Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
prozac

Thousands of workers hit with massive tax avoidance bills

Recommended Posts

On 28/02/2019 at 15:27, tm_81 said:

Actually, if they were solicitors OR registered financial services professionals, and they offered their professional opinion that this is legal, it could well be the grounds for a professional negligence claim.

Here is a similar precedent https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-008-5000

in this case, they didn't claim early enough (within six years), but it would have been a valid claim otherwise.

 

But HMRC had to get legislation in place to go back to 1999. When the advice was given it was probably 'sound'. Besides I'd expect the original advice to be filled with caveats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2019 at 14:48, Fletcher said:

******ing hell, Paul Lewis is still banging the bleeding heart drum for these scumbags. 

Money Box - The loan charge : Mel Stride interview - @bbcradio4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002ycr

Sounds to me like Paul I'm a Leftie Lewis has got some personal interest in this issue, not directly his own but probably either current or former colleagues or friends or both. He doth protest too much.

Quite unbelievable how anyone can attempt to mount any kind of sob story defence of these tax dodging scumbags but I guess if anyone's gonna do it it's gonna be a Leftie 😂

Liberal leftie. More like capitalism extreme advocating wealthy tax dodges keep their money...depends on your own slant on politics. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to a contractor today who has earned a lot over past 2 years to see if he was impacted. He wasn’t but his response was interesting. 

He said he knew about it, that many journalists were impacted and the BBC were discussing the matter with HMRC. (That is year day though....but interesting) 

I wonder if that’s the BBC bias we are seeing in Paul Lewis....on behalf of colleagues impacted??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make sense, yes.

I've now hear the second episode's "report". He was bigging it up more than it actually is, I hope. Said that questions had been asked. Sure, you asked them mate!

I was delighted that the government minister stood firm:

  • "The important point here is that if you owe £700,000 , that relates to an income of £1.75 MILLION that's gone through a tax avoidance scheme" [i.e. what did they do with the money?]
  • The average person caught is earning around £70K. Average! So there's a lot of very rich people being caught (cue the Londoners saying that £70K isn't really very much).
  • "We're doing what we can to be as helpful and sympathetic and measured about this as possible". And he points out that they aren't even being given a penalty! This is just being collected from these fraudsters without even a penalty!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002ycr

You can hear Leftie Lewis huffing and puffing and getting exasperated that he was losing the argument. GOOD.

 

It was also mentioned in yesterday's PMQ's:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-03-06/debates/F1381E13-33A6-4A4F-9F12-D383B0F1F6D8/Engagements#contribution-66329F06-E888-4A06-BF38-00DA2F4CA50F

Quote

Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)

Last week, MPs heard harrowing testimony from family members of a man who tragically committed suicide because he faced the loan charge, a 20-year retrospective tax facing thousands of families in my constituency and across the UK. On 9 January the Prime Minister said that the Government accepted the review into the loan charge, yet the all-party group on the loan charge was only advised this week by the Treasury that there is no such review. The Treasury has acted in bad faith, so will my right hon. Friend now personally intervene to ensure a genuine review and an urgent delay of the loan charge, so that the review, as promised, can be carried out?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend raises an issue which is of concern not only to his constituents but others’ across the House. I will ensure that he receives a response from the Treasury that sets out exactly what is being done in the review that is taking place.

 

It's not a retrospective tax. That would mean the rules have changed such that the government goes back in time and applies new rules to past income.

But this is applying the standard rules to past income. It's collecting tax money that's very late that should have been paid. This is a common lie told be the people who have been caught.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Spoke to a contractor today who has earned a lot over past 2 years to see if he was impacted. He wasn’t but his response was interesting. 

He said he knew about it, that many journalists were impacted and the BBC were discussing the matter with HMRC. (That is year day though....but interesting) 

I wonder if that’s the BBC bias we are seeing in Paul Lewis....on behalf of colleagues impacted??

He probably is impacted - the BBC moved a lot of presenters off payroll and pointed them at accountants who said they were outside IR35 see https://www.bbc.co.uk/contributors/how-to-get-paid/ir35-information-on-air-contributors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

But this is applying the standard rules to past income. It's collecting tax money that's very late that should have been paid. This is a common lie told be the people who have been caught.

 

There is a technicality here in that HMRC legally only has a limited time to chase people up after a tax return is completed. For 2016/17 HMRC had until 31st Jan 2019 to chase things entered on a tax return.

The loan charge is HMRC's attempt to reclaim money that they should have been asking for up to 20 years ago.  While people really should have been paying the correct tax on the money they receive HMRC should equally have been chasing people for this money years ago rather than pulling tricks to reclaim it now.

Saying that I really don't have any sympathy for the people involved in most schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, hence the need for the new Law to allow them to collect missing tax.

But, they are just collecting missing tax. It's not a retrospective tax in the sense of a new, unexpected charge. The people who defrauded the taxpayer should know that they needed to spend their entire lives looking over their shoulder, for the day that would come when they would have to pay the money they own the British people.

The government has used its power to ensure that they are caught. The crooks who thought they could relax because they'd manage to "lose the cops who were chasing them", ie enough time had passed, and are now whining because they let their guard down, deserve all they get.

(Of course I have sympathy for the family of the guy who committed suicide, as any death is very sad, but that is not a reason to allow people not to pay what they owe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Houdini said:

He probably is impacted - the BBC moved a lot of presenters off payroll and pointed them at accountants who said they were outside IR35 see https://www.bbc.co.uk/contributors/how-to-get-paid/ir35-information-on-air-contributors

Yeah I thought I remembered something like that. I'll bet none of the highly paid DJs were getting paid as employees until very recently.. I'd be surprised if at least some of them weren't sailing close to the wind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 21:56, mrtickle said:

Indeed, hence the need for the new Law to allow them to collect missing tax.

But, they are just collecting missing tax. It's not a retrospective tax in the sense of a new, unexpected charge. The people who defrauded the taxpayer should know that they needed to spend their entire lives looking over their shoulder, for the day that would come when they would have to pay the money they own the British people.

The government has used its power to ensure that they are caught. The crooks who thought they could relax because they'd manage to "lose the cops who were chasing them", ie enough time had passed, and are now whining because they let their guard down, deserve all they get.

(Of course I have sympathy for the family of the guy who committed suicide, as any death is very sad, but that is not a reason to allow people not to pay what they owe)

 

The crooks are crowing victory: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mrtickle said:

 

The crooks are crowing victory: 

 

 

Not sure why. Theyve got a chance to ook at it again.

All that will happen will HMRC will give them slightly longer to pay back taxes

Story about a specific loan contactor company

https://www.ft.com/content/574fb29a-5085-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294

HMRC can go after names and numbers on this.

UKGOV not backing down.

https://www.ft.com/content/9f3b0838-4fb4-11e9-9c76-bf4a0ce37d49

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-on-time-limits-and-the-disguised-remuneration-loan-charge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 20:25, Pop321 said:

Spoke to a contractor today who has earned a lot over past 2 years to see if he was impacted. He wasn’t but his response was interesting. 

He said he knew about it, that many journalists were impacted and the BBC were discussing the matter with HMRC. (That is year day though....but interesting) 

I wonder if that’s the BBC bias we are seeing in Paul Lewis....on behalf of colleagues impacted??

What does seem unfair is the super rich avoid billions in tax.. you might not like these IT workers for dodging tax but you should be really angry 😡 that the super rich avoid billions in tax but will not be paying it back!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 21:18, Houdini said:

There is a technicality here in that HMRC legally only has a limited time to chase people up after a tax return is completed. For 2016/17 HMRC had until 31st Jan 2019 to chase things entered on a tax return.

The loan charge is HMRC's attempt to reclaim money that they should have been asking for up to 20 years ago.  While people really should have been paying the correct tax on the money they receive HMRC should equally have been chasing people for this money years ago rather than pulling tricks to reclaim it now.

Saying that I really don't have any sympathy for the people involved in most schemes.

The time limits only apply to income you have disclosed on your tax return.  My understanding of these schemes is that the "loans" would never have been shown on a tax return (the whole thrust of the scheme is that they were not "income").  As a result the previously filed returns are incomplete and the time limits on HMRC opening up old returns will not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, macca13 said:

What does seem unfair is the super rich avoid billions in tax.. you might not like these IT workers for dodging tax but you should be really angry 😡 that the super rich avoid billions in tax but will not be paying it back!  

Personally I'd start by abolishing the concept of domicile in UK law.  It would be a simple way to 'shake the tree' of non-domiciled tax avoiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, macca13 said:

What does seem unfair is the super rich avoid billions in tax.. you might not like these IT workers for dodging tax but you should be really angry 😡 that the super rich avoid billions in tax but will not be paying it back!  

Go after both. One does NOT depend on the other. The idea that we must pick only one is a false choice. Some people (not necessarily you) always seem to present them as alternatives and this is often in the phrasing.

I do not like these IT workers for dodging tax AND (not "but"), I am really angry that the super rich avoid billions ... etc.

 

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/03/2019 at 17:53, dragging boot straps said:

Downright theft. I'm hoping the treasury and parliament stand firm. If I know our mps however then I wonder how many of them had their snout in the trough. Vested interests galore no doubt. 

Every other post on my local Tory MP's Twitter feed seems to be in support of this aggressive tax avoidance. There are a lot of highly paid oil & gas contractors living in the area who are probably up to their necks in dodgy offshore accounts "being relentlessly hounded for retrospective and regressive taxation by the uncaring and unaccountable HMRC" though, so it probably is a popular vote winner for him.

Edited by Diver Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Diver Dan said:

Every other post on my local Tory MP's Twitter feed seems to be in support of this aggressive tax avoidance. There are a lot of highly paid oil & gas contractors living in the area who are probably up to their necks in dodgy offshore accounts "being relentlessly hounded for retrospective and regressive taxation by the uncaring and unaccountable HMRC" though, so it probably is a popular vote winner for him.

having worked in aberdeen and seen the paddlers of these schemes coming in to offices for "lunch and learns", i can well imagine the panic now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/03/2019 at 23:11, mrtickle said:

Go after both. One does NOT depend on the other. The idea that we must pick only one is a false choice. Some people (not necessarily you) always seem to present them as alternatives and this is often in the phrasing.

I do not like these IT workers for dodging tax AND (not "but"), I am really angry that the super rich avoid billions ... etc.

 

Yes.  The logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The UK tax authority has reported the suicide of an individual facing a new "loan charge" to its complaints body for the first time, The FT reports today.

HMRC reported the incident to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which investigates serious complaints involving the tax body.

From Friday at least 50,000 people who avoided NI and income tax by using schemes that paid them mostly in loans - described as "disguised remuneration" by HMRC - face the loan charge.

Mel Stride, financial secretary to the Treasury, told the paper, that he was "deeply upset and disturbed" by the death reported.

But he dismissed claims the charge was unfair or would lead to bankruptcies.

grim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

grim

The results of people facing the consequences of their (lack of) responsibility often are grim. Just hope for once that the Treasury holds firm rather than follow the modern trend of letting people off the hook for their lack of responsibility because we must always do anything that stops people being hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hurlerontheditch said:

grim

Grimmer still were the stories of live it large property 'millionaires' killing their families & themselves in the 08/09 crunch.

Brace for more horror when the real, unmanaged land & property snap back happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mrtickle said:

They are still screaming.

https://www.ft.com/content/b2a75460-56f0-11e9-91f9-b6515a54c5b1

"Before the debate could be concluded, the session was unexpectedly suspended because of a water leak that flooded the Commons chamber. The session will resume on April 11 — after the policy is due to come into effect.

:D:D:D

Hooray for the water leak lol

 

 

 

Save your glee. The policy has  been in effect for years effectively - the loan charge was really a compelling event to get people to settle. The tax man had all the details anyway

We have settled but not signed anything so if the debate happens might still push it back further. Ours was an EBT not some individual tax scheme. 

We aren’t screaming but what has amounted to an interest free loan of over 15 years for a tax bill of £40k each ( we didn’t bash the hell out of it) not a bad deal imagine if you had leveraged some property with that free money ?

Perhaps save the champagne for when they really tackle corporate abuse not small fry like us 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/03/2019 at 23:11, mrtickle said:

Go after both. One does NOT depend on the other. The idea that we must pick only one is a false choice. Some people (not necessarily you) always seem to present them as alternatives and this is often in the phrasing.

I do not like these IT workers for dodging tax AND (not "but"), I am really angry that the super rich avoid billions ... etc.

 

It’s not a false choice - it’s easy pickings rather like a police car waiting outside a pub at 11 pm to get some easy nicks in rather than tackling knife crime a longer more dangerous task

Limited resources mean intelligent decisions have to be made so actually one does depend on the other every system has inter dependicies 

There were about 5000 schemes and they will eventually garner say a few hundred million in back taxes 

A drop in the ocean compared to corporate cross charging tax minimisation schemes, undeclared rental income and even untaxed cars 

Nice headlines though for an audience like you who thinks in binary terms 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.