Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 If an accountant could find a way for you to pay less tax what would your answer be ? No thanks I want to pay as much as possible ! My take would be cool, but when your nearest and dearest can't get that life saving operation because tax revenues are below what they should be spare a thought for Gary Teale and the others nipping off down to the Bupa hospital... Fee no problem as they can use all that tax avoindance cash for their loved ones op! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) He was advised that it was a perfectly legal scheme, if it's found not to be then he'll need to pay it back. Is it such a big deal? I drive a commercial vehicle instead of a company car, I do this as it's tax beneficial. Until someone from HMRC tells me I can't do this I will continue to do so. Wonder how many homers some of the moaners have this weekend...? Edited January 30, 2015 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 How can hmrc retrospectively claim money for something which the only now deem illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Wonder how many homers some of the moaners have this weekend...? and claiming because their not working legally. Edited January 30, 2015 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Some of the comments and comparisons are missing the point. These schemes are indeed legal but exist to encourage investment in the film industry. HMRC are only going after the schemes that are run to deliberately makes losses so as to offset against the investors tax liabilities. There a difference between a legitimate film investment scheme supporting film making and a film investment scheme that doesn't and only exists to make losses and save tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I disapprove of tax evasion, and I disapprove of tax avoidance. That said, who gives two f**ks what I think. By the same token, why should I give two f**ks about the fate of a few greed motivated, handsomely paid footballers who get rumbled for trying to avoid paying their fair share. I'll say it again.... tough tittie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 How can hmrc retrospectively claim money for something which the only now deem illegal? They can't. They have to prove it was always illegal. Agents and dubious tax advisors tell a lot of their clients it's legal. The honest people tell them they believe it to be legal but on your own head be it if it's deemed not to be. Trying to outfox the taxman never ceases but he wins in the end. He plugs the loopholes once he knows about them but those who used them aren't pursued unless the taxman thinks they were clearly illegal to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Monkey Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 He was advised that it was a perfectly legal scheme, if it's found not to be then he'll need to pay it back. Is it such a big deal? To clarify, it's not that it's found not to be legal. It will have been legal then, and remains so until the point HMRC decides it isn't. HMRC can change the rules. It's equivalent to road authorities deciding that actually 60mph was the limit, and fining everyone who's been over that in the past five years. (Just to clarify, I'm against excessive tax avoidance, but it's a massive grey area and wouldn't know where to draw the line. I'm not going to lie or be a hypocrite here: I've run a Ltd company in the past that consisted of just me and the Mrs, because it was financially beneficial to do so. We ended up a couple of grand better off.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Doesn't matter if it's Tommy Craig or Gary Teale - we are still struggling with attacks. Seriously, this time I really must collect my coat on the way oot'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyHolly9 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 People need to understand no such thing. Like I said above, using a legal getout isn't a defence. This is a moral issue not a legal one. As for the scheme in question? It has yet to be decided whether that was purely a tax avoidance vehicle. If it was, then it's abuse - whether legal or not. Assume you have no isa then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint in exile Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 People need to understand no such thing. Like I said above, using a legal getout isn't a defence. This is a moral issue not a legal one. As for the scheme in question? It has yet to be decided whether that was purely a tax avoidance vehicle. If it was, then it's abuse - whether legal or not. Did you actually READ what I posted? I pointed out that the moral issue existed. But it IS a legal question, whether you like it or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Assume you have no isa then? This is a wind-up, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 To clarify, it's not that it's found not to be legal. It will have been legal then, and remains so until the point HMRC decides it isn't. HMRC can change the rules. It's equivalent to road authorities deciding that actually 60mph was the limit, and fining everyone who's been over that in the past five years. (Just to clarify, I'm against excessive tax avoidance, but it's a massive grey area and wouldn't know where to draw the line. I'm not going to lie or be a hypocrite here: I've run a Ltd company in the past that consisted of just me and the Mrs, because it was financially beneficial to do so. We ended up a couple of grand better off.) And there lies the big difference! You are entitled to run a ltd company as long as you run it within the law. What these guys have done is knowingly invest in a scheme to offset their tax liabilities. The scheme was designed, yes designed to make HUGE losses so the participants could say,"see that money i never put in that scheme, well its been lost therefor i don't have to pay tax like everyone else as i lost money i never had" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iael18 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 HMRC never approve Tax Avoidance schemes, there is a difference between using tax relief to make sure you don't pay more tax than you have to and bending the rules to avoid paying tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My take would be cool, but when your nearest and dearest can't get that life saving operation because tax revenues are below what they should be spare a thought for Gary Teale and the others nipping off down to the Bupa hospital... Fee no problem as they can use all that tax avoindance cash for their loved ones op! Maybe the government should not be so two faced then. Amazon , Starbucks are just two of many who get away with unimaginable figures of tax dodging. Goverment Minsters with offshore accounts these the people who make laws on me and you paying tax. Don't see Teale as a big deal. if he loses he pay's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Maybe the government should not be so two faced then. Amazon , Starbucks are just two of many who get away with unimaginable figures of tax dodging. Goverment Minsters with offshore accounts these the people who make laws on me and you paying tax. Don't see Teale as a big deal. if he loses he pay's. Teale! A big Deal? Think we need to get Real about the Steal inflicted on HM's royal Seal, so everyone can get the right Feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another alias Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 A. Like I said above, using a legal getout isn't a defence. B. This is a moral issue not a legal one. A. Yes it is B. No it isn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Given what the British government spends it revenues on anyone not trying to avoid funding them should hang their head in shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 A. Yes it is B. No it isn't Panto season is over, Buttons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Given what the British government spends it revenues on anyone trying to avoid work them should hang their head in shame. Sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Teale! A big Deal? Think we need to get Real about the Steal inflicted on HM's royal Seal, so everyone can get the right Feel. Made a meal of that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Some footballers (and other sports high earners) are that thick that they will not have a clue what their accountants / financial advisors are doing with their money. Others, when earning hundreds of thousands a year like most of those mentioned in relation to this investigation have a certain points in their careers, will not have a scooby about how much they have in what accounts. It's left to us mere plebs on normal working salaries to worry wbout such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robo Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 If an accountant could find a way for you to pay less tax what would your answer be ? No thanks I want to pay as much as possible ! My answer would be that I want to pay whatever tax I'm due to pay, taking into account the spirit of the law, rather than the letter or the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My answer would be that I want to pay whatever tax I'm due to pay, taking into account the spirit of the law, rather than the letter or the law. Very well put, Sir. I concur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desnold Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 My answer would be that I want to pay whatever tax I'm due to pay, taking into account the spirit of the law, rather than the letter or the law. What exactly is the spirit of the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.