I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
Well, it may surprise you to know that I do. One of my other long-term investments, Primary Health Properties was one of the first in the UK to switch to REIT status - was that about mid-2000s?
Anyway I'm on a roll now. The BBC's main building Media City in Salford Quays is owned by a company called The Peel Group. (We all know where Peel is, right? It's not rocket science.)
Peel has an interesting structure. John Whitaker, is the chairman of Peel, which is wholly owned by an IoM company called Tokenhouse. We don't know why the Beeb decided to pay Peel £400mn rent over the period of the lease rather than find another site do we? Anyway Whitaker's family owns 75% of the Group with the rest belonging to a Saudi outfit.
Mr Whitaker himself has a decent little pad on The Isle of Man called Billown Mansion. It's available to hire for movie filming, which is nice. https://isleofmanfilm.com/location/billown/
Being IoM domiciled, if he's got any sense, he won't be paying much tax on the dividends earned from rental income from the BBC. I'm looking forward to seeing a Panorama reporter doorstepping him...but I'm not holding my breath!
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Is that a classic, definitive, straw man argument?
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Are you sure you understand what it means?
My "arguments"are refuting the view quite clearly implied that only government spending benefits society and all rich people try and limit their contribution to society. What am I refuting that was not put down in the post?
I'm not on a crusade to promote tax avoidance, I'm just calling out bigotry.
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Of course, point 3 is precisely the reason many people from various countries around the world choose to place their hard-earned in a British Overseas Territory.....
Oh I see. So Google and Facebook pretend that all their multi-million deals with UK advertising agencies are concluded in Ireland because they think Ireland is a solid reliable country whereas the UK is a basket case Banana Republic? Sloppy defending there, @cafcfan.
@Dippenhall , as for Louis Hamilton, I understand that you want us to think of his plane as just his version of a company car. In that case, do you know whether our Louis is paying income tax on the private use of his company vehicle, as company car drivers in virtually every EU country now have to do?
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
Well, it may surprise you to know that I do. One of my other long-term investments, Primary Health Properties was one of the first in the UK to switch to REIT status - was that about mid-2000s?
75
That's great then. But if you know that REITs were introduced in the UK in the mid noughties to be used as a tax efficient uk investment vehicle (partly to combat investment going offshore) then it seems a bit rich to have a pop at someone -Redefine - taking advantage of those rules and doing exactly what they were intended to do?
Anyway, for a real scandal you only have to go back to HMRC selling off their entire property portfolio to a tax haven company (Mapeley). You really couldn't make that up!
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Is that a classic, definitive, straw man argument?
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Are you sure you understand what it means?
My "arguments"are refuting the view quite clearly implied that only government spending benefits society and all rich people try and limit their contribution to society. What am I refuting that was not put down in the post?
I'm not on a crusade to promote tax avoidance, I'm just calling out bigotry.
No, I have never been sure what the term means. That is why I asked the question. But, I still believe your post is a definitive example.
Your opponent's argument highlighted the corruptness and lack of morality of people who take active steps, available to them because of their wealth and access to experts who can set up these schemes, to avoid the tax everyone else has to pay.
You gave the impression of refuting his argument by refuting an argument that was not presented i.e. that only tax raised and spent by government contributes to society.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Exactly.
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
From the HMRC site....
"You can usually reclaim the VAT paid on goods and services purchased for use in your business.
If a purchase is also for personal or private use, you can only reclaim the business proportion of the VAT."
That is the issue.
Oh dear. I don't need to read quotes from the HMRC website to understand how this "works", thanks all the same.
It's owned by a company. Is the company using it for personal use? I doubt it. It's a chartering company, so my guess is that LH is paying the company for his personal use. Although as he probably uses it very rarely in the UK there wouldn't be any uk VAT to pay on that private use anyway! Of course, it's his company, but the overall net position is no different to if he just chartered a jet when he needed one, except the benefit to him here is that he both (indirectly) owns and (directly) uses the asset when he wants and so can sell it when he no longer wants it. A bit like buying a house instead of renting it.
Seriously, there is nothing to see on that particularly one. Just a journalist either not getting or understanding half the story and trying to fling a "celebrity" name out there to attract attention, or else knowing the full story and choosing to only "report" the bits they know will attract the desired attention.
If that's the best they can come up with its a shame as there are plenty of people out there outright evading tax.
What makes you think the quote was for you? A lot of people reading this thread might not be aware of the VAT rules on business expenses. Just because you don't need to see the rule quoted don't be so arrogant and assume nobody else would like to see the quote.
For a little while I ran a small business so I am aware of the VAT rules on business expenses. Rather than provide anecdotal evidence I provided the definitive clause. I know that after Brexit and Trump we live in a post fact world but in my world I still like to back up my arguments with facts and quotes from experts.
I think you don't understand the issue that was being raised by the programme. I have only seen clips but my understanding is that the Lewis Hamilton issue was that he avoided over £3 million in VAT by claiming the jet was for business purposes only and yet there are photos on instagram showing him leaving the jet with friends at various holiday destinations with text clearly stating the fact they were on holiday.
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
Well, it may surprise you to know that I do. One of my other long-term investments, Primary Health Properties was one of the first in the UK to switch to REIT status - was that about mid-2000s?
75
That's great then. But if you know that REITs were introduced in the UK in the mid noughties to be used as a tax efficient uk investment vehicle (partly to combat investment going offshore) then it seems a bit rich to have a pop at someone -Redefine - taking advantage of those rules and doing exactly what they were intended to do?
Anyway, for a real scandal you only have to go back to HMRC selling off their entire property portfolio to a tax haven company (Mapeley). You really couldn't make that up!
I'm sorry - perhaps you misinterpreted my poor explanation? That's why I said "nothing to see here". I've got shares in Redefine - I was not having a pop at them - merely explaining that I don't think the Labour Party on anyone else needs to worry too much about the status of their landlord because they are far from alone.. (Although I DO find the BBC's pontificating on this matter a bit rich in the circumstances of who they rent their premises from!)
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Exactly.
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
From the HMRC site....
"You can usually reclaim the VAT paid on goods and services purchased for use in your business.
If a purchase is also for personal or private use, you can only reclaim the business proportion of the VAT."
That is the issue.
Oh dear. I don't need to read quotes from the HMRC website to understand how this "works", thanks all the same.
It's owned by a company. Is the company using it for personal use? I doubt it. It's a chartering company, so my guess is that LH is paying the company for his personal use. Although as he probably uses it very rarely in the UK there wouldn't be any uk VAT to pay on that private use anyway! Of course, it's his company, but the overall net position is no different to if he just chartered a jet when he needed one, except the benefit to him here is that he both (indirectly) owns and (directly) uses the asset when he wants and so can sell it when he no longer wants it. A bit like buying a house instead of renting it.
Seriously, there is nothing to see on that particularly one. Just a journalist either not getting or understanding half the story and trying to fling a "celebrity" name out there to attract attention, or else knowing the full story and choosing to only "report" the bits they know will attract the desired attention.
If that's the best they can come up with its a shame as there are plenty of people out there outright evading tax.
What makes you think the quote was for you? A lot of people reading this thread might not be aware of the VAT rules on business expenses. Just because you don't need to see the rule quoted don't be so arrogant and assume nobody else would like to see the quote.
For a little while I ran a small business so I am aware of the VAT rules on business expenses. Rather than provide anecdotal evidence I provided the definitive clause. I know that after Brexit and Trump we live in a post fact world but in my world I still like to back up my arguments with facts and quotes from experts.
I think you don't understand the issue that was being raised by the programme. I have only seen clips but my understanding is that the Lewis Hamilton issue was that he avoided over £3 million in VAT by claiming the jet was for business purposes only and yet there are photos on instagram showing him leaving the jet with friends at various holiday destinations with text clearly stating the fact they were on holiday.
You quoted me, that's why I thought you were replying to me. If that's not the case then fine. Nothing arrogant about that.
But then you say think I don't understand the issue, but admit you have only seen clips of the programme. I do understand the issue, completely, which is why I can offer an informed opinion that the programme muddled up certain "facts", either deliberately or not, which actually misleads people into thinking it has said things that it hasn't.
Like the fact that LH somehow "avoided" paying VAT, when his company in fact paid over £3million in VAT, which they Manx Customs then refunded, because thems the rules!
as I said, this particular "story" really is a Red Herring and they clearly only chucked it into the programme to add a bit of "glamour" - why else keep mentioning his girlfriend (at the time).
The other non-celebrity bits were the really interesting stories, but that's not as exciting and doesnt bring in the ratings!
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
Well, it may surprise you to know that I do. One of my other long-term investments, Primary Health Properties was one of the first in the UK to switch to REIT status - was that about mid-2000s?
75
That's great then. But if you know that REITs were introduced in the UK in the mid noughties to be used as a tax efficient uk investment vehicle (partly to combat investment going offshore) then it seems a bit rich to have a pop at someone -Redefine - taking advantage of those rules and doing exactly what they were intended to do?
Anyway, for a real scandal you only have to go back to HMRC selling off their entire property portfolio to a tax haven company (Mapeley). You really couldn't make that up!
I'm sorry - perhaps you misinterpreted my poor explanation? That's why I said "nothing to see here". I've got shares in Redefine - I was not having a pop at them - merely explaining that I don't think the Labour Party on anyone else needs to worry too much about the status of their landlord because they are far from alone.. (Although I DO find the BBC's pontificating on this matter a bit rich in the circumstances of who they rent their premises from!)
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Ooo, I think I've touched a nerve there!
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
Toodle pip!
What has the "dividend versus salary" issue got to do with my case? You can't pay into a bog standard UK SIPP, based on dividends, can you? I think you assumed my case was the same as some others you know of, without having the facts available. Never a good look for a figures person.
If you want to argue that, say, the Google 'double Irish" scheme has any other significant goal than tax avoidance, I am sure we are all waiting to hear about it.
Actually, I think you've assumed that I'd made an assumption when I hadn't - read what I said again. That's a bad assumption to make on your part. Never a good look for a self appointed moral crusader.
Touché!
I've also never, anywhere, sought to defend Google, simply because I don't actually know exactly what they do or what they have said to HMRC - aside from reading the transcripts of their appearances before the Commons Select Committee and coming to the conclusion that some of the people putting the questions were complete fuckwits who clearly didn't understand the issues themselves. Google must've been pissing themselves after that shambles.
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
Well, it may surprise you to know that I do. One of my other long-term investments, Primary Health Properties was one of the first in the UK to switch to REIT status - was that about mid-2000s?
75
That's great then. But if you know that REITs were introduced in the UK in the mid noughties to be used as a tax efficient uk investment vehicle (partly to combat investment going offshore) then it seems a bit rich to have a pop at someone -Redefine - taking advantage of those rules and doing exactly what they were intended to do?
Anyway, for a real scandal you only have to go back to HMRC selling off their entire property portfolio to a tax haven company (Mapeley). You really couldn't make that up!
I'm sorry - perhaps you misinterpreted my poor explanation? That's why I said "nothing to see here". I've got shares in Redefine - I was not having a pop at them - merely explaining that I don't think the Labour Party on anyone else needs to worry too much about the status of their landlord because they are far from alone.. (Although I DO find the BBC's pontificating on this matter a bit rich in the circumstances of who they rent their premises from!)
And therein lies the rub; every fucker, even the ones who condemn this from up high on the pedestals, are up to their eyes in this kind of business. It's like all the minor indiscretions people will condemn but justify themselves doing it like parking in a P&C space without a child or paying cash in hand or jumping on a train without a ticket.
Aside from the BBC, the Guardian's owners make much use of the very same creative money shuffling they highlight as being morally wrong. And really if these are the people supposedly leading the charge against abusive tax avoidance what hope do we really have of ever sorting this problem out? Of course the second the Graun does decide to pay the tax it would have paid if not for its offshore business it will go out of business. It's a fuckers' game, you either play or you lose.
I do wonder if there needs to be a complete overhaul of the tax system. It's way too complicated. Maybe companies shouldn't pay corporation tax at all? If they occupy property they're paying council tax. They pay VAT (or at least should do) and they pay employers NIC. They pay tax on the fuel they use, they pay the road fund licence for their fleet of vehicles (if they have one), etc.
There is another issue, which is for another thread, and that is: why do large corporations think it is okay to make such huge profits and why do us consumers put up with it? The problem is, companies like Apple provide goods that people want to buy at the prices Apple want to charge...
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Ooo, I think I've touched a nerve there!
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
Toodle pip!
What has the "dividend versus salary" issue got to do with my case? You can't pay into a bog standard UK SIPP, based on dividends, can you? I think you assumed my case was the same as some others you know of, without having the facts available. Never a good look for a figures person.
If you want to argue that, say, the Google 'double Irish" scheme has any other significant goal than tax avoidance, I am sure we are all waiting to hear about it.
Actually, I think you've assumed that I'd made an assumption when I hadn't - read what I said again. That's a bad assumption to make on your part. Never a good look for a self appointed moral crusader.
Touché!
I've also never, anywhere, sought to defend Google, simply because I don't actually know exactly what they do or what they have said to HMRC - aside from reading the transcripts of their appearances before the Commons Select Committee and coming to the conclusion that some of the people putting the questions were complete fuckwits who clearly didn't understand the issues themselves. Google must've been pissing themselves after that shambles.
Alright. I now get that you were not directly suggesting that this was what my scheme was all about (even if another poster also understood that this is what you were implying). Nevertheless you did originally refer to it as a "tax avoidance" scheme. If so, it must be the worst one in the world, and a good job I didn't pay anyone for it. Let's call that 1-1 and move on.
Google. Actually if you don't know how the Google Europe tax scheme works, you might enjoy the BBC doc. "The Town that took on the Taxman" (Unfortunately that link is only to an article about the programme. All YouTube videos of it were being blocked when I searched for it a few weeks ago). Of course the shopowners had to pay people to help them set up the scheme, that's why they clubbed together. Well worth a watch, I kept a DVD. The "front end" of the scheme can be confirmed to you by anyone who is a senior player at one of Google's corporate customers, i.e. media agencies, but I've banged on about that on here ad nauseam, so I'll leave that to you if you are interested.
Most of the arguments I've read here are arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.
This may have been said already, but if a scheme is considered tax evasion then a criminal offence has been committed and should be prosecuted. If a scheme is considered tax avoidance then if this is against the spirit of legislation but still legal then the legislation is shit and should be amended to close the loophole.
Most of the examples given in the Panorama programmes (and I haven't seen all of it) seem to me to be underhand but still legal tax avoidance.
Most of the arguments I've read here are arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.
This may have been said already, but if a scheme is considered tax evasion then a criminal offence has been committed and should be prosecuted. If a scheme is considered tax avoidance then if this is against the spirit of legislation but still legal then the legislation is shit and should be amended to close the loophole.
Most of the examples given in the Panorama programmes (and I haven't seen all of it) seem to me to be underhand but still legal tax avoidance.
Or, (and perhaps in addition) HMRC needs to be beefed up with really top people recruited from the dark side, and told in no uncertain terms to concentrate on the big boys, and stop endlessly harassing plumbers.
And given that the biggest problems are trans-national, the UK government needs to be right at the front of the international effort to crack down. Which means firstly cracking down on our own grubby little islands and their political leaders, who in the case of the IOM are seen to be in way over their heads, and in the case of Bermuda, throughly nasty to boot (witness their PM's disgraceful personal attack on Margaret Hodge this week)
The Panorama programme last night was very poor in detail. The only one that was clear was MRS Brown's boys who presumably will now be subject to an investigation and the liable for the back tax and severe penalties and interest. If the facts of this are true it pure tax evasion. The Hamilton one was not that clear in what he was being accused of. Is it really the VAT, the personal use of the VAT or benefit which should be subject to income tax, wherever he is tax resident. The Apple one appears morally wrong but totally lacking in detail, probably all legal but morally wrong and very difficult to know how to stop. The others made very little sense and although there was a feeling something was up seemed put in more to sensationalise than inform.
Most of the arguments I've read here are arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.
This may have been said already, but if a scheme is considered tax evasion then a criminal offence has been committed and should be prosecuted. If a scheme is considered tax avoidance then if this is against the spirit of legislation but still legal then the legislation is shit and should be amended to close the loophole.
Most of the examples given in the Panorama programmes (and I haven't seen all of it) seem to me to be underhand but still legal tax avoidance.
Nail on head BM, I say if the scheme exists and you can avoid paying tax exploit it. However if you do not use a scheme and you owe tax then pay it, do not evade the issue.
There is also the fact that HMRC can retroactively name a scheme as being a vehicle to abuse tax avoidance loopholes and force the scheme and its clients to pay all the tax it has avoided.
The problem with this approach is that it takes HMRC so long to investigate these that many fall through the cracks. So just because something is legal now doesn't mean it is meant to be, nor that it should be just because HMRC simply lacks the resources to investigate every dodgy scheme.
There is also the fact that HMRC can retroactively name a scheme as being a vehicle to abuse tax avoidance loopholes and force the scheme and its clients to pay all the tax it has avoided.
The problem with this approach is that it takes HMRC so long to investigate these that many fall through the cracks. So just because something is legal now doesn't mean it is meant to be, nor that it should be just because HMRC simply lacks the resources to investigate every dodgy scheme.
Most of the "dodgy" schemes you may be referring to are usually run past HMRC before they are launched and all they say is that if (previous scheme ) x was ok then (new scheme ) y should be ok too. However, as you say, HMRC can then say it falls foul of the rules and deem it illegal.
There is also the fact that HMRC can retroactively name a scheme as being a vehicle to abuse tax avoidance loopholes and force the scheme and its clients to pay all the tax it has avoided.
The problem with this approach is that it takes HMRC so long to investigate these that many fall through the cracks. So just because something is legal now doesn't mean it is meant to be, nor that it should be just because HMRC simply lacks the resources to investigate every dodgy scheme.
Most of the "dodgy" schemes you may be referring to are usually run past HMRC before they are launched and all they say is that if (previous scheme ) x was ok then (new scheme ) y should be ok too. However, as you say, HMRC can then say it falls foul of the rules and deem it illegal.
Most of the dodgy schemes I refer to probably haven't been unearthed yet.
HMRC is beginning the unravel the mess that are the Eclipse film schemes. I very much doubt that they were cleared as they were managed by HMRC.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
Another solution is simplifying our tax system and lowering taxes so people don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
Another solution is simplifying our tax system and lowering taxes so people don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it.
Greedy c***ts awash with money don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it - it's their choice to evade it. How much money do some people need?
If the tax rate was 1% they'd still look at avoiding it. I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not - the pathetic apologists for them is just as bad.
The tax system is a joke and won't be reformed because it benefits the super rich who can employ tax advisers to shovel off their money to a tax haven.
Wankers like Lewis Hamilton can wrap themselves in the Union Jack whilst living in Monaco to evade tax.
The Governments have no interest in simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes that their friends benefit from.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
Another solution is simplifying our tax system and lowering taxes so people don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it.
Greedy c***ts awash with money don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it - it's their choice to evade it. How much money do some people need?
If the tax rate was 1% they'd still look at avoiding it. I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not - the pathetic apologists for them is just as bad.
The tax system is a joke and won't be reformed because it benefits the super rich who can employ tax advisers to shovel off their money to a tax haven.
Wankers like Lewis Hamilton can wrap themselves in the Union Jack whilst living in Monaco to evade tax.
The Governments have no interest in simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes that their friends benefit from.
Blimey, you don't like Hamilton do you! Not quite sure exactly what he's done wrong, other than choose to live outside of the UK much like many of the rich and famous do, I wonder why they do that? No changes to the Uk tax system would have any effect on that scenario.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
Another solution is simplifying our tax system and lowering taxes so people don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it.
Greedy c***ts awash with money don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it - it's their choice to evade it. How much money do some people need?
If the tax rate was 1% they'd still look at avoiding it. I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not - the pathetic apologists for them is just as bad.
The tax system is a joke and won't be reformed because it benefits the super rich who can employ tax advisers to shovel off their money to a tax haven.
Wankers like Lewis Hamilton can wrap themselves in the Union Jack whilst living in Monaco to evade tax.
The Governments have no interest in simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes that their friends benefit from.
"I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not"
Like i said before, the solution is the socialist elite abandoning the rule of law to decide themselves who pays tax.
I'm not an apologist for anyone, but clearly you think the wealthy should be apologising to you because you're shit green with envy you aren't rich. You avoid tax every day by not emigrating to Sweden where they pay much more tax than in the UK.
Hope you've opted out of your evil pension scheme that avoids paying tax by using offshore financial centres where it has a choice. Hope you don't take any of it in cash tax free.
Apart from being rich, (and paying over 60% of UK income tax), what's the issue with choosing not to bear tax if the tax laws don't require it?
Please suggest your solution for getting more tax from people who can choose where they live and where they spend and invest their money.
You choose to ignore the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, because you have so much jealousy and hate to spew out, but evasion is illegal, and you don't evade UK tax by sending it overseas, because every UK account holder's details are sent back to HMRC so they have to declare it for UK tax.
Presumably if you had Lewis Hamilton's wealth you would live in small flat in Bradford, drive a second hand hatchback and give everything to the government - if not, at what stage do you become a wanker?
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Just to say that I have no agenda whatsoever though I do wonder if you are an accountant/tax adviser/owner of a company that seeks to use these vehicles.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
No none of those, unless, you mean, like you I have a pension.
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
Another solution is simplifying our tax system and lowering taxes so people don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it.
Greedy c***ts awash with money don't need to send their capital abroad to hide it - it's their choice to evade it. How much money do some people need?
If the tax rate was 1% they'd still look at avoiding it. I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not - the pathetic apologists for them is just as bad.
The tax system is a joke and won't be reformed because it benefits the super rich who can employ tax advisers to shovel off their money to a tax haven.
Wankers like Lewis Hamilton can wrap themselves in the Union Jack whilst living in Monaco to evade tax.
The Governments have no interest in simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes that their friends benefit from.
So much of what you've said is so silly it does not merit a response. But the "how much money do some people need" question caught my attention.
What if you win the lottery? Say a nice £10mn. Well, you'd want a lovely new house; a Ferrari and a full fat Overfinch or maybe a Benteyga; probably a holiday home; maybe a yacht; you'd fly everywhere first class; stay in the poshest of posh 5* hotels; and drink Perrier-Jouët Belle Epoque 2008 as if it were lemonade. Oh, and the daughter would want a pony and need somewhere to keep it and someone to look after it.
But what with running costs and depreciation, you'd soon find your 10 mill had evaporated. I reckon to get yourself properly sorted out you need somewhere around £100mn at least.
Which is interesting. It means you can have a pretty good life on, say, a couple of million or you need eight zeros, minimum. All the figures in between are no good to man nor beast and will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction and despair.
Comments
Anyway I'm on a roll now. The BBC's main building Media City in Salford Quays is owned by a company called The Peel Group. (We all know where Peel is, right? It's not rocket science.)
Peel has an interesting structure. John Whitaker, is the chairman of Peel, which is wholly owned by an IoM company called Tokenhouse. We don't know why the Beeb decided to pay Peel £400mn rent over the period of the lease rather than find another site do we? Anyway Whitaker's family owns 75% of the Group with the rest belonging to a Saudi outfit.
Mr Whitaker himself has a decent little pad on The Isle of Man called Billown Mansion. It's available to hire for movie filming, which is nice. https://isleofmanfilm.com/location/billown/
Being IoM domiciled, if he's got any sense, he won't be paying much tax on the dividends earned from rental income from the BBC. I'm looking forward to seeing a Panorama reporter doorstepping him...but I'm not holding my breath!
Here's an article about them from 2014 heraldscotland.com/news/13150676.Revealed__how_the_company_regenerating_the_Clyde_pays_as_little_tax_as_possible/
Are you sure you understand what it means?
My "arguments"are refuting the view quite clearly implied that only government spending benefits society and all rich people try and limit their contribution to society. What am I refuting that was not put down in the post?
I'm not on a crusade to promote tax avoidance, I'm just calling out bigotry.
@Dippenhall , as for Louis Hamilton, I understand that you want us to think of his plane as just his version of a company car. In that case, do you know whether our Louis is paying income tax on the private use of his company vehicle, as company car drivers in virtually every EU country now have to do?
Anyway, for a real scandal you only have to go back to HMRC selling off their entire property portfolio to a tax haven company (Mapeley). You really couldn't make that up!
Your opponent's argument highlighted the corruptness and lack of morality of people who take active steps, available to them because of their wealth and access to experts who can set up these schemes, to avoid the tax everyone else has to pay.
You gave the impression of refuting his argument by refuting an argument that was not presented i.e. that only tax raised and spent by government contributes to society.
All those "benefits" you mention are very laudable. I wonder what percentage of those companies profits are utilised for the benefit of charities vs the tax saved through avoidance/evasion.
But let's suppose that those companies did contribute all that they were expected to rather than using tax shelters to avoid/evade doing so? Would they not have a business to run? Would society be better or worse off?
For a little while I ran a small business so I am aware of the VAT rules on business expenses. Rather than provide anecdotal evidence I provided the definitive clause. I know that after Brexit and Trump we live in a post fact world but in my world I still like to back up my arguments with facts and quotes from experts.
I think you don't understand the issue that was being raised by the programme. I have only seen clips but my understanding is that the Lewis Hamilton issue was that he avoided over £3 million in VAT by claiming the jet was for business purposes only and yet there are photos on instagram showing him leaving the jet with friends at various holiday destinations with text clearly stating the fact they were on holiday.
But then you say think I don't understand the issue, but admit you have only seen clips of the programme. I do understand the issue, completely, which is why I can offer an informed opinion that the programme muddled up certain "facts", either deliberately or not, which actually misleads people into thinking it has said things that it hasn't.
Like the fact that LH somehow "avoided" paying VAT, when his company in fact paid over £3million in VAT, which they Manx Customs then refunded, because thems the rules!
as I said, this particular "story" really is a Red Herring and they clearly only chucked it into the programme to add a bit of "glamour" - why else keep mentioning his girlfriend (at the time).
The other non-celebrity bits were the really interesting stories, but that's not as exciting and doesnt bring in the ratings!
Touché!
I've also never, anywhere, sought to defend Google, simply because I don't actually know exactly what they do or what they have said to HMRC - aside from reading the transcripts of their appearances before the Commons Select Committee and coming to the conclusion that some of the people putting the questions were complete fuckwits who clearly didn't understand the issues themselves. Google must've been pissing themselves after that shambles.
Aside from the BBC, the Guardian's owners make much use of the very same creative money shuffling they highlight as being morally wrong. And really if these are the people supposedly leading the charge against abusive tax avoidance what hope do we really have of ever sorting this problem out? Of course the second the Graun does decide to pay the tax it would have paid if not for its offshore business it will go out of business. It's a fuckers' game, you either play or you lose.
There is another issue, which is for another thread, and that is: why do large corporations think it is okay to make such huge profits and why do us consumers put up with it? The problem is, companies like Apple provide goods that people want to buy at the prices Apple want to charge...
Google. Actually if you don't know how the Google Europe tax scheme works, you might enjoy the BBC doc. "The Town that took on the Taxman" (Unfortunately that link is only to an article about the programme. All YouTube videos of it were being blocked when I searched for it a few weeks ago). Of course the shopowners had to pay people to help them set up the scheme, that's why they clubbed together. Well worth a watch, I kept a DVD. The "front end" of the scheme can be confirmed to you by anyone who is a senior player at one of Google's corporate customers, i.e. media agencies, but I've banged on about that on here ad nauseam, so I'll leave that to you if you are interested.
This may have been said already, but if a scheme is considered tax evasion then a criminal offence has been committed and should be prosecuted. If a scheme is considered tax avoidance then if this is against the spirit of legislation but still legal then the legislation is shit and should be amended to close the loophole.
Most of the examples given in the Panorama programmes (and I haven't seen all of it) seem to me to be underhand but still legal tax avoidance.
And given that the biggest problems are trans-national, the UK government needs to be right at the front of the international effort to crack down. Which means firstly cracking down on our own grubby little islands and their political leaders, who in the case of the IOM are seen to be in way over their heads, and in the case of Bermuda, throughly nasty to boot (witness their PM's disgraceful personal attack on Margaret Hodge this week)
The Hamilton one was not that clear in what he was being accused of. Is it really the VAT, the personal use of the VAT or benefit which should be subject to income tax, wherever he is tax resident.
The Apple one appears morally wrong but totally lacking in detail, probably all legal but morally wrong and very difficult to know how to stop.
The others made very little sense and although there was a feeling something was up seemed put in more to sensationalise than inform.
The problem with this approach is that it takes HMRC so long to investigate these that many fall through the cracks. So just because something is legal now doesn't mean it is meant to be, nor that it should be just because HMRC simply lacks the resources to investigate every dodgy scheme.
HMRC is beginning the unravel the mess that are the Eclipse film schemes. I very much doubt that they were cleared as they were managed by HMRC.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/margaret-hodge-benefited-from-tax-haven
and
http://www.royalgazette.com/business/article/20160413/bbc-pension-fund-invested-with-bermuda-firm
and
https://order-order.com/2017/11/06/mcdonnell-and-guardians-offshore-investments/
Isn't hypocrisy wonderful?
You ask why does anyone "seek to use these vehicles" and the answer is the same reason you might shop in Amazon to find the best deal, or why on holiday you bring back some duty-free booze. If you wait until you return to the UK to pay duty on your booze instead of paying less duty to the foreign tax authorities, if you want to pay top dollar for everything on the basis you ensure you pay the most VAT, then you are in a position to moralise.
Investing is just buying money, albeit you don't know exactly what you are going to get, but just like you, it is normal, legal and reasonable to buy what you want at the lowest price to optimise how much you pay for the commodity.
Offshore tax "havens" are simply States that have a different tax regime because they have a small public sector budget and need less tax revenue. It creates potential for arbitrage between using one state or another for services or commodities that bear low taxes and therefore are cheaper, just like you can arbitrage between a black cab and Uber which have different technologies and pricing. The difference being that there is no cost of arbitrage between cabs but a significant cost for accessing foreign services and products that comply with local law, so that limits access to only those that can afford to. Pension funds and collective vehicles allow access to investment services arbitrage by sharing the cost of access to optimise net returns. So the dumb idea that people should check what their pension fund is doing and complain, is not dumb as long as every other purchasing choice you make in life is centred around how much tax you must avoid avoiding.
The solution to the perceived outrage at saving money by choosing not to buy a service or product that attracts UK tax is easily solved. We have a socialist authoritarian regime on the lines of a Russian or Chinese system that controls who has access to capital, what it can be used for and who can use it. Of course, the socialist elite in power would not abuse their position to maximise their wealth simply because they were not accountable to a higher judiciary. Another option to ensure taxes are "fair" is to cancel all tax laws and let the government handle your bank account and take out what tax they need for anything they want to spend it on.
The only solution to the tax haven "problem" apart from vaporising envy, involves undermining democratic principles.
If the tax rate was 1% they'd still look at avoiding it. I'm sick to death of billionaires and global corporations evading tax whether what they do is legal or not - the pathetic apologists for them is just as bad.
The tax system is a joke and won't be reformed because it benefits the super rich who can employ tax advisers to shovel off their money to a tax haven.
Wankers like Lewis Hamilton can wrap themselves in the Union Jack whilst living in Monaco to evade tax.
The Governments have no interest in simplifying the tax system and closing loopholes that their friends benefit from.
Like i said before, the solution is the socialist elite abandoning the rule of law to decide themselves who pays tax.
I'm not an apologist for anyone, but clearly you think the wealthy should be apologising to you because you're shit green with envy you aren't rich. You avoid tax every day by not emigrating to Sweden where they pay much more tax than in the UK.
Hope you've opted out of your evil pension scheme that avoids paying tax by using offshore financial centres where it has a choice. Hope you don't take any of it in cash tax free.
Apart from being rich, (and paying over 60% of UK income tax), what's the issue with choosing not to bear tax if the tax laws don't require it?
Please suggest your solution for getting more tax from people who can choose where they live and where they spend and invest their money.
You choose to ignore the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, because you have so much jealousy and hate to spew out, but evasion is illegal, and you don't evade UK tax by sending it overseas, because every UK account holder's details are sent back to HMRC so they have to declare it for UK tax.
Presumably if you had Lewis Hamilton's wealth you would live in small flat in Bradford, drive a second hand hatchback and give everything to the government - if not, at what stage do you become a wanker?
What if you win the lottery? Say a nice £10mn. Well, you'd want a lovely new house; a Ferrari and a full fat Overfinch or maybe a Benteyga; probably a holiday home; maybe a yacht; you'd fly everywhere first class; stay in the poshest of posh 5* hotels; and drink Perrier-Jouët Belle Epoque 2008 as if it were lemonade. Oh, and the daughter would want a pony and need somewhere to keep it and someone to look after it.
But what with running costs and depreciation, you'd soon find your 10 mill had evaporated. I reckon to get yourself properly sorted out you need somewhere around £100mn at least.
Which is interesting. It means you can have a pretty good life on, say, a couple of million or you need eight zeros, minimum. All the figures in between are no good to man nor beast and will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction and despair.