Author Topic: Best job for avoiding tax?  (Read 3410 times)

Online scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,620
  • Likes: 529
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
So other than prostitution, whats the best job for avoiding tax / hiding earnings?
Once it would have been bar work but not nowadays.
Not many jobs that involve cash payments nowadays, chimney sweeps are one but surely taxi driving must be the easiest tax evasion job?

Offline Zeusthedoc

anything where you don't have the tax deducted at source (PAYE / IR35) means you have additional flexibility
aside from that, the way i see it, it's not so much the job you do it's the level you are within the organisation and how much you can potentially 'earn'.
if you're the CEO of a FTSE (or equiv) listed company - a significant chunk of your overall package will not be the PAYE part of it necessarily...

'avoiding tax' by being a trader or a WG (an owner managed/small-time setup) isn't really worth it. yeah - you'll save a couple of grand here and there but if you get caught - which the longer you do it the more you increase your chances - you're going to get fucked...
do it the MBA/CEO way and there is no 'getting caught' because it's all above board!
and if they do catch you (a la Jimmy Carr), you can 'pay it back' and worse case scenario you have david cameron being able to take the more fucking high ground (publicly at least)

Offline RogerBoner

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,801
  • Likes: 21
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
In safe times, off the top of my head, cash door entrance fee to enter large nightclubs in places like Ibiza. I miss the good old days of offshore banking and having cash to burn.

Offline GingerNuts

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,820
  • Likes: 111
  •  
  • Reviews: 48
So other than prostitution, whats the best job for avoiding tax / hiding earnings?
Once it would have been bar work but not nowadays.
Not many jobs that involve cash payments nowadays, chimney sweeps are one but surely taxi driving must be the easiest tax evasion job?

What do you actually want to discuss? Avoiding tax and evading tax are entirely different things.

Offline badsin

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,606
  • Likes: 62
  •  
  • Reviews: 59

Online daviemac

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,154
  • Likes: 696
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
So other than prostitution, whats the best job for avoiding tax / hiding earnings?
Once it would have been bar work but not nowadays.
Not many jobs that involve cash payments nowadays, chimney sweeps are one but surely taxi driving must be the easiest tax evasion job?
I would think it would be easier for electricians, plumbers, car mechanics, etc etc working 'off the books' at weekends to earn tax free cash than it would for a taxi driver who would have to account for his mileage.

Offline bhudda

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,402
  • Likes: 4
  •  
  • Reviews: 18

and if they do catch you (a la Jimmy Carr), you can 'pay it back' and worse case scenario you have david cameron being able to take the more fucking high ground (publicly at least)

I can't remember the details of Jimmy Carr's arrangements but iirc he didn't do anything that was illegal. Contrary to the spirit of the law maybe, but not the letter. There have been many such schemes. Tax avoidance is not illegal, tax evasion is. There is no moral obligation to pay more tax than the law dictates, if you don't like it, change the law. A cabby who pockets the fare and doesn't declare it is evading tax. One who declares it but claims every allowance the law entitles him to claim is avoiding tax. If you claim for your pension contributions, or your married mans allowance or anything else, you are avoiding tax.

The problem is one day (often after you have been doing it for years, with their full knowledge and have never been challenged before, leading you to believe that all is above board) the IR decides they think it is illegal, or they just know that you can't afford to argue ... i.e. they blackmail you.

So they challenge you, and you have 2 choices - either fight them in the courts (who ultimately make the decision as what is or isn't illegal) knowing that they can afford bigger legal fees than you can so they don't care how long it takes or how high up the legal process (they will appeal if you win in the lower courts) it goes or how much it costs ... after all its not their money, it is funded by the taxpayer of course (that is you and me) - or you just cough up cos the money they are after is probably less than you will have to pay in legal fees to fight them, even if it means paying tax they reckon is due on earnings going back years and years (i.e. a lot of money). Your only real hope of fighting them is if there are thousands of other people who also arranged their tax affairs the same way and you band together to share the costs, which even then are quite considerable, with no guarantee you will win.

They will even put forward one argument when disputing one scheme, but the exact opposite of that argument when disputing another, depending upon the details of each scheme. A judge may ultimately throw the case out for this very reason, but by then you are bankrupt anyway cos the only real winners are the lawyers. 

If you are famous you may pay up just cos you want to avoid more bad publicity as well.   

And many many people who entered such schemes are far from high-earners, it was quite common a few years ago for some employers to insist that their employees entered them - I read the NHS did so with some employees (cleaners etc, not brain surgeons) and I've also heard tales of people who worked for HMRC on short term contracts being advised to enter into such arrangements by their bosses! 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 01:48:30 am by bhudda »

Offline willie loman

All manner of self employed under  declare, going completely off radar is not usually a good idea, going on the tax records of self employed, you would assume we were still in the great depression, , so gardeners are ones ive noticed, they certainly know how to charge, but never give receipts. 

Offline Corus Boy


Offline David1970

Taxi driver, I sure the always declare all the tips they get :lol:

Offline Colston36

Gardening; window cleaning - that sort of thing. Ordinary cleaning ... but that's so badly paid good luck to them.

Offline Digby232

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 119
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
Gardening , window cleaning , any tradesman doing work for cash. Taxi driver is now a non starter. Computer booking has killed that. Look at Uber every job on record so one tap of a button brings it up. Taking into account commission, fuel, repairs, insurance and vehicle depreciation along with the tax  long term Uber is hopeless. Good to make a few quid then get out. Ok if you got a plated vehicle cheap that you can run into the ground then dump. Buy a decent car and lose a fortune due to mileage etc in first year. No rich owner/ driver taxi drivers working with companies. Now by yourself as an operator that’s a different story😂😂
Banned reason: Troll
Banned by: daviemac

Offline David1970

Owner of Google, Amazon, Starbucks and the lists goes on.

Offline King Nuts

I can't remember the details of Jimmy Carr's arrangements but iirc he didn't do anything that was illegal. Contrary to the spirit of the law maybe, but not the letter. There have been many such schemes. Tax avoidance is not illegal, tax evasion is. There is no moral obligation to pay more tax than the law dictates, if you don't like it, change the law.

I remember that Jimmy Carr fuss. He did nothing that was contrary to the law, nor was it against the spirit. What happened was that some typically ignorant lefty journalists, few (if any) of whom actually understand what a service company is, orchestrated a campaign against him, and unfortunately he caved. He was regarded as 'one of theirs' and had thus let the side down.

As regards a 'moral obligation to pay more tax', I'd say there's no obligation at all to pay any more tax than you have to. Morality doesn't come into it, and every time some story breaks about some public figure 'avoiding' tax in this way, the tired old argument that tries to fuse 'morality' with taxation gets trotted out, usually by someone who's either a socialist, or ignorant, or more typically, both.

Further, the griping against the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Hertz, American Airlines, Paypal etc who base themselves in a low-tax EU domain such as Ireland or Luxemburg, again always seems to come from people who don't understand that this is not just entirely within EU law, but it's also a law that's a fundamental part of how and what the EU is, with its founding priniciple of free movement of goods, labour and capital.






Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
I remember that Jimmy Carr fuss. He did nothing that was contrary to the law, nor was it against the spirit. What happened was that some typically ignorant lefty journalists, few (if any) of whom actually understand what a service company is, orchestrated a campaign against him, and unfortunately he caved. He was regarded as 'one of theirs' and had thus let the side down.

As regards a 'moral obligation to pay more tax', I'd say there's no obligation at all to pay any more tax than you have to. Morality doesn't come into it, and every time some story breaks about some public figure 'avoiding' tax in this way, the tired old argument that tries to fuse 'morality' with taxation gets trotted out, usually by someone who's either a socialist, or ignorant, or more typically, both.

Further, the griping against the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Hertz, American Airlines, Paypal etc who base themselves in a low-tax EU domain such as Ireland or Luxemburg, again always seems to come from people who don't understand that this is not just entirely within EU law, but it's also a law that's a fundamental part of how and what the EU is, with its founding priniciple of free movement of goods, labour and capital.

I think Carr had done one of the aggressive tax schemes rather than just using a service company.

Offline King Nuts

I think Carr had done one of the aggressive tax schemes rather than just using a service company.

And what does 'aggressive' mean in this instance?


Online threechilliman

Gardening; window cleaning - that sort of thing. Ordinary cleaning ... but that's so badly paid good luck to them.

Yeah, I were going to say window cleaning. I doubt any chancellor has ever seen a penny of the money I pay mine - the landlord of my local certainly has though.

Offline David1970

Yeah, I were going to say window cleaning. I doubt any chancellor has ever seen a penny of the money I pay mine - the landlord of my local certainly has though.

I would say any job that is cash in hand or you can claim you are an off shore company.

Offline Zeusthedoc

I can't remember the details of Jimmy Carr's arrangements but iirc he didn't do anything that was illegal. Contrary to the spirit of the law maybe, but not the letter. There have been many such schemes. Tax avoidance is not illegal, tax evasion is. There is no moral obligation to pay more tax than the law dictates, if you don't like it, change the law. A cabby who pockets the fare and doesn't declare it is evading tax. One who declares it but claims every allowance the law entitles him to claim is avoiding tax. If you claim for your pension contributions, or your married mans allowance or anything else, you are avoiding tax.

The problem is one day (often after you have been doing it for years, with their full knowledge and have never been challenged before, leading you to believe that all is above board) the IR decides they think it is illegal, or they just know that you can't afford to argue ... i.e. they blackmail you.

So they challenge you, and you have 2 choices - either fight them in the courts (who ultimately make the decision as what is or isn't illegal) knowing that they can afford bigger legal fees than you can so they don't care how long it takes or how high up the legal process (they will appeal if you win in the lower courts) it goes or how much it costs ... after all its not their money, it is funded by the taxpayer of course (that is you and me) - or you just cough up cos the money they are after is probably less than you will have to pay in legal fees to fight them, even if it means paying tax they reckon is due on earnings going back years and years (i.e. a lot of money). Your only real hope of fighting them is if there are thousands of other people who also arranged their tax affairs the same way and you band together to share the costs, which even then are quite considerable, with no guarantee you will win.

They will even put forward one argument when disputing one scheme, but the exact opposite of that argument when disputing another, depending upon the details of each scheme. A judge may ultimately throw the case out for this very reason, but by then you are bankrupt anyway cos the only real winners are the lawyers. 

If you are famous you may pay up just cos you want to avoid more bad publicity as well.   

And many many people who entered such schemes are far from high-earners, it was quite common a few years ago for some employers to insist that their employees entered them - I read the NHS did so with some employees (cleaners etc, not brain surgeons) and I've also heard tales of people who worked for HMRC on short term contracts being advised to enter into such arrangements by their bosses!

I meant evading, apologies...
The point I was making about JC was a bit messy - you're right, he avoided rather than evaded... totally legal
I wonder if the newspaper editors who outed him were using the same scheme, or maybe denied it and so got upset with him

Offline LLPunting

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,299
  • Likes: 179
  •  
  • Reviews: 360
Gardening; window cleaning - that sort of thing. Ordinary cleaning ... but that's so badly paid good luck to them.

Dog grooming (as in canines) - 90 a pop
Cleaners getting 15-20 ph
Dog walking 15-20 for 1st hour

Offline NW_Guy

‘avoiding tax' by being a trader or a WG (an owner managed/small-time setup) isn't really worth it. yeah - you'll save a couple of grand here and there but if you get caught - which the longer you do it the more you increase your chances - you're going to get fucked...

+1000

I wasn’t even trying to avoid VAT, I just had what I know now was a completely incompetent bookkeeper - HMRC crawled over 4 years of transactions over a period of months, found 2 genuine mistakes in one quarter’s return, then assumed I had made similar mistakes in all other quarters and surcharged me for 16 quarters worth.

I could appeal and recreate my entire 4 year VAT history and risk them finding more mistakes or have them go back a full seven years.

Once you’re on their radar, you’re fucked. It’s really not worth it unless you’re really really good at it.  The stress is gruesome.

NWG

Offline winkywanky

I remember that Jimmy Carr fuss. He did nothing that was contrary to the law, nor was it against the spirit. What happened was that some typically ignorant lefty journalists, few (if any) of whom actually understand what a service company is, orchestrated a campaign against him, and unfortunately he caved. He was regarded as 'one of theirs' and had thus let the side down.

As regards a 'moral obligation to pay more tax', I'd say there's no obligation at all to pay any more tax than you have to. Morality doesn't come into it, and every time some story breaks about some public figure 'avoiding' tax in this way, the tired old argument that tries to fuse 'morality' with taxation gets trotted out, usually by someone who's either a socialist, or ignorant, or more typically, both.

Further, the griping against the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Hertz, American Airlines, Paypal etc who base themselves in a low-tax EU domain such as Ireland or Luxemburg, again always seems to come from people who don't understand that this is not just entirely within EU law, but it's also a law that's a fundamental part of how and what the EU is, with its founding priniciple of free movement of goods, labour and capital.


I must confess, I do find the 'service company' thing a bit of a stretch of the imagination when basically applied to individuals.

Unless I'm wrong you fundamentally start up a company and you hire yourself out from that company. Which kind of goes against the meaning of the word 'company', seeing as you're the only worker.

Compared with the way 'ordinary' people are taxed you pay very little national insurance and a lot less tax on the money you earn.

And I would say morality does come into it - I'm naive enough to think that when the govt sets the goalposts of how much tax and NI you should pay, based upon what you earn, then you should pay that amount. That money goes to the NHS, building and maintaining roads, providing social care for those that society deems are entitled to it, basically the whole overall 'quality of life' of the UK, the things that we all expect from our country and voted for.

I'm not even saying high earners should pay more tax just because they earn more money, we all know that if you tax people's success then they'll either fuck off abroad or not bother with trying to be successful in the first place, and of course that damages us all. We need wealth generators who not only make themselves rich, but enrich our national life and provide employment for others.

But when a democratically elected govt sets the parameters of taxation, I want to see those parameters adhered to. Because when I (and the vast majority of others) pay their proper amount of tax and NI either because we can't afford a fancy accountant or perhaps we just like paying our way or are too concerned with just living our lives and don't have the time and energy to avoid, I expect others to be made to do the same.

It's not envy or jealousy or hate, it's just right.

And specifically re: Carr, did he not have a load of his money offshore too, to avoid paying the requisite amount of tax? (Even if that was legal I still find it immoral for the reasons stated above).

I haven't the faintest idea about tax law really because for all my working life I was just one of those mugs with his nose to the grindstone for 40yrs, and when I got my paychit every month, all my tax and NI had already been taken off. I know it's complicated and hard to draw up without there being legal loopholes, but I very much like the idea of loopholes being closed as soon as they appear.

PS - Of course many of the higher profile journos we know of were doing similar things with their tax affairs too. That should also be noted.

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
And what does 'aggressive' mean in this instance?

Subjective term often used in the industry as a short hand for an avoidance scheme that is likely to be considered by HMRC as one that they should attack.  For example at one end you have tax avoidance such as investing in an ISA which clearly would be seen as non aggressive and not going to be challenged by HMRC.  At the other end there have over the years been many schemes that seek to bend the rules to result in a tax saving that was arguably not the intention of the rule makers.  So the payment of bonuses in platinum sponge (and many other things) to avoid NIC or using various never repayable loans to avoid income tax.  These were all arguably legal at the time and were disclosed to HMRC - so avoidance not evasion.  However they were aggressive because everyone knew that HMRC would consider them to be breaking the rules and would challenge and perhaps take to court.

In the middle are a host of planning ideas.  Personally I would put service companies in the middle, they are often done for a commercial reason and actually most of the income taxed from them in taxed in one way or another.

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102

I must confess, I do find the 'service company' thing a bit of a stretch of the imagination when basically applied to individuals.

Unless I'm wrong you fundamentally start up a company and you hire yourself out from that company. Which kind of goes against the meaning of the word 'company', seeing as you're the only worker.

Compared with the way 'ordinary' people are taxed you pay very little national insurance and a lot less tax on the money you earn.



Service companies are poorly understood and reported in the media.

Often they were set up for commercial reasons, such as protecting your business from liability risk, or because the "employer" insisted on them for their own reasons - not always tax driven.

Sometimes used because people are working for several clients so it is just like a self employed business.

So far as the tax position is concerned people reporting on them often forget to mention that you pay tax as you extract money from the company.  So if to take a simple example you pay yourself a salary then the tax and NI take is identical.  To get a tax saving you need to do something else as well, like take dividends (which may make a small saving overall - depending in a number of factors), pay family members, use pension contributions or roll up the money and liquidate the company.  Really fancy planning might link to something offshore.

My point is that service companies are not always the evil morally corrupt planning that the media make out, sometimes yes, sometimes utterly commercial and sometimes just creating a very modest tax saving.

Offline King Nuts



And I would say morality does come into it - I'm naive enough to think that when the govt sets the goalposts of how much tax and NI you should pay, based upon what you earn, then you should pay that amount. That money goes to the NHS, building and maintaining roads, providing social care for those that society deems are entitled to it, basically the whole overall 'quality of life' of the UK, the things that we all expect from our country and voted for.



Redkettle answered most of your post eloquently, and I have little to add to his comments.

But on the subject of morality, it should not come into it. The leftish high ground is that no-one should try and stretch the rules at all, because the dear old NHS needs funding. But then if you follow that logic, you have to scrap duty-free for ex-EU travellers, as well as pension payments and ISAs.

There's another bit of 'morality' that I've heard from people who are ultra-Left and pacifist, that paying taxes for the purpose of defence, for example, is immoral enough, so paying a penny more than you absolutely need to is compounding that immorality.

Morality has no place in taxation. HMRC sets the rules (fucking thousands of pages of them) and we have to stick to them or face the consequences. Personally, because I like to sleep at night, I stick to the absolute letter of the law, but I won't pay a penny more than I need to.

If the govt wants to raise more money, then they should put up taxes or improve/streamline the system.



Offline lostandfound

Once Carr was outed he had no choice but to make amends. Otherwise his career as a high earning comedian was over, dependent as such a person is upon public favour.

Offline george r

Once Carr was outed he had no choice but to make amends. Otherwise his career as a high earning comedian was over, dependent as such a person is upon public favour.
cant stand the twat anyway never watch him  !!

Offline King Nuts

Once Carr was outed he had no choice but to make amends. Otherwise his career as a high earning comedian was over, dependent as such a person is upon public favour.

He was found out, and he had to publicly self-flagellate so as to avoid exile from Luvvie-land.

Offline Boundless

I would think it would be easier for electricians, plumbers, car mechanics, etc etc working 'off the books' at weekends to earn tax free cash than it would for a taxi driver who would have to account for his mileage.

The chippy, builder, plumber and painter that do work for me always ask to be paid, at least in part, in cash.

Of course I always insist on cheque or bank transfer.  ;)

Offline Digby232

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 119
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 0
And if your dog chews up all your paperwork nothing can be traced ?  Then they got to go on average that trade takes. Good if your well above the average.
Banned reason: Troll
Banned by: daviemac

Offline winkywanky

Service companies are poorly understood and reported in the media.

Often they were set up for commercial reasons, such as protecting your business from liability risk, or because the "employer" insisted on them for their own reasons - not always tax driven.

Sometimes used because people are working for several clients so it is just like a self employed business.

So far as the tax position is concerned people reporting on them often forget to mention that you pay tax as you extract money from the company.  So if to take a simple example you pay yourself a salary then the tax and NI take is identical.  To get a tax saving you need to do something else as well, like take dividends (which may make a small saving overall - depending in a number of factors), pay family members, use pension contributions or roll up the money and liquidate the company.  Really fancy planning might link to something offshore.

My point is that service companies are not always the evil morally corrupt planning that the media make out, sometimes yes, sometimes utterly commercial and sometimes just creating a very modest tax saving.


Thanks for that perspective Mr. K  :hi:

Offline winkywanky

Redkettle answered most of your post eloquently, and I have little to add to his comments.

But on the subject of morality, it should not come into it. The leftish high ground is that no-one should try and stretch the rules at all, because the dear old NHS needs funding. But then if you follow that logic, you have to scrap duty-free for ex-EU travellers, as well as pension payments and ISAs.

There's another bit of 'morality' that I've heard from people who are ultra-Left and pacifist, that paying taxes for the purpose of defence, for example, is immoral enough, so paying a penny more than you absolutely need to is compounding that immorality.

Morality has no place in taxation. HMRC sets the rules (fucking thousands of pages of them) and we have to stick to them or face the consequences. Personally, because I like to sleep at night, I stick to the absolute letter of the law, but I won't pay a penny more than I need to.

If the govt wants to raise more money, then they should put up taxes or improve/streamline the system.


I do tend to see the issue of taxation as quite black and white (either you pay what you owe or you try not to) but that's as much to do with the fact that I was on PAYE all my life, as anything else.

In broad terms I do actually see it as an issue of morality because in essence it's paying your way, and of all the things that being better off tends to allow, avoiding tax is at the heart of the haves and the have-nots. That's how I see it in my probably over-simplistic world. I can see that it's also somewhat a matter of degree though, there's taking the odd cash-job if you're a plumber or plasterer, and there's wholesale avoidance on an industrial scale, by the very well off.

Duty-free for ex-EU travellers, as well as pension payments and ISAs...IMO that's different, that's sanctioned by the govt.

As for If the govt wants to raise more money, then they should put up taxes or improve/streamline the system I would definitely agree with that, and sometimes I do wonder whether govts are afraid of upsetting people they'd rather not upset, by properly chasing loopholes.

Offline winkywanky

Once Carr was outed he had no choice but to make amends. Otherwise his career as a high earning comedian was over, dependent as such a person is upon public favour.


..one of the rare positives of social meeja.

Offline King Nuts




Duty-free for ex-EU travellers, as well as pension payments and ISAs...IMO that's different, that's sanctioned by the govt.



So is having a service company. Or relocating to the Isle of Man or Jersey or Ireland for tax purposes.

Logic and morality have little to do with it. Besides which, the Govt is always moving the goalposts. The VAT flat rate scheme, and so-called Benefit In Kind on company cars are two examples where businesses, employers and employees were encouraged/tempted into something by HM Govt, only to be betrayed later on. Tax regulations really are all over the place, it seems, and too many rules are made on the hoof.
 
It sets the tone for a Tom and Jerry type relationship.

Anyway, HMRC are pussycats when compared to America's IRS. I'm not going to get started on that.

Offline winkywanky

So is having a service company. Or relocating to the Isle of Man or Jersey or Ireland for tax purposes.

Logic and morality have little to do with it. Besides which, the Govt is always moving the goalposts. The VAT flat rate scheme, and so-called Benefit In Kind on company cars are two examples where businesses, employers and employees were encouraged/tempted into something by HM Govt, only to be betrayed later on. Tax regulations really are all over the place, it seems, and too many rules are made on the hoof.
 
It sets the tone for a Tom and Jerry type relationship.

Anyway, HMRC are pussycats when compared to America's IRS. I'm not going to get started on that.


I realise that, but despite not knowing much of the detail, it seems clear to me that not infrequently, seemingly almost obscene tax avoidance schemes come to light which are (just) legal.

Who knows, perhaps eventually the govt (nudged by Cummings?) might come up with a supremely elegant and streamlined tax system which is clear to all...a bit like Universal Credit?  :D

I should imagine any future UK taxation rules will also be influenced by the fact of Brexit. Big changes ahead perhaps?

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102

I realise that, but despite not knowing much of the detail, it seems clear to me that not infrequently, seemingly almost obscene tax avoidance schemes come to light which are (just) legal.

Who knows, perhaps eventually the govt (nudged by Cummings?) might come up with a supremely elegant and streamlined tax system which is clear to all...a bit like Universal Credit?  :D

I should imagine any future UK taxation rules will also be influenced by the fact of Brexit. Big changes ahead perhaps?

In my opinion HMRC had a breakthrough a few years ago on tax avoidance with a number of significant wins in court plus a raft of powerful legislation.  You really see very little tax planning that might be termed aggressive (as i defined above) now in the area of profit/income extraction.  For examples schemes to pay bonuses with no or reduced tax and NI.  Indeed any advisers selling such schemes are inevitably dodgy in my view as they know that the schemes will not work.  The era of selling packaged schemes for this planning is over.

There will also be bespoke specific planning for individual transactions and the like, but that is not on the industrial scale that we had a decade ago.

Much of the golf club talk you hear about people legally avoiding their tax liabilities is bullshit.

The area that does need addressing is that or multi national corps and especially digital businesses.  The authorities are working on this but currently being vetoed by the US.

I always found it ironic that the likes of JRC would go on about the evils of such tax planning but would then be as passionately against the EU which was (and still is) the best chance of tackling it!!

Unfortunately minimising such tax planning across international borders is fucking complicated!

Offline Cceon

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Posts: 47
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 1
Excuse my naivete but don't a lot of WGs pay at least some tax. I mean these it's really not difficult to check up on them, is it ?
Banned reason: Abusive tosser.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline Kev40ish

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,045
  • Likes: 24
  •  
  • Reviews: 24
Excuse my naivete but don't a lot of WGs pay at least some tax. I mean these it's really not difficult to check up on them, is it ?

I am sure they all pay their full tax. It’s not easy to check up on someone’s earnings if it’s all cash in hand..

Offline King Nuts



Unfortunately minimising such tax planning across international borders is fucking complicated!

But permitted by the EU (viz. Amazon parking themselves in Lux.)

Offline GingerNuts

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,820
  • Likes: 111
  •  
  • Reviews: 48
I am sure they all pay their full tax. It’s not easy to check up on someone’s earnings if it’s all cash in hand..

That cash has to go somewhere unless it's stuffed under a matress. If HMRC investigate they can look into bank accounts etc. and will require an explanation if your life style exceeds your declared income. If they're not satisfied by the explanation they can impute a higher income on which you'll have to pay tax, penalites and interest.

Offline Zeusthedoc

And if your dog chews up all your paperwork nothing can be traced ?  Then they got to go on average that trade takes. Good if your well above the average.

i'm sure there is some policy on how long you must keep things in archive - otherwise face heavy penalties, they get to pick the tax figure, and add interest to the lot!

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
But permitted by the EU (viz. Amazon parking themselves in Lux.)

Because some member countries like the Uk have always had red lines around EU control of tax. Which was probably right but you cannot then complain when they cannot stop abuses. However they have worked hard to improve international agreements.

Offline King Nuts

However they have worked hard to improve international agreements.

By 'they', do you mean the EU?

Sorry, I shouldn't snigger.

Offline binbag

It's the taxation that's immoral not the avoiding/evading. The government charges whatever it can get away with and makes laws accordingly. There's no such thing as "fair share". The government (which creates no wealth) simply decides what it wants and where it'll get it. If it was a moral issue we could have a voluntary system but the system we have is built on coercion. Most people don't even know what they pay in tax because they don't ever see it. It's taken from them before they even get it - they don't have to write a cheque to the government like self employed often do. If everyone did that people would be more aware of what's being taken from them and there might be more opposition to the whole notion of " fair" tax.

Offline unclepokey

So other than prostitution, whats the best job for avoiding tax / hiding earnings?
Once it would have been bar work but not nowadays.
Not many jobs that involve cash payments nowadays, chimney sweeps are one but surely taxi driving must be the easiest tax evasion job?
I think the original poster answers his own question in some ways.
The best means of hiding taxable income is not to have any source of income that is taxable. Since that is nonsense one is driven simply to not disclosing the earnings of taxable income income or part thereof.
Prostitution is a trade ripe for opportunity for the non disclosure of taxable monies so received.
Pervs within HMRC might well take pleasure in bringing prosecutions against working girls. This is a training ground for HMRC squirts on their way up to taking down the Amazons, Apples and Microsofts  in future years.

Offline Malvolio

That cash has to go somewhere unless it's stuffed under a matress. If HMRC investigate they can look into bank accounts etc. and will require an explanation if your life style exceeds your declared income. If they're not satisfied by the explanation they can impute a higher income on which you'll have to pay tax, penalites and interest.

I suspect where a lot of it goes is in hand luggage on flights back to the WGs home country, and then laundered.  Can't see a bureau de change in Bucharest caring how the young lady in the tight skirt has come by that wad of £20 notes.

Offline Beamer

I suspect where a lot of it goes is in hand luggage on flights back to the WGs home country, and then laundered.  Can't see a bureau de change in Bucharest caring how the young lady in the tight skirt has come by that wad of £20 notes.

Apparently a lot more £'s, €'s, $'s are confiscated by hmrc or customs than most would expect.  Some people travelling back to their original country will "hide" 100,000's everywhere, especially on women and kids.  That's why you see more sniffer dogs looking out for money rather than drugs nowadays
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 10:56:04 pm by Beamer »

Offline sub_marine

There is absolutly nothing sinister about a service company.  Of course a 1 man band guy can operate through a Ltd company and only employ himself.  Its simply a way to seperate the finances of a business from finances of a person.  If you were self employed and something went tits up, and you got sued, or your business got flooded or something not covered by insurance, then they can only take what is owned by the Ltd firm, and not take away your family house.

As for trades people being a good route to avoid tax, not these days.  I frequent trades counters of various suppliers, and anybody arriving in a van always has an account.  Everybody has personal expenses these days that cant be paid in undeclared cash, such as a mortgage, car loans, pension payments etc.  So you have to be able to declare at least that ammount of earnings.  As for your business expenses, you'll have a yard, a van or two, maybe some rented equipment.  All of that comes off before tax.  HMRC knows what all the ratios of a well run business are.  If a business stands out as having loads of business expenses but hardly makes a profit, they might look into the lifestyle of the business owner.  If they appear flush with cash and have a lifestyle that seems beyond the declared earnings then they'll book you in for an interview, which 9/10 ends up as an investigation. 

For proper tax minimisation, you really need to be earning the cash in a way that it can be banked abroad.  So that can mean living in UK, but your company being registered in Guernsey for instance.  Your offshore firm might own a house in which you live, and a car, and all the furniture.  If you pick a good offshore locaton for the firm to be based, there won't be any issue with the rent free house being a taxable benfit either.  Plus some of these offshore coutries have good secrercy laws, so the government can't even see how much the offshore firm makes or who owns it.  All they would see if a guy living in a house rent free, declaring whatever salary they want to declare as bringing into to the UK to spend.  If you intend to spend a lot of cash while out of the UK such as being on holiday, then that can be spent directly from the offshore account, no need to declare that to HMRC. 

I think people think of being taxed as missing out on something, but at the end of the day, you just have to consider what the take home pay is and find a level that you are happy with. 

If you really just want to avoid paying tax, then just look for professions that have special tax regimes.  One such scheme that I think has been going since 1950s is seamens earning deduction(SED).  Basically the government want to ensure that the merchant navy had british seamen on british boats so that if they were ever need in times of war then they could be called upon.  So to encourage UK nationals to work in the fleet, theres a deal if you follow a few conditions then you pay no tax.  So you have to have at least 1 forieng port call per year per employer, must be offshore out past the 12mile limit for 183 night a year, must get the captain to stamp and sign your seamans book.  So although this is designed to retain the british marine crews on the UK fleet instead of being filled with russian or asians, there are some loop holes.  A captain or chief engineer is basically as high as you can get and in the marine roles, but there a few very specialised roles on some ships, such as the boats that repair the fiber links that occasionally break in the middle of the ocean.  There will be a few highly paid engineers onbard those ships that get double or triple a captains wage, and will be entitled to the SED.  Some of the captains will grudge the fact that those guys also get the SED entitlement, but if those cable repair ships didnt exist then that captain wouldn't be on it earning his own wage.

Some british ex pats living abroad are in countries which don't have SED schemes.  But they may have a reciprical agreement where for instance if you lived in France, you can file your tax in UK, and show the french a copy of the P60, and the french will then let you take that money into france without any further tax.  So what you would do there is file your tax return in UK and not claim the SED, and get a P60 to show all the tax being paid.  Then file an ammended tax return a year or so later(no more that 5) and claim the SED.  All fully legal and theres loads of guys doing that.  If your employer happens to be listed outside the UK then you probably wouldnt get taxed and source, so when you file the tax return it basically just confirms that your due no tax, this also means you havent paid any NI.  If the employer is in UK everything would be PAYE and although you get the tax back, the NI would still be taken.

The big accounting such as PWC KPMG etc are working with HMRC to benfit the rich.  Those majors are a more lucrative than HMRC so as an accountant you want to work with them.  So thats where all the best talent ends up, which means that the majors put staff on secondment to HMRC which is welcomed by the staff at HMRC as its cheap labour for them, plus the staff will want to brown nose and hopefully get a job with a major.  However while inside the HMRC those majors are helping dictate the direction of tax law and in some cases write some of it with little obscure loop holes specifically designed for the majors to take advantage of.  Thats how we and up with a mess like the Irish/Dutch sandwich deal where all the tech firms avoid paying any tax within europe.  The man in the street knows its not right, but with amazon etc giving little donations to political parties, noting will ever get done about it.  Just look at all the directorships various cabinet members have, those MPs are basically being paid massive payments to pass on news from the working of government before anything gets announced.  Pretty much every FTSE100 firm will have a director in either parliment or house of lords.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 02:27:44 am by sub_marine »

Offline Boundless

That cash has to go somewhere unless it's stuffed under a matress. If HMRC investigate they can look into bank accounts etc. and will require an explanation if your life style exceeds your declared income. If they're not satisfied by the explanation they can impute a higher income on which you'll have to pay tax, penalites and interest.

I'm always a bit suspicious when the woman in front of me at the supermarket checkput pays £150+ for the week's shopping in cash. I try to weigh up whether she's an SP or hubby is a tradesman.

I haven't used cash since the lockdown, I've had the same tenner in my wallet for 3 months now.

Offline Zeusthedoc

I'm always a bit suspicious when the woman in front of me at the supermarket checkput pays £150+ for the week's shopping in cash. I try to weigh up whether she's an SP or hubby is a tradesman.

I haven't used cash since the lockdown, I've had the same tenner in my wallet for 3 months now.

It's quite common among families in 'low socio-economic' areas....I grew up in one.
-It could also be benefits collected from the post office (cash)
-Families being disciplined so only carrying the required cash (to avoid temptation/over spending)
-As you say, families with cash income jobs

If the women in my area as I grew up were WGs then it would have been terrible times for the folks looking for a SP....most of them were smokers and didn't look particularly attractive (to me anyways, to each their own)