Reply to: Take That HMR&C!

[bless 'em all]

It turned out that most of the cheaters who took stuff without paying were the senior executives.

So the company didn't employ contractors then?

[OwlHoot]

Take That singers 'invested £26m in scheme to be challenged over tax avoidance' - Telegraph


It always makes me chuckle that most of those involved in dodging tax and social responsibility are media types, lefty bleeding heart liberals.

No doubt they have an exalted sense of entitlement. Remember that guy who did an experiment with freebies (food?) in a staff canteen in America, with a trust box for voluntary payments. It turned out that most of the cheaters who took stuff without paying were the senior executives. Nick Fitz will have the link somewhere.

That and that fact that those left wing media luvvies are usually stinking hypocrites.

[AtW]

Come back when you know the difference between "avoidance" and "evasion", you're artificially blurring the line between the two and doing HMRC's demonisation job for them with your nonsensical analogies..

I'd do much better demonisation job if I was running HMRC - I'll first start with MPs and senior civil servants, I'll leave IT contractors for dessert

[SupremeSpod]

it does seem where the set up is set up solely to avoid tax there is a likelyhood that it could legally be seen as evasion.

Claiming losses is legal, creating losses to claim tax relef seems to be illegal or at least should be.

It may appear to be legal because its declared. So is drinking but when you combine that with driving a car it becomes an illegal act.

I hope they continue to identify and embarrass these prominent tax evaders/avoiders.

does seem like the revenue are playing catch up.

Oh FFS.

Come back when you know the difference between "avoidance" and "evasion", you're artificially blurring the line between the two and doing HMRC's demonisation job for them with your nonsensical analogies..

[AtW]

If HMRC wish to challenge and it was so "cut and dried", don't you think that HMRC would be on it like a ton of bricks?

Level of proof require for evasion is very high since it's criminal case, even though I think HMRC should be pretty successful in convincing jury that some rich chap who put lots of his income through some strange offshore structure only did it for purpose of tax evasion.

Legit tax avoidance is when you buy electric car to have zero CO2 emissions and thus pay no road tax.

btw, I think all tax returns should be public.

[vetran]

it does seem where the set up is set up solely to avoid tax there is a likelyhood that it could legally be seen as evasion.

Claiming losses is legal, creating losses to claim tax relef seems to be illegal or at least should be.

It may appear to be legal because its declared. So is drinking but when you combine that with driving a car it becomes an illegal act.

I hope they continue to identify and embarrass these prominent tax evaders/avoiders.

does seem like the revenue are playing catch up.

[SupremeSpod]

And it should be classed as such - the structure is completely artificial and only makes sense for evading tax: it's completely perverse that somebody can put in £Xk and get multiple of £Xk as tax relief because of "losses" suffered by company.

It's total bulltulip.

Sorry old chap, you're not qualified to make that statement.

Each of those schemes has to be declared to HMRC. Therefore the word "evasion" cannot logically be used.

If HMRC wish to challenge and it was so "cut and dried", don't you think that HMRC would be on it like a ton of bricks?

[AtW]

It's not evasion.

And it should be classed as such - the structure is completely artificial and only makes sense for evading tax: it's completely perverse that somebody can put in £Xk and get multiple of £Xk as tax relief because of "losses" suffered by company.

It's total bulltulip.

[SupremeSpod]

Members - for tax evasion.
Organisers - for making profits from tax evasion.

It's not evasion.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, you may be incorrect too.

[AtW]

Jailed for what, exactly?

Members - for tax evasion.
Organisers - for making profits from tax evasion.

[SupremeSpod]

They keep finding new schemes.

Perhaps being specialist in this area should be as illegal as having devices to change mobile ID numbers.

This tulip won't stop until there is a sustained flow of jailed people (not just those who take part in schemes but also organisers) and lots and lots of well publisised bankrupcies.

Jailed for what, exactly?

[AtW]

If HMRC don't like these schemes why not just ban them completely and make it easy?

They keep finding new schemes.

Perhaps being specialist in this area should be as illegal as having devices to change mobile ID numbers.

This tulip won't stop until there is a sustained flow of jailed people (not just those who take part in schemes but also organisers) and lots and lots of well publisised bankrupcies.

[d000hg]

Take That singers 'invested £26m in scheme to be challenged over tax avoidance' - Telegraph


It always makes me chuckle that most of those involved in dodging tax and social responsibility are media types, lefty bleeding heart liberals.

Being a media type doesn't automatically make you a lefty.
Being a lefty doesn't make you a liberal.
etc

If HMRC don't like these schemes why not just ban them completely and make it easy?

[AtW]

In that case you've just admitted using a tax avoidance scheme. Burn him!

It's not a tax avoidance scheme but a very small, super tiny token of appreciation from Govt for all the investment we do right now at the time when some people prefer to just trade stocks and make money from hot air.

[SupremeSpod]

Yes we used it a bit (insignificant amounts), it's totally pathetic and misleading - I probably would not even bother applying next year.

Patents on the other hand can be handy ...

In that case you've just admitted using a tax avoidance scheme. Burn him!