There's no such thing as society.

[festive]

I know a few contractors caught up in this and they knew exactly why they were doing it. The scheme had the legal advice of a Barrister but it was tenuous to say the least. In any case the money was loaned back to themselves and they never planned to ever pay the moneyu back. It was clear tax evasion because the legal advice did not hold up - that was the risk they knew.

When you are earning 150-200k and you are paying 7-9% in management fees- then for some the risk is worth it. The HMRC are chasing these guys up now. Imagine avoiding £75-100k a yr for about 5 plus yrs thats about half a million.

No G you're wrong that's avoidance, can we all just stop making up stuff and pointing the finger, i am finding this irritating today. Evasion is when you deny, you surpress income expand expenses etc, avoidance is when it's legal but using legal loopholes to avoid taxation. In this instance i believe these 'schemes' were acknowledged and notified to HMRC each year officially registered with DOTAS and then 6 7 8 years later HMRC think, hang on we're onto something here we could change law i dont like the sound of this lets call it evasion. George Osborne yes that Tory that lets the rich people tax evade! Instigated the loan charge ruling to capture everyone.

Switching to purchasing sugar free drinks(tax free) to minimise tax overheads, instead of sugar drinks is that tax evasion or avoidance? Is that illegal?

Anyway yes it's the risk they took but at the same time as IDS was pointing out there were QC standard approvals wrapped up in these schemes selling it to people as umbrella tax management proclaimed legal, i had a quick google and it seems some challenges have been lost by HMRC , so instead HMRC added this loan charge ruling to get them another way, how far do you go when you have such power to act in an immoral manner yourself? I agree these schemes are immoral also but were not illegal. I think it shows every government is out to screw everyone over, unless you are completely beyond untouchable, my number one beef with authority.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

So you were on £200k 15 yrs ago.

Not quite, but I was invited on the scheme.

 

[durhamplumber]

You're talking about a scheme where people put their earnings offshore, then had the money paid to them, and pretended it was a "loan" (which they never paid back).

Let's think...

You are a plumber and unblock a toilet for £1,000. You ask the client to write a cheque for £1,000 to "Festering Drains (Virgin Islands) Ltd"

You pay his £1,000 cheque into the Virgin Islands account.

You then write a £1,000 cheque on the Virgin islands account, payable to yourself.

Somebody says "what did you get paid for unblocking that toilet?"

You say "nothing"

You then spend the £1,000.

You pay no tax and no national Insurance.

You are a tax dodging crook and have no-one to blame but yourself when, eventually, you are caught.

If, seriously, you are surprised when you are eventually caught, you are also an idiot.

See the cretinous analogies are still around.

 

[SirGalahad]

No G you're wrong that's avoidance, can we all just stop making up stuff and pointing the finger, i am finding this irritating today. Evasion is when you deny, you surpress income expand expenses etc, avoidance is when it's legal but using legal loopholes to avoid taxation. In this instance i believe these 'schemes' were acknowledged and notified to HMRC each year officially registered with DOTAS and then 6 7 8 years later HMRC think, hang on we're onto something here we could change law i dont like the sound of this lets call it evasion. George Osborne yes that Tory that lets the rich people tax evade! Instigated the loan charge ruling to capture everyone.

Switching to purchasing sugar free drinks(tax free) to minimise tax overheads, instead of sugar drinks is that tax evasion or avoidance? Is that illegal?

Anyway yes it's the risk they took but at the same time as IDS was pointing out there were QC standard approvals wrapped up in these schemes selling it to people as umbrella tax management proclaimed legal, i had a quick google and it seems some challenges have been lost by HMRC , so instead HMRC added this loan charge ruling to get them another way, how far do you go when you have such power to act in an immoral manner yourself? I agree these schemes are immoral also but were not illegal. I think it shows every government is out to screw everyone over, unless you are completely beyond untouchable, my number one beef with authority.

I know the difference between avoidance and evasion. As I pointed out the Barrister opinion was just that - it was no legal judgement so you were going on his opinion - no doubt I could have found a barrister with a contrary opinion. There are avoidance schemes which are based on flimsy interpretations and it requires a judge to test them in court where soon you find that they are actually tax evasion.

The people I know, knew the potential risks but went ahead with it. So trying to defend them is some weird way to make a point. When the HMRC is overstepping its remit then sure they need to be reigned in, but in this case it was always on flimsy ground. They never intended to pay the loans back - isn't that enough of a warning signal.

Now where you have a stronger case against the HMRC is the sweetheart tax deals with the big corporations - unless he has said something I haven't seen IDS criticise that.

Time for LVT.

 

[noseall]

Time for LVT.

I seem to remember LWT and the little jingle that went with it.

 

[festive]

I seem to remember LWT and the little jingle that went with it.

I think its you who deserves to be Sir around these general discussions with the absolute invaluable byte size snippets you contribute here, thanks again.

 

[noseall]

I think its you who deserves to be Sir around these general discussions with the absolute invaluable byte size snippets you contribute here, thanks again.

Sorry boyo but I can't top this....

You're talking about a scheme where people put their earnings offshore, then had the money paid to them, and pretended it was a "loan" (which they never paid back).

Let's think...

You are a plumber and unblock a toilet for £1,000. You ask the client to write a cheque for £1,000 to "Festering Drains (Virgin Islands) Ltd"

You pay his £1,000 cheque into the Virgin Islands account.

You then write a £1,000 cheque on the Virgin islands account, payable to yourself.

Somebody says "what did you get paid for unblocking that toilet?"

You say "nothing"

You then spend the £1,000.

You pay no tax and no national Insurance.

You are a tax dodging crook and have no-one to blame but yourself when, eventually, you are caught.

If, seriously, you are surprised when you are eventually caught, you are also an idiot.

​

 

[festive]

I know the difference between avoidance and evasion. As I pointed out the Barrister opinion was just that - it was no legal judgement so you were going on his opinion - no doubt I could have found a barrister with a contrary opinion. There are avoidance schemes which are based on flimsy interpretations and it requires a judge to test them in court where soon you find that they are actually tax evasion.

The people I know, knew the potential risks but went ahead with it. So trying to defend them is some weird way to make a point. When the HMRC is overstepping its remit then sure they need to be reigned in, but in this case it was always on flimsy ground. They never intended to pay the loans back - isn't that enough of a warning signal.

Now where you have a stronger case against the HMRC is the sweetheart tax deals with the big corporations - unless he has said something I haven't seen IDS criticise that.

Time for LVT.

I think youll find HMRC are overstepping re loan charge, sounds pretty nasty stuff, but no not defending but at the same time i don't like to see anyone bullied by authorities when they haven't actually broken the law, there's the risks but it seems the companies pushing these schemes were absolutely adamant it was all legitimate.
And that's what gets my goat even more, HMRC go for the lowest hanging fruit but leave the likes of these avoidance companies, Starbucks, Vodafone etc to make a mockery of our UK tax laws. Friends in high places or just not enough money to take on the big law firms, its well known people from the likes of PWC and HMRC trade places and loopholes.

LVT? Large Vaginal Transplant?

 

[festive]

Sorry boyo but I can't top this....

​

ok you got me there

 

[SirGalahad]

I think youll find HMRC are overstepping re loan charge, sounds pretty nasty stuff, but no not defending but at the same time i don't like to see anyone bullied by authorities when they haven't actually broken the law, there's the risks but it seems the companies pushing these schemes were absolutely adamant it was all legitimate.
And that's what gets my goat even more, HMRC go for the lowest hanging fruit but leave the likes of these avoidance companies, Starbucks, Vodafone etc to make a mockery of our UK tax laws. Friends in high places or just not enough money to take on the big law firms, its well known people from the likes of PWC and HMRC trade places and loopholes.

LVT? Large Vaginal Transplant?

Well the guys signed up to a scheme and the scheme was saving them collectively millions and individually probably half a million over the course of the years they ran. I agree the HMRC finds it easier to go after individuals and I know some who are now sick from the threat of having to pay the money with interest.

The companies pushing it made them all sign disclaimers - even they knew at the time it was less than watertight. Now if the amounts had been way smaller -in the few thousands then I don't thinik the HMRC would have the resources to chase them but the HMRC in chasing these guys wants to send a signal.

Well when they propose new Tax laws and ask for advice from experts the experts already know how to avoid the Tax laws they propose. So it's one big scam where the barriers for entry is raised each and every time.

 

[Notch7]

LVT? Large Vaginal Transplant?

Was it painful?

 

[JohnD]

No-one with the brains of a gnat could seriously have expected to get away with it.

 

[Notch7]

Starbucks, Vodafone etc to make a mockery of our UK tax laws

Yes, its lucky we are members of the EU -they have the power to make google and the like cough up