Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: This thing about WGs not paying tax  (Read 8335 times)

Offline Jimmyredcab


So are Parlour Girls Self Employed or Not ? And if the girls are "On the Fiddle"  how do the Parlour Owners Explain this to the Inland Revenue   :(

Parlour girls are not actually "Employed" by the parlour so they are responsible for their own tax affairs.

A similar rule applies to mini-cab drivers, they work from an office but are not "Employed" by the company.    :hi:

Online NIK

Jimmy is right. This isn't appropriate on UKP. Link removed.

jcdmj12

Parlour girls are not actually "Employed" by the parlour so they are responsible for their own tax affairs.

"employing" a prostitute?  :lol:  I can just imagine Sergei struggling with the in and outs of stakeholder pensions. And who would offer him employer's liability insurance?

Offline GeeWiz

If an escort displays a face pic on their AW profile and has feedback, then you'd have to assume that they pay tax.  So I think more are registered than many here give credit for.

jcdmj12

Maybe one of our legal experts could clarify that point but I think it is illegal to live on the immoral earnings of someone else, that would mean a pro$$ie is breaking no laws.

+1 That my (non-legal expert) understanding.... living on immoral earnings refers to pimping etc.

jcdmj12

If an escort displays a face pic on their AW profile and has feedback, then you'd have to assume that they pay tax.  So I think more are registered than many here give credit for.

Yes.  Given that HMRC use a spider to monitor ebay, it's not beyond the realms of possiblity they have one for places like AW. Such a piece of software could be put together for a few grand using someone from the elance-type websites.  Or a few million if you're paying one of George's mates in Serco /Crapita to do it under goverment "tender" rules.   :drinks:

Offline k

THIS IS A PUNTERS FORUM -------------- SAAFE IS THE PLACE FOR THIS CRAP.       :angry: :mad: :diablo:

The vast majority of pro$$ies pay no tax, that is a FACT.   
There really is no helping you with your entrenched attitude is there?  :unknown:

Offline Jimmyredcab

If an escort displays a face pic on their AW profile and has feedback, then you'd have to assume that they pay tax. 

Really ?????????????????????????????????????

How does HMRC find her when she calls herself Sallysucks1.      :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pro$$ies are not the only people that HMRC have to investigate, what about all the dodgy builders who work for cash only, they simply don't have the resources to follow up every suspected case of tax evasion. 

Offline GeeWiz

Really ?????????????????????????????????????

How does HMRC find her when she calls herself Sallysucks1.      :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pro$$ies are not the only people that HMRC have to investigate, what about all the dodgy builders who work for cash only, they simply don't have the resources to follow up every suspected case of tax evasion.

Tip offs.  Evidence.  More likely to get into trouble this way if working as an escort and claiming benefits though I reckon.

Offline k

Really ?????????????????????????????????????

How does HMRC find her when she calls herself Sallysucks1.      :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pro$$ies are not the only people that HMRC have to investigate, what about all the dodgy builders who work for cash only, they simply don't have the resources to follow up every suspected case of tax evasion.
Jimmy If you took the time to read the link which you asked to have taken down you will quite clearly see the answer to your question.

Offline Kimberly_C

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 18
Really ?????????????????????????????????????

How does HMRC find her when she calls herself Sallysucks1.      :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pro$$ies are not the only people that HMRC have to investigate, what about all the dodgy builders who work for cash only, they simply don't have the resources to follow up every suspected case of tax evasion.

Having a photo or not wouldn't really make a difference if that is indeed something they are doing. They still have to get through to the actual person.

However, should a WG be grassed up, then her AW profile could be useful to them.

Offline Jimmyredcab

Jimmy If you took the time to read the link which you asked to have taken down you will quite clearly see the answer to your question.

I did not ask for the link to be removed.    :bomb: :bomb: :bomb:

That was NIK's decision ------------------- which I am sure was backed by Admin.

UKPunting is not an advice forum for pro$$ies.     :angry: :mad:

Tony Montana

If a girl works via a parlour or agency are they not subject to the IR35 ruling?  If so, they are deemed to be "employees" and cannot use the dividends tax avoidance scheme.

Offline Kimberly_C

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 18
I did not ask for the link to be removed.    :bomb: :bomb: :bomb:

That was NIK's decision ------------------- which I am sure was backed by Admin.

UKPunting is not an advice forum for pro$$ies.     :angry: :mad:

I posted the link because NIK had asked a question about legalities and it seemed to answer the question, as opposed to my giving just another non-tax-accountant's opinion. I didn't intend it to be practical advice for anyone.

Prossie input can be disruptive to discussion so I will bow out for the day. Apologies for any trouble I have caused.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:42:26 AM by Kimberly_C »

Offline Jimmyredcab

If a girl works via a parlour or agency are they not subject to the IR35 ruling?  If so, they are deemed to be "employees" and cannot use the dividends tax avoidance scheme.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.    :unknown: :unknown: :unknown:


Online NIK

I did not ask for the link to be removed.    :bomb: :bomb: :bomb:

That was NIK's decision ------------------- which I am sure was backed by Admin.

UKPunting is not an advice forum for pro$$ies.      :angry: :mad:

Jimmy did not ask for the link to be removed, but he is perfectly correct above. And I don't have to second guess Adam's attitude on this!

Offline smiths

If an escort displays a face pic on their AW profile and has feedback, then you'd have to assume that they pay tax.  So I think more are registered than many here give credit for.

I disagree you would have to assume they pay tax. Some for example will work for a pimp who wouldnt be worrying about such a thing, some other WGs are as thick as two short planks and wouldnt even consider such a thing i would imagine.

What i do think is the inland revenue would use any evidence they find on A/W etc to help with their case against a non tax payer to assess how long they hadnt been paying tax for, perhaps after getting a tip off.

GP Parties who got done a couple of years ago had their reviews on auto-censored virtually immediately taken down from public view following their raid and arrest, i assume this was to try to hide info from the police, tax, benefits and POCA. It may well of helped as the owners POCA judgement was under £100,000 yet he had been operating for 7-8 years or so and in that time must of taken well over a million pounds. He probably blew most of his profits though, he was as thick as pig shit.

Offline smiths

If a girl works via a parlour or agency are they not subject to the IR35 ruling?  If so, they are deemed to be "employees" and cannot use the dividends tax avoidance scheme.

I cant see how a WG who works at an illegal entity can be classed as an employee of it myself. Perhaps i am wrong though. I do know the inland revenue will take tax from such entities, whether they also inform the police of them who knows.

Offline Daffodil

If an escort displays a face pic on their AW profile and has feedback, then you'd have to assume that they pay tax.  So I think more are registered than many here give credit for.

It's nonsense that you'd have to assume  :hi:

For starters prossies are not that smart and secondly HMRC need rather more than a picture.

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,972
What no one ever seems to say, including prossies themselves, in this endless debate which we have had for years is if they do pay tax  :lol: what on earth do they put on their tax return under occupation?

Prostitute?  - Definitely not. Although it's not illegal to be a prostitute, I believe it's still illegal to live on 'immoral' earnings.

Escort / Masseur / Therapist or some other such euphemistic bollocks? - Presumably

Courtesan?  -  :lol:

You can put prostitute, although I doubt anyone actually does. Some people have other businesses and freelance/self employment, so the earnings and (relevant) outgoings can be put through those books. Ultimately the taxman doesn't care, as long as he gets his slice.

Offline smiths

You can put prostitute, although I doubt anyone actually does. Some people have other businesses and freelance/self employment, so the earnings and (relevant) outgoings can be put through those books. Ultimately the taxman doesn't care, as long as he gets his slice.

Some if not many WGs dont want anyone to know they are WGs, some dont tell anyone including their families so arent going to tell the taxman. Once its down on paper that leaves a trace as well, some WGs want to be able to be a WG for a while then slip away with little evidence they were WGs to build a new life where such a revelation could cause them serious problems, in jobs and relationships.

jcdmj12

If a girl works via a parlour or agency are they not subject to the IR35 ruling?  If so, they are deemed to be "employees" and cannot use the dividends tax avoidance scheme.

Only if they have a ltd company.    In that case, I can see parlour work failing the disguised employment test (fixed hours, designated premises etc etc).  In fact I'm surprised no enterprising HMRC inspector hasn't seen fit to go after parlour owner for national insurance contributions.  Or maybe they know it will all get seized under POCA anyway.  :D   Agencies, might have a better case, but then who knows.  I'm not an accountant.

I can't really see incorporation working for all but a very few WGs anyway, the accounting restrictions on ltd companies are far tighter. You can't just go taking money out of the bank account as and when you need it, for example. I also wonder if the company could run into trouble with "living off immoral earnings", as it is a separate legal 'person' to its shareholder/director.  That's pure uninformed speculation though.




jcdmj12

Some if not many WGs dont want anyone to know they are WGs, some dont tell anyone including their families so arent going to tell the taxman. Once its down on paper that leaves a trace as well, some WGs want to be able to be a WG for a while then slip away with little evidence they were WGs to build a new life where such a revelation could cause them serious problems, in jobs and relationships.

+1.  Once you have a limited company, you are "on record" at companies house, with directors names, shareholder details, and balance sheets for each year etc.  There are ways to be anonymous, but it's fairly tricky, and way beyond the requirements or capabilities of your average WG (or any average single-person company) I reckon.

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 1,972
+1.  Once you have a limited company, you are "on record" at companies house, with directors names, shareholder details, and balance sheets for each year etc.  There are ways to be anonymous, but it's fairly tricky, and way beyond the requirements or capabilities of your average WG (or any average single-person company) I reckon.

I don't think smiths was talking about limited companies. Just your bog-standard freelance self employed prossie who sends her tax return every year to HMRC.


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)