PAYE - just been told by the tax man after informing them of my new address that I have underpaid by 1200. Isnt it my employer's duty to make sure i pay the correct tax? Really pissed off with this.
Is this for last year Curb_It? They are still sorting out the mess from 2008/09 and 2009/10 when lots of people under/overpaid. This was an error on HMRC's part.
Vodafone have absolutely no incentive to do so. They are a multinational and will make no difference to them if they upsticks from the UK and move to Ireland/ somewhere else that offers a better tax deal.
Thousands of people would lose jobs, HMRC would then lose the tax from these ex employees and what tax they do currently get from Vodafone.
Very unfair and irksome but that's the reality of it. The way to hurt them and companies like them is to boycott their products...they would soon take notice then.
I find it amazing that the loophole which allows you to sell your losses to another company so they can offset them against tax to be unbelieveable, they don't even have to have same ownership - outrageous really
also since we are in a globalised world, companies transcend borders, there needs to be a globalised minimum tax system agreed to stop tax havens, this could be implemented in the same way as tariffs which is effectively what they are anyway. Enormously complicated and difficult to do but eventually it will need to happn
There is no ‘new tax scandal’ at Vodafone. All businesses, big and small, set allowances for interest costs and capital expenditure against UK corporation tax. In Vodafones case, they are still paying almost £1m every day on interest costs from UK 3G licence bought 12 years ago. Britain will never return to growth without substantial investments by businesses like Vodafone: a fact recognised in allowances under UK tax rules – and nothing whatsoever to do with Luxembourg. And UK corporation tax is only one source of revenue for the public purse: each year Vodafone about £700m to the exchequer in fees for radio spectrum and in other taxes. This week the National Audit Office concluded that Vodafones £1.2 billion settlement with HMRC in 2010 was a good outcome for the taxpayer. The NAO report has put to rest one set of historical untruths: suggestions linking Luxembourg to Vodafones UK corporation tax charge are equally without foundation.
Vodafone have absolutely no incentive to do so. They are a multinational and will make no difference to them if they upsticks from the UK and move to Ireland/ somewhere else that offers a better tax deal.
Thousands of people would lose jobs, HMRC would then lose the tax from these ex employees and what tax they do currently get from Vodafone.
Very unfair and irksome but that's the reality of it. The way to hurt them and companies like them is to boycott their products...they would soon take notice then.
See I always think this argument is overplayed. Does anyone ever consider how much it would actually cost for some of these big companies to up sticks and move abroad? Admittedly for some companies it would be easier and cheaper than others, but it's not always the case. The main reason why politicians hate this threat is because they don't want factories, call centres etc shut in their constituencies which can decimate an area and cost them votes. Why do you think they keep setting up these 'Enterprise Zones', where businesses get rate holidays etc. That's why politicians lack the balls for real and fair tax reform. It's often far easier for large companies to set up shell companies that control assets from abroad, rather than moving an entire business to a foreign land.
What successive govt's need to do is stop cutting deals with big business when it comes to tax.
If Vodafone wanted to they could easily make the switch over night, they have a global footprint and could choose to register the operating company in any of these countries. The very reason they choose not to do that indicates to me that they are not avoiding tax.
Other wise would they not register the main company in the British Virgin Islands with the "Mysterons"
The government needs to set a flat tax rate across the board so that it is non economical for the wealthy to avoid paying it.
Equally I would scrap tax for everyone earning below a certain threshold as this would hopefully give people incentives to work as it would be worthwhile. Can sympathise with some people that dont work because when you factor in child care and travel costs it's not worth getting out of bed as the net difference theyd earn between working and not working is minmal.
It's not working the way it is at the moment and the bitterness it creates from all elements of the specrtum is corrosive.
For performers - entertainers and footballers etc their should be a flat rate amount witheld from the TV rights passed direct to the revenue then let people try to claim that back...maybe that should apply toanyone earning 7 figure amounts?
Putting your money offshore only to have that company "lend" it back to you the next day doesn't seem to be a genuine trade transaction and I would have thought HMRC can challenge... from the papers it looks like they are challenging schemes all over the place
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
Other wise would they not register the main company in the British Virgin Islands with the "Mysterons"
Indeed.
Unless the location of the holding company of CAFC is based in the BVI purely to retain the anonymity of the other owners there is likely to be a tax efficiency/avoidance angle there.
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
No time at all for Carr, whom I find obnoxious on the whole, but I find it incredible that a Prime Minister can single out an individual celebrity when the real culprits are essentially international corporates and their directors and higher paid employees.
Cameron is like a 5th former who bashes up the new boys but hides in the bogs snivelling if there are any 6th formers around.
Cameron has been shrewd, he has named and shamed without accusing the 'avoiders' of any legal wrongdoing. As I have said above, anyone or any company going out of its way to avoid tax while making a bundle in the UK .. simply don't use them or buy from them. Remember the picketing of Vodaphone a few months ago ? .. we need more of that .. IF anyone has the time anymore and is not too busy making a living and paying their taxes
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
Capitalist Pig........:)
you probably still pay way more tax than some of these celebs..
the real travesty in the tax situation is the creep of the 40% allowance ever downwards as the threshold is rarely altered - we are being inflated into paying the top band of tax on ever more of our income over time, particulary those in the southeast who earn more but pay more in living costs too.
I'm all in favour of progressive taxation but the level at which the higher rate kicks in is ridiculous in my view
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
Capitalist Pig........:)
you probably still pay way more tax than some of these celebs..
I had an accountant a few years back who tried to persuade me to enter into what he called a "tax minimisation" scheme which basically involved a similar type of off shoring payment BS scheme as practised by Carr - with much less money involved obviously.
I turned it down, the whole thing felt grubby and sneaky and, having been raised in public housing and educated in state schools, felt as if I would be pissing on the very system that I had benefitted from in the first place.
I have worked overseas in plenty of places with low or no taxes in place, they are great if you have money but hell if you don't.
I've had several phone calls from a company selling this service. They said that a lot of wealthy people in the UK used it and it's completely legal. As my income is currently zero I have not pursued it - looks like I missed the boat!
I'm surprised that Jimmy Carr has taken that standpoint, but I guess he's realised that his career taking the mick out of fat cats would be at an end if he didn't.
This is a very complex issue, but within the law, why would anyone want to pay more tax than necessary?
This week the National Audit Office concluded that Vodafones £1.2 billion settlement with HMRC in 2010 was a good outcome for the taxpayer. The NAO report has put to rest one set of historical untruths: suggestions linking Luxembourg to Vodafones UK corporation tax charge are equally without foundation.
So why had Vodaphone put aside £10billion to cover their latent tax liability?
It was a cosy arrangement carried out by Vodaphone and one man at HMRC.
As usual Joe Public gets shafted by an enormous conglomeration. Shame on them.
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
I think it is generally acknowledged that it is wrong if wealthy people pay less tax than non wealthy ones. The point is about fairness not about tax breaks for average workers.
I get childcare vouchers paid to my childminder and then deducted from the taxable amount of my wages. I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
Surely you are doing as parliament intended and legislated for, not hiring a shyster to find and exploit an unintended gap in legislation, so you're not using a tax avoidance scheme.
Come on if somebody sat you down and said "I can arrange it so you pay less tax than you do now and it's perfectly legal" How many people out of 100 would say no. It's no illegal therefore it isn't wrong, he earns the money and as long as he is within the law there is nothing to discuss.
of course we can discuss whether the tax system is wrong in allowing it but that is another topic.
Comments
Thousands of people would lose jobs, HMRC would then lose the tax from these ex employees and what tax they do currently get from Vodafone.
Very unfair and irksome but that's the reality of it. The way to hurt them and companies like them is to boycott their products...they would soon take notice then.
Britain will never return to growth without substantial investments by businesses like Vodafone: a fact recognised in allowances under UK tax rules – and nothing whatsoever to do with Luxembourg. And UK corporation tax is only one source of revenue for the public purse: each year Vodafone about £700m to the exchequer in fees for radio spectrum and in other taxes.
This week the National Audit Office concluded that Vodafones £1.2 billion settlement with HMRC in 2010 was a good outcome for the taxpayer. The NAO report has put to rest one set of historical untruths: suggestions linking Luxembourg to Vodafones UK corporation tax charge are equally without foundation.
What successive govt's need to do is stop cutting deals with big business when it comes to tax.
Other wise would they not register the main company in the British Virgin Islands with the "Mysterons"
Putting your money offshore only to have that company "lend" it back to you the next day doesn't seem to be a genuine trade transaction and I would have thought HMRC can challenge... from the papers it looks like they are challenging schemes all over the place
I use this scheme to avoid paying some tax and save £94 quid a month.
You lot might as well queue up to shoot me, as I am legally and happily using a tax avoidance scheme.
Unless the location of the holding company of CAFC is based in the BVI purely to retain the anonymity of the other owners there is likely to be a tax efficiency/avoidance angle there.
;-)
Cameron is like a 5th former who bashes up the new boys but hides in the bogs snivelling if there are any 6th formers around.
Haha yer, pefect timing :-)
I'm all in favour of progressive taxation but the level at which the higher rate kicks in is ridiculous in my view
I turned it down, the whole thing felt grubby and sneaky and, having been raised in public housing and educated in state schools, felt as if I would be pissing on the very system that I had benefitted from in the first place.
I have worked overseas in plenty of places with low or no taxes in place, they are great if you have money but hell if you don't.
I'm surprised that Jimmy Carr has taken that standpoint, but I guess he's realised that his career taking the mick out of fat cats would be at an end if he didn't.
This is a very complex issue, but within the law, why would anyone want to pay more tax than necessary?
It was a cosy arrangement carried out by Vodaphone and one man at HMRC.
As usual Joe Public gets shafted by an enormous conglomeration. Shame on them.
So I hope the queue hasn't formed yet.
of course we can discuss whether the tax system is wrong in allowing it but that is another topic.