are consciously investing your money in a vehicle that does not tax your interest. However you try and justify it, you are making that decision.

You dirty little tax avoider!

[Old Greg]

No it isn't

Save in a normal savings account, pay tax on the gross interest.
Save in an ISA, don't pay tax on your interest.

You've made a decision to avoid paying tax.

Can a pension or an Isa be considered tax avoidance? - FTAdviser.com

Can a pension or an Isa be considered tax avoidance?
By Richard Bishop

“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)

In principle, tax avoidance is a moral issue. We ought to pay all tax owed and not pursue strategies that provide any individual or company an advantage over other tax-payers. In 18th century context, property owners should have paid tax for their windows, and in the 21st century, people should avoid inventing fictitious overseas companies or use abusive tax avoidance schemes.

The recent disclosure of documents from the Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, has thrown the spotlight once again onto the morality of tax avoidance. Globally, tax avoidance costs $240bn (£169bn) each year – the majority coming from multi-national companies. Costa and Google, who avoided paying UK corporation tax, spurred chancellor George Osborne to introduce the diverted profits tax, known as the “Google tax”, to encourage global multi-nationals to pay their fair share.

So what is avoiding tax? The common explanation that avoidance is legal and evasion is illegal is somewhat erroneous and too simplistic. According to HMRC, using the tax relief available through Isas and pensions is purely saving tax and not considered avoidance. Tax avoidance is attempting to bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage, in a way they were not intended. HMRC takes avoidance seriously and tax inspectors, together with legal and accountancy specialists, seek to challenge individuals and companies who attempt to avoid paying taxes. The primary concern for those involved in tax avoidance (which they perceive to be legal) is it can quickly turn into evasion. Failing to divulge all facts or perjuring oneself can easily lead to a large fine or prison sentence.

Broadly those involved in tax avoidance will collude with advisers to minimise their tax burden. Typically, the individual will be informed the scheme is perfectly legal and proceed to file their tax-returns. If HMRC disagrees, it may result in a tax tribunal. HMRC wins eight out of 10 tax avoidance cases that are contested. The initial drawback is you have to pay all the contested tax to HMRC before commencing a dispute.

Tax avoidance costs around £5bn annually in the UK. Recently, the government has instigated aggressive tax investigations against avoidance schemes, in particular – film partnership funds – initially set up by the government to help the British film industry raise funds and provide the opportunity to save tax for the investors. HMRC has closed thousands of film partnerships, resulting in high-profile celebrities – including Wayne Rooney, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Bob Geldof and David Beckham – repaying millions in avoided tax.

To return to the HMRC definition of tax avoidance, parliament fully intended that the British public could utilise tax-free savings, make use of personal allowances and pay into pension schemes to reduce the tax burden. Arguably, parliament did not intend for UK domiciled individuals to establish bogus overseas companies that are controlled from the UK or to manipulate the tax system to gain an advantage. Making use of tax-allowances is good financial planning and by HMRC’s own definition, is merely saving tax as parliament intended – any alternative strategy is purely avoidance.