I Disagree. He may have been a tosser when at Charlton but as a pundit I would have him over Savage, Mills or Lawrenson any day.
Yes, he's surprisingly good as a pundit.
It'll be interesting who else is caught up in this, I have a bit of sympathy with the players, as the advisors no doubt told them that the scheme was perfectly legal and would cause no issues down the line. These advisors got very well paid to give the players expert advice, on whether these schemes would save tax or just defer it to a later date.
Most people try to pay as little tax as possible. As obscene as this seems, being £2.5m and all, the truth is that he earned a lot of money so he is trying to save more than you or I would do. Every time we go to France to stock up on booze and/or cigarettes we are doing so to pay less tax, the same applies to ISAs that are exempt of tax. He earned so much (which is a different discussion, completely) he just needed different schemes to keep his tax bill down.
He hasn't broken the law, he just found out that the scheme he was using is not eligible.
I, personally, consider benefit cheats and those that won't work but keep claiming money as far worse, even if the sums, on an individual bases, are less.
I, personally, consider benefit cheats and those that won't work but keep claiming money as far worse, even if the sums, on an individual bases, are less.
There are many more tax cheats in this country than benefit cheats, KHA.
To be fair he probably didn't think he was "bending" the law and at the time had good reason to think he wasn't. The government often brings in schemes to encourage people to do certain thinks and they do this by giving tax breaks. The most obvious are pensions and ISAS but there are others. The government did want people to invest in film industry and gave certain reliefs. However as is always with a lot of type of things, there is always a grey area as to what is and what isn't covered. Certain institutions set up schemes in this grey area. They are quite often supported by views from legal counsel. However because it's grey there is room for challenge by HMRC and their legal counsel has supported their view. Over the years I have seen many tax avoidance schemes, in my work rather than personal, many just don't feel right, look to challenge and wouldn't be worth the risk. A professional footballer is probably not in a position to make that judgement if he has a "close to wire" adviser. Having said all that it is right that HMRC should be seeking every penny for failed schemes even id it means bankrupting people. If only to send out the message for others to be diligent in future
good summary. I really wish people would not go on about ISAs as an example of tax avoidance that everyone does, so therefore all tax avoidance is alright. The difference is that ISAs are a result of an act of Parliament where the government actively wanted the population to do certain things, in terms to fulfil the wishes of the electorate. As you say, the film industry tax breaks are a grey area. Some are outright black areas, such as the corporate issues with the likes of Amazon.
The real villains are the advisers, be they the shady individuals who advised footballers, or the big consultancies who advise Amazon and the like. And they always get away with it.
Just a reminder. Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal.
People have the right to arrange their affairs to best advantage to avoid tax. What they do not have the right to do is evade tax by not declaring sources of income etc.
I, personally, consider benefit cheats and those that won't work but keep claiming money as far worse, even if the sums, on an individual bases, are less.
There are many more tax cheats in this country than benefit cheats, KHA.
But then it depends what newspaper you read.
Benefit fraud costs the UK circa £1.3b per annum. To put that in context UK losses to scam mailings account for more than £3b a year and the treasury "lost" out around £6b due to the sweetheart deal Vodaphone struck with HMRC a few years back. Benefit fraud is obviously wrong but then so is doing whatever you can, right up to the debatable legal boundaries, to avoid paying your share of tax to the extent that some companies and individuals do.
if any of you lot were millionaires you'd do same and try and avoid tax where possible and dont lie and say you wouldnt so get off your high horses
YOU would do it, please don't presume that you speak for everyone.
Your morals are different to mine, that's not a criticism, I am not judging you; so please don't call me a liar, it's very rude.
So if you were advised that putting your money in a film scheme would be a way of potentially reducing your tax bill you wouldn't do it (which is clearly what has happened in Murphys case)
Or if you set up as a limited company and rather than pay yourself PAYE you could draw money out at a lower tax rate in the form of a dividend you'd take the more expensive route of PAYE for yourself ....madness
I think avoid sounds worse than pay the minimal amount of tax due which arises because of all the different ways to draw income
and after a huge and successful life earning squillions and paying squillions in tax you'll be more than happy once you've passed away paying another 40% tax on all that you have earnt before it gets passed on your next of kin
The scheme just about sums up the notion that the more you earn the less you want to give. Should have just paid the tax on the enormous sums they were earning. I have no sympathy for those that will now be in dire straits financially.
"Or if you set up as a limited company and rather than pay yourself PAYE you could draw money out at a lower tax rate in the form of a dividend you'd take the more expensive route of PAYE for yourself ....madness"
The choice isn't that simple. One compelling reason in your example to be paid as an employee is that you could then set up a company pension for yourself. Your company pay in 100% of your salary equivalent. it's a tax deductible expense to the company, so you save on possible corporation tax.and get the pension allowance on your personal tax. The government approves of this because it wants people to make personal provision for their pensions as the State will not be able to do it alone as people expect in future.
"Or if you set up as a limited company and rather than pay yourself PAYE you could draw money out at a lower tax rate in the form of a dividend you'd take the more expensive route of PAYE for yourself ....madness"
The choice isn't that simple. One compelling reason in your example to be paid as an employee is that you could then set up a company pension for yourself. Your company pay in 100% of your salary equivalent. it's a tax deductible expense to the company, so you save on possible corporation tax.and get the pension allowance on your personal tax. The government approves of this because it wants people to make personal provision for their pensions as the State will not be able to do it alone as people expect in future.
I'm freelance and do both of these things. I minimise my tax - but am happy to pay what I legally have to. I don't evade tax but do avoid paying what I don't have to. By being freelance I take certain risks over being a 'regular PAYE employee' - like having periods without work. That's part of the trade off. Incidentally the government removed the ceiling of only putting 100% of salary into your pension. You can now put in more - but it must be 'reasonable' - i.e. they take a dim view of reducing your corporation tax to zero....
I would have thought he could claim against his advisers.
no Len
well at least not for anything more possibly than what he paid them in fees and ,maybe ,interest on tax that he would have paid but for their advice .The fact that their advice might have been wrong that there was a scheme that he could employ to possibly avoid tax doesn't affect his primary obligation to pay tax. He cannot look to them for an indemnity for the liability to HMRC that he always had in the first place.Well that is what I would advize them in defence to a claim for negligence or breach of contract .
If there was however an alternative arrangement that would have worked and that they ought to have advised him on but falied to do so then he might get somewhere .Well that is what I would advise him in respect of the pursuit of a professional negligence or breach of contract claim .
To tell you the truth I wouldn't care whom I advised as long as I got paid .
I would have thought he could claim against his advisers.
no Len
well at least not for anything more possibly than what he paid them in fees and ,maybe ,interest on tax that he would have paid but for their advice .The fact that their advice might have been wrong that there was a scheme that he could employ to possibly avoid tax doesn't affect his primary obligation to pay tax. He cannot look to them for an indemnity for the liability to HMRC that he always had in the first place.Well that is what I would advize them in defence to a claim for negligence or breach of contract .
If there was however an alternative arrangement that would have worked and that they ought to have advised him on but falied to do so then he might get somewhere .Well that is what I would advise him in respect of the pursuit of a professional negligence or breach of contract claim .
To tell you the truth I wouldn't care whom I advised as long as I got paid .
One needs to know exactly what he was advised of course in this specific case but there is certainly a general precedent for accountants and other professionals being successfully sued for damages (eg unscheduled tax liabilities having acted on their advice) for incorrect or negligent advice.
That is why such firms have professional indemnity insurance.
and after a huge and successful life earning squillions and paying squillions in tax you'll be more than happy once you've passed away paying another 40% tax on all that you have earnt before it gets passed on your next of kin
Well I'll be dead, so I won't care. And it's not 40% on all that I've earned, it's 40% of the amount above whatever the threshhold is these days, which is pretty damn high. Inheritance is just unearned income, so we could just tax it in the same way, but that'd make probate an even longer and more unwieldy process. Would you rather that instead?
and after a huge and successful life earning squillions and paying squillions in tax you'll be more than happy once you've passed away paying another 40% tax on all that you have earnt before it gets passed on your next of kin
Well I'll be dead, so I won't care. And it's not 40% on all that I've earned, it's 40% of the amount above whatever the threshhold is these days, which is pretty damn high. Inheritance is just unearned income, so we could just tax it in the same way, but that'd make probate an even longer and more unwieldy process. Would you rather that instead?
Yep I worded that wrongly .... Surely you'd care about your loved ones left behind, who you'd be trying to give a leg up to I think it should be tax free to the people it's passed down to as a gift The inheritance threshold is 40% on anything above £325k
Got a season ticket loan, childcare vouchers, and a work pension all before tax. I tend to see this as different to giving cash in hand to tradesmen (which I don't do) or seek out other tax avoidance schemes. They are all on the same spectrum I admit. I think I'll draw the line at government approved schemes. They know what's right and wrong
and after a huge and successful life earning squillions and paying squillions in tax you'll be more than happy once you've passed away paying another 40% tax on all that you have earnt before it gets passed on your next of kin
Well I'll be dead, so I won't care. And it's not 40% on all that I've earned, it's 40% of the amount above whatever the threshhold is these days, which is pretty damn high. Inheritance is just unearned income, so we could just tax it in the same way, but that'd make probate an even longer and more unwieldy process. Would you rather that instead?
Yep I worded that wrongly .... Surely you'd care about your loved ones left behind, who you'd be trying to give a leg up to I think it should be tax free to the people it's passed down to as a gift The inheritance threshold is 40% on anything above £325k
I think there is a strong case to abolish inheritance tax. It is avoided by those with huge estates because they also have the resources to set up complex avoidance schemes. So as usual the burden falls on the little guy. The rise in property prices means many people of very modest other means get caught in the net. Or maybe better to raise the ceiling high,perhaps £2m but remove all exemptions and get tough.
Actually we need to simplify our tax regime right across the board. Then we could slim down HMRC itself, employ fewer, smarter better, paid people, with much greater powers, but less discretion to let people (and especially companies) off.
Comments
It'll be interesting who else is caught up in this, I have a bit of sympathy with the players, as the advisors no doubt told them that the scheme was perfectly legal and would cause no issues down the line. These advisors got very well paid to give the players expert advice, on whether these schemes would save tax or just defer it to a later date.
Your morals are different to mine, that's not a criticism, I am not judging you; so please don't call me a liar, it's very rude.
But then it depends what newspaper you read.
The real villains are the advisers, be they the shady individuals who advised footballers, or the big consultancies who advise Amazon and the like. And they always get away with it.
People have the right to arrange their affairs to best advantage to avoid tax. What they do not have the right to do is evade tax by not declaring sources of income etc.
Or if you set up as a limited company and rather than pay yourself PAYE you could draw money out at a lower tax rate in the form of a dividend you'd take the more expensive route of PAYE for yourself ....madness
I think avoid sounds worse than pay the minimal amount of tax due which arises because of all the different ways to draw income
and after a huge and successful life earning squillions and paying squillions in tax you'll be more than happy once you've passed away paying another 40% tax on all that you have earnt before it gets passed on your next of kin
Sadly, I can't ever see it happening though.
"Or if you set up as a limited company and rather than pay yourself PAYE you could draw money out at a lower tax rate in the form of a dividend you'd take the more expensive route of PAYE for yourself ....madness"
The choice isn't that simple. One compelling reason in your example to be paid as an employee is that you could then set up a company pension for yourself. Your company pay in 100% of your salary equivalent. it's a tax deductible expense to the company, so you save on possible corporation tax.and get the pension allowance on your personal tax. The government approves of this because it wants people to make personal provision for their pensions as the State will not be able to do it alone as people expect in future.
well at least not for anything more possibly than what he paid them in fees and ,maybe ,interest on tax that he would have paid but for their advice .The fact that their advice might have been wrong that there was a scheme that he could employ to possibly avoid tax doesn't affect his primary obligation to pay tax. He cannot look to them for an indemnity for the liability to HMRC that he always had in the first place.Well that is what I would advize them in defence to a claim for negligence or breach of contract .
If there was however an alternative arrangement that would have worked and that they ought to have advised him on but falied to do so then he might get somewhere .Well that is what I would advise him in respect of the pursuit of a professional negligence or breach of contract claim .
To tell you the truth I wouldn't care whom I advised as long as I got paid .
That is why such firms have professional indemnity insurance.
I save nearly 100 quid a month on my tax bill by buying Childcare Vouchers which come out of my salary before tax.
I am scum.
Bless him !
Surely you'd care about your loved ones left behind, who you'd be trying to give a leg up to
I think it should be tax free to the people it's passed down to as a gift
The inheritance threshold is 40% on anything above £325k
Actually we need to simplify our tax regime right across the board. Then we could slim down HMRC itself, employ fewer, smarter better, paid people, with much greater powers, but less discretion to let people (and especially companies) off.