How much money is enough

[Stevelondon]

Bernie Ecclestone been fined for tax dodging basically.

Actually he’s not the only filthy rich person out there who tries to get away with stuff like this.
I mean when you’ve got pots of cash it just seems to make sense that you don’t want anyone else to have it…….  Doesn’t it 😂

I suppose it’s quite difficult for most of us to think of in a way.
I mean I’m not short of a bob or two but I’m definitely a long way off being rich (meaning being able to live a fabulously expensive lifestyle without blinking etc)
These people have so much they can’t possibly spend it all and yet still feel the need to hang onto it eve when they know it’s against the law.

In Bernie’s case he evades prison cos of his age.
Not quite right there. He got off because he is a fucking billionaire and if that had been me I would be heading for Belmarsh as we speak 😂

[timsussex]

Nothing in this life is certain except death and rich people avoiding taxes

[standardpostage]

I think money can be addiction.

The more you have, the more you want.

To answer the question, I would be happy with £1000 a week, disposable cash 

[Jonestown]

I think that holding onto what ever money you have is a part of the survival instinct.

[GingerNuts]

Nothing in this life is certain except death and rich people avoiding taxes

Avoidance isn't what Bernie was doing.

To answer the question, I would be happy with £1000 a week, disposable cash 

If you mean £1,000 net you'd be in the top 10% of UK taxpayers. If you mean £1,000 after all your expenses you'd probably be in the top 5%.

[Blackpool Rock]

Avoidance isn't what Bernie was doing.

If you mean £1,000 net you'd be in the top 10% of UK taxpayers. If you mean £1,000 after all your expenses you'd probably be in the top 5%.

Yes avoidance and evasion are totally different; the super rich also pay accountants to find ways to avoid paying tax but even then he felt the need to evade some 

This is however how many of the rich got rich to begin with by stealing and getting away with it for long enough, once they had enough then they also had power and influence and all of a sudden hey presto they were considered legit 

[timsussex]

Avoidance isn't what Bernie was doing.
.....

I'd bet my house that he was doing that as well  ; and a smaller bet that he thought it was legal and relied on his accountants and that at his age he couldn't be expected to remember every odd 650 million.
However he did have the sense to realise a jury would find him a lot less likeable than Ken Dodd

The line between evasion and avoidance is sketchy and a lot of people earn £££££s exploiting that

[RandomGuy99]

He probably doesn't manage his billions personally unless he has a very big spreadsheet and he revalues all his assets every week.

He has accountants and financial advisors who look after his money and make suggestions to him that he then approves. He will have known what he was doing with this tax avoidance.

If you have money then you like to keep as much of it as you can and minimise the amount of tax you pay. We all try to minimise the tax we pay, so we put savings in ISAs and sell our assets over time to minimise capital gains tax, etc.  Nobody looks at their payslip and sees how much tax they're paying and says "excellent, I've paid a lot of tax this month". Personally, I would be happy to pay more tax to sort out the NHS, if someone could guarantee it wasn't going to be wasted on overpaid executives.

His financial advisors are paid to make to minimise the amount of tax he pays and when you are talking about such large sums the tax adds up to a serious amount.  Sometimes financial advisors make mistakes or just try it on. HMRC are going to check large transactions, so expect to be caught. Sometimes that might land you in prison and you get out of it because you're old and aren't a threat to the public.

[timsussex]

from The Times

He was due to stand trial next month but changed his plea after a judge dismissed his claim that it was unfair to prosecute him because he had a greater chance of dying than surviving the case.

In 2015 he had replied “no” when asked by HMRC investigators if he was involved in any trusts that they were unaware of. He accepted in court on Thursday that he should have responded: “I don’t know.”

Tax investigators then discovered the Singapore-based Kinan Trust, which Ecclestone used to trade foreign currency. The dealing led to gains or losses of tens of millions of US dollars a year.

[jackdaw]

He probably doesn't manage his billions personally unless he has a very big spreadsheet and he revalues all his assets every week.

He has accountants and financial advisors who look after his money and make suggestions to him that he then approves. He will have known what he was doing with this tax avoidance.

If you have money then you like to keep as much of it as you can and minimise the amount of tax you pay. We all try to minimise the tax we pay, so we put savings in ISAs and sell our assets over time to minimise capital gains tax, etc.  Nobody looks at their payslip and sees how much tax they're paying and says "excellent, I've paid a lot of tax this month". Personally, I would be happy to pay more tax to sort out the NHS, if someone could guarantee it wasn't going to be wasted on overpaid executives.

His financial advisors are paid to make to minimise the amount of tax he pays and when you are talking about such large sums the tax adds up to a serious amount.  Sometimes financial advisors make mistakes or just try it on. HMRC are going to check large transactions, so expect to be caught. Sometimes that might land you in prison and you get out of it because you're old and aren't a threat to the public.

I think the idea that poor old Bernie was unaware of main details of a trust that he poured around half a billion quid into is an incredibly generous notion.

I think Inland Revenue (never the most trusting of souls) will be even more sceptical, and it will be a major surprise if he’s not hit with penalty charges on top of the tax due.

[GingerNuts]

I think Inland Revenue (never the most trusting of souls) will be even more sceptical, and it will be a major surprise if he’s not hit with penalty charges on top of the tax due.

He has been. The £652m settlement covers tax, interest and penalties.

[timsussex]

He has been. The £652m settlement covers tax, interest and penalties.

£330million of it was penalties

[RandomGuy99]

I think the idea that poor old Bernie was unaware of main details of a trust that he poured around half a billion quid into is an incredibly generous notion.

I think Inland Revenue (never the most trusting of souls) will be even more sceptical, and it will be a major surprise if he’s not hit with penalty charges on top of the tax due.

I didn't say that he didn't know. He probably trusted in his advisors and he was clearly wrong to do that.

BBC News - Bernie Ecclestone pleads guilty to fraud
External Link/Members Only

[The0neAnd0nly]

£100,000,000 - for me.

Could easily spend 1 million or even 10 million - nice house, few supercars and taking care of nearest and dearest. 100 million would be enough for me to live a lavish lifestyle and shag myself into a early grave quite happily.

It's around £9,000 a day, every day for 30 years (even before taking account of interest rates etc).

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Squire Haggard]

If you are very rich and famous, you can build your own private prison and stay in it. 

''Since Rowling acquired the property, she has undertaken extensive security measures, with a state-of-the-art electronic security system, including 6-foot-high (1.8-metre) gates and a CCTV camera, and guards 24 hours a day, seven days a week.''

External Link/Members Only

[Blackpool Rock]

I didn't say that he didn't know. He probably trusted in his advisors and he was clearly wrong to do that.

BBC News - Bernie Ecclestone pleads guilty to fraud
External Link/Members Only

Let's not forget that Bernie operated in F1 which was always Uber political whether it was teams or indeed countries trying to pull the strings.
Bernie was the chief mover and shaker who always seemed to get what he wanted and the result that meant Bernie came out on top winning.

Bernie who was Mr Control Freak will have known exactly what was happening and wouldn't have let a penny out of his sight

[RandomGuy99]

Let's not forget that Bernie operated in F1 which was always Uber political whether it was teams or indeed countries trying to pull the strings.
Bernie was the chief mover and shaker who always seemed to get what he wanted and the result that meant Bernie came out on top winning.

Bernie who was Mr Control Freak will have known exactly what was happening and wouldn't have let a penny out of his sight

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

[timsussex]

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

at any price ?

We all want to pay less tax whether we earn £13 million or £13 thousand the problem is the former take advantage of "schemes" while 90% of us cannot 

[RandomGuy99]

at any price ?

No, if you could do it legally by exploiting loopholes and ways of stashing your cash away so it was exempt of tax. Exploiting loopholes and maximising the use of rebates/allowances is what you pay your accountants and financial advisors for.

Nobody likes to pay tax, but we understand that we need to in order to pay for public services and infrastructure and provide support for those that are unable to work.

[RandomGuy99]

at any price ?

We all want to pay less tax whether we earn £13 million or £13 thousand the problem is the former take advantage of "schemes" while 90% of us cannot

I'd like to see more measures taken to tax companies like Apple, Meta, Amazon who exploit tax rules and setup their company structure and accounting to minimise the tax they pay. They do it because they can. Change the rules so they can't.

[timsussex]

But to get back to the OPs point people who fiddle £5k in benefits get sent to prison while Bernie gets fined less than 1% of the money he has squirrelled away

[GingerNuts]

But to get back to the OPs point people who fiddle £5k in benefits get sent to prison while Bernie gets fined less than 1% of the money he has squirrelled away

I doubt a 92 year old who fiddled benefits would be sent to prison.

[timsussex]

I doubt a 92 year old who fiddled benefits would be sent to prison.

I would hope not but I suspect that the fine or community service would cause him a lot more discomfort than Bernie will have ie none
or
look at it this way he evaded £300million tax but he got caught and it cost him £650 million - thats almost an even money bet. The fine is less than 1% of his net worth - how much pain is that ? Do you think he'll be a pariah amongst his rich friends or will he be laughing about it ?

[Adoniron]

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

No I'd pay what I owed and would be glad to be able to do so.

[timsussex]

No I'd pay what I owed and would be glad to be able to do so.

Thats one of the main reasons why you arent worth £37 billion 

[Blackpool Rock]

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

No I personally wouldn't commit fraud or try to evade tax 

Again this boils down to the difference between avoidance and evasion, for many already rich and greedy people the lines appear to be more blurred than for us peasants 

[GingerNuts]

I would hope not but I suspect that the fine or community service would cause him a lot more discomfort than Bernie will have ie none
or
look at it this way he evaded £300million tax but he got caught and it cost him £650 million - thats almost an even money bet. The fine is less than 1% of his net worth - how much pain is that ? Do you think he'll be a pariah amongst his rich friends or will he be laughing about it ?

Thats one of the main reasons why you arent worth £37 billion 

An even money bet seems poor odds for criminals.

I don't know where you're getting £37 billion from, reports have it at around £2.5 billion. 1% of that would be £25 million.

Are you one of his accountants?

[Blackpool Rock]

I would hope not but I suspect that the fine or community service would cause him a lot more discomfort than Bernie will have ie none
or
look at it this way he evaded £300million tax but he got caught and it cost him £650 million - thats almost an even money bet. The fine is less than 1% of his net worth - how much pain is that ? Do you think he'll be a pariah amongst his rich friends or will he be laughing about it ?

What happened to fines being based on your wealth / income, sure this was a thing at least for speeding fines etc, if so then why not this 

IMO they should be taking a minimum of 50% of the poison dwarfs worth to send a message out, likelihood is that the sly cunt only got rich by fiddling tax for the last 50 fucking years anyway 

[timsussex]

An even money bet seems poor odds for criminals.

I don't know where you're getting £37 billion from, reports have it at around £2.5 billion. 1% of that would be £25 million.

Are you one of his accountants?

No I work for Donald Trump !

[PilotMan]

HMRC penalties are usually the same as the amount of tax you tried to dodge. Even if you make genuine mistakes, the penalties still apply.

There's a huge difference between avoidance and evasion. Bernie lied, that's evasion.

Most tax "schemes" or set ups can be pre cleared with HMRC. You propose the scheme or whatever it is to HMRC and ask if it's acceptable?

They'll tell you if it is, or sometimes if you're lucky, even how to amend it to be acceptable. That's the savvy way to do it.

[JontyR]

at any price ?

We all want to pay less tax whether we earn £13 million or £13 thousand the problem is the former take advantage of "schemes" while 90% of us cannot

I don't. I'm happy to pay my tax. I may disagree with how its spent, but I'd happily pay more to support certain services.

Personally I'm not cut out to be rich. I find that as long as I have enough to meet my obligations and support a standard of living I'm happy with I don't strive too hard for more.

[timsussex]

HMRC penalties are usually the same as the amount of tax you tried to dodge. Even if you make genuine mistakes, the penalties still apply.

There's a huge difference between avoidance and evasion. Bernie lied, that's evasion.

Most tax "schemes" or set ups can be pre cleared with HMRC. You propose the scheme or whatever it is to HMRC and ask if it's acceptable?

They'll tell you if it is, or sometimes if you're lucky, even how to amend it to be acceptable. That's the savvy way to do it.

Lying is not the difference between the two; avoidance (at least at Bernies Level) is a scheme where someone has found a legal loophole to exploit evasion is when the loophole isnt legal.
and then there is a moral question

Jimmy Carr (and allegedly thousands of others ) used a scheme to avoid tax known as K2 he at least stood up and said he was tempted (havent we all been) but it was wrong
Was it legal ?? who knows ?? but HMRC are clear that ANY scheme whose primary purpose is to avoid tax is evasion
 which leaves it up to the well paid lawyers to argue the meaning of 'primary'

but how can anyone think that the scheme (some details here External Link/Members Only) was in anyway moral

[Adoniron]

Thats one of the main reasons why you arent worth £37 billion 

I wouldn't want to be.

[RedKettle]

No I personally wouldn't commit fraud or try to evade tax 

Again this boils down to the difference between avoidance and evasion, for many already rich and greedy people the lines appear to be more blurred than for us peasants 

Most people do avoidance. Do you have an ISA? That is tax avoidance.

A married couple might move savings between themselves to use all allowances and exemptions. More avoidance.

Avoidance is legal, by definition.

[Blackpool Rock]

Most people do avoidance. Do you have an ISA? That is tax avoidance.

A married couple might move savings between themselves to use all allowances and exemptions. More avoidance.

Avoidance is legal, by definition.

Agreed most people do avoidance assuming they are in a position to put a few quid to one side and yes I do have a stocks ISA

As you point out and as i've already pointed out avoidance is legal whereas evasion isn't, in fact things like ISA's were created to give people a way of saving a reasonable amount into a tax free system to try and stop them evading and sending the money offshore etc

[PilotMan]

Lying is not the difference between the two;

Understandably, I think you have misunderstood my post.

I wasn't claiming that the difference between evasion and avoidance is lying.

My post was to say that was the difference in Bernies case, it couldn't be Avoidance, because he lied.

I have previously posted on this forum an explanation as to the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, I'm well aware of what it is.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=379457.msg3918623#msg3918623

[Doc Holliday]

In terms of how much money is enough? then slightly further down the scale (to some extent) I heard fairly recently in a radio discussion about Inheritance Tax that around 20% of pensioners are millionaires (in assets)

In terms of Bernie and prison and as others have said, someone of that age would not serve a custodial sentence, not least because there are no rooms at the Inn anyway 

The important thing is that he has been caught and a substantial sum of money has gone into the public purse (to be squandered by Government  )

[timsussex]

Understandably, I think you have misunderstood my post.

I wasn't claiming that the difference between evasion and avoidance is lying.

My post was to say that was the difference in Bernies case, it couldn't be Avoidance, because he lied.

I have previously posted on this forum an explanation as to the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, I'm well aware of what it is.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=379457.msg3918623#msg3918623

No it wasnt evasion because he lied - that made it Fraud and got him a suspended sentence as well.
The scheme itself was evasion and he knew it that as why he lied not the other way round

Interesting quote from the Jimmy Carr case in The Guardian
An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC is extremely effective at shutting down tax avoidance schemes fast and effectively. The avoidance 'industry' has been seriously undermined by HMRC's focus on tackling avoidance – preventing billions of pounds of tax being diverted from the exchequer."  yet AFAIK Carr repaid the tax for moral rather than legal reasons

if avoidance is legal then what basis would the HMRC have for investigating or shutting them down ?

the answer is that HMRC believe any avoidance scheme (using whatever loophole) whose primary aim is to avoid tax is evasion


External Link/Members Only

[RedKettle]

No it wasnt evasion because he lied - that made it Fraud and got him a suspended sentence as well.
The scheme itself was evasion and he knew it that as why he lied not the other way round

Interesting quote from the Jimmy Carr case in The Guardian
An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC is extremely effective at shutting down tax avoidance schemes fast and effectively. The avoidance 'industry' has been seriously undermined by HMRC's focus on tackling avoidance – preventing billions of pounds of tax being diverted from the exchequer."  yet AFAIK Carr repaid the tax for moral rather than legal reasons

if avoidance is legal then what basis would the HMRC have for investigating or shutting them down ?

the answer is that HMRC believe any avoidance scheme (using whatever loophole) whose primary aim is to avoid tax is evasion


External Link/Members Only

That is not quite right.  You can have avoidance schemes where the taxpayer believes it works but on examination by HMRC (or perhaps the Courts) it is determined that it does not.  That does not make it evasion if the taxpayer properly disclosed it to HMRC.  If however they failed to do or lied about part of it then that tips it into evasion.

Some of these schemes are examined over years by the courts with decisions changing at every level - it is not always clear at the start whether they actually work.

[PilotMan]

No it wasnt evasion because he lied - that made it Fraud and got him a suspended sentence as well.
The scheme itself was evasion and he knew it that as why he lied not the other way round

Interesting quote from the Jimmy Carr case in The Guardian
An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC is extremely effective at shutting down tax avoidance schemes fast and effectively. The avoidance 'industry' has been seriously undermined by HMRC's focus on tackling avoidance – preventing billions of pounds of tax being diverted from the exchequer."  yet AFAIK Carr repaid the tax for moral rather than legal reasons

if avoidance is legal then what basis would the HMRC have for investigating or shutting them down ?

the answer is that HMRC believe any avoidance scheme (using whatever loophole) whose primary aim is to avoid tax is evasion


External Link/Members Only

It is you sir who has it the wrong way around, you must be reading from a different ruling.

There was nothing to suggest that the Nanki or Kinan Trust structures were evasion. Ecclestone didn't lie because he knew they were evasion, he just lied that they actually existed or that he was a beneficiary.

Tax evasion is fraud, that's what he has been convicted of.

Here’s the full ruling;

External Link/Members Only


In respect of your question “if avoidance is legal then what basis would the HMRC have for investigating or shutting them down” ? Why would the HMRC need to close down any avoidance scheme if they were in fact illegal - they would just say they're illegal, and shut them down.

HMRC don’t like avoidance schemes – because they can’t do anything about them, because they are legal.

The answer is in what you've quoted from the HMRC Spokesperson above.

HMRC takes steps to amend the rules, so as to ensure the scheme(s) can no longer be used and subsequently classed as avoidance, only then does it become evasion and illegal. So the scheme(s) serve no purpose and they close by default.

In respect of the statement below that would make ISA's tax evasion would it not?

"the answer is that HMRC believe any avoidance scheme (using whatever loophole) whose primary aim is to avoid tax is evasion"

[timsussex]

External Link/Members Only
which includes "other types of tax avoidance or tax evasion" why would they want reports of avoidance if its entirely legal
but of course HMRC are very helpful chaps - if tax avoidance schemes are by definition legal and if they cant do anything about them - its jolly decent of them to publish this which tells you where to go and how to do it!

External Link/Members Only

[RedKettle]

External Link/Members Only
which includes "other types of tax avoidance or tax evasion" why would they want reports of avoidance if its entirely legal
but of course HMRC are very helpful chaps - if tax avoidance schemes are by definition legal and if they cant do anything about them - its jolly decent of them to publish this which tells you where to go and how to do it!

External Link/Members Only

You have to notify those schemes on your return if you have used them. So HMRC have data on them to decide if they are challenging whether they work, see my post above.

You are also missing that avoidance can be legal but not actually work. That does not make it evasion.

[catweazle]

About 12 years ago, I did some contract work,  very well paid. I was persuaded to use a so-called "legal" tax avoidance scheme ( using loan back arrangements). Part of the fee I paid to use this scheme  was for a 'fighting fund' to pay for a top tax barrister to defend it  should HMRC choose to dislike  the scheme.

Of course , as already stated above, HMRC decided that such schemes  are 'evasion '.  The Company running the scheme,  and the 'top barrister' vanished overnight.  End result was I got stung for £54000, including penalties,  to the taxman.

Only answer  was to let them bankrupt me; threw a few other debts in during the proceedings ( like credit cards etc).

Paid token amounts for a year  bankruptcy ended, and now expunged from my credit file.

[RedKettle]

About 12 years ago, I did some contract work,  very well paid. I was persuaded to use a so-called "legal" tax avoidance scheme ( using loan back arrangements). Part of the fee I paid to use this scheme  was for a 'fighting fund' to pay for a top tax barrister to defend it  should HMRC choose to dislike  the scheme.

Of course , as already stated above, HMRC decided that such schemes  are 'evasion '.  The Company running the scheme,  and the 'top barrister' vanished overnight.  End result was I got stung for £54000, including penalties,  to the taxman.

Only answer  was to let them bankrupt me; threw a few other debts in during the proceedings ( like credit cards etc).

Paid token amounts for a year  bankruptcy ended, and now expunged from my credit file.

I really do not think it was decided it was evasion, it was a tax avoidance scheme that failed.  The promoters interpretation of the law was wrong and did not achieve what they said it did.  It was not criminal activity.

HMRC started using a phase "unacceptable avoidance"  to cover the middle ground between avoidance and evasion and I suspect they would have put that scheme into that bracket.  However the distinction between unacceptable avoidance and avoidance is not clear, which I suspect is the way HMRC like it.  However it is clear where the line to evasion is and it does not cover an attempt to use a loophole.

Evasion is the like of not telling HMRC about earnings, rather than using a scheme that purports to turn earnings into loans.

[stanr]

He has been. The £652m settlement covers tax, interest and penalties.

Where does the £652 million go... whose bank account is the beneficiary as that is a serious amount that could be used for good causes!

[RedKettle]

Where does the £652 million go... whose bank account is the beneficiary as that is a serious amount that could be used for good causes!

The government - it is basically like any other tax receipt.

[radioman33]

I watched a programme Mega Yachts,the porn baron Paul Raymond son was in it called Howard Raymond,they were never satisfied with their yachts and wanted a better one.Whats the point?300 million or a 10 million one?its no different just bragging rights

[Colston36]

If you are very rich and famous, you can build your own private prison and stay in it. 

''Since Rowling acquired the property, she has undertaken extensive security measures, with a state-of-the-art electronic security system, including 6-foot-high (1.8-metre) gates and a CCTV camera, and guards 24 hours a day, seven days a week.''

External Link/Members Only

She has had a lot of unwelcome attention, so understandable.

[Colston36]

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

It depends on your character.

[PilotMan]

If you had £300M would you want to be paying millions in tax?

No you wouldn't.  If you could get away without paying you would.

It depends on your character.

And whether you're dishonest, and if caught don't mind having a criminal conviction and possibly face jail time if caught (unless you're 92  ) .