Author Topic: How much money is enough  (Read 4403 times)

Online RandomGuy99

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  :() .
No, it depends on whether there are legal ways of avoiding paying tax.

Offline Squire Haggard

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

IMO, she will have some headbanger fans, who have tried crashing headfirst into the wall at platform 9.75 at Kings Cross once too often. :) Celebrities can be a magnet for the unhinged, causing many to take precautions. One nearly killed George Harrison.

''Abram was sent to a psychiatric unit following the incident, avoiding prison time on the grounds of insanity. He has since announced regret over his actions, asking Harrison’s family for forgiveness.''

External Link/Members Only
« Last Edit: October 27, 2023, 10:05:37 am by Squire Haggard »

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
No, it depends on whether there are legal ways of avoiding paying tax.

I think I misunderstood your original quote, when Colston requoted it  :hi:

Legally avoiding paying tax, I 100% agree. That's what you pay accountants and tax advisors for.

In Bernie's case (where this thread started) it wasn't legal, it was dishonest, hence his conviction.

Offline timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,340
  • Likes: 86
  •  
  • Reviews: 33
Alison Rose the ex boss of NatWest (40% owned by all taxpayers) was paid £12.4 million over 4 years  She has resigned as CEO admitting mistakes over the 'debanking' of Nigel Farage and her subsequent personal breaches of data protection laws; but is now fighting to keep her £10 million bonus.

 

Offline Colston36

Alison Rose the ex boss of NatWest (40% owned by all taxpayers) was paid £12.4 million over 4 years  She has resigned as CEO admitting mistakes over the 'debanking' of Nigel Farage and her subsequent personal breaches of data protection laws; but is now fighting to keep her £10 million bonus.

Grasping bitch. Why should she not suffer like we all do when we make a mistake? You and I don't get a bonus for fucking up.

Offline jackdaw

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 804
  • Likes: 16
  •  
  • Reviews: 2
Grasping bitch. Why should she not suffer like we all do when we make a mistake? You and I don't get a bonus for fucking up.

It was such an extreme mistake as well…patently given her positions and responsibilities the board should have sacked her, rather than backed her (only to see her forced to resign soon after.)

Surprised the Chairman managed to cling on.
Banned reason: No reply when questioned about reviews
Banned by: Iloveoral

Offline The0neAnd0nly

Yeah I'm sure none of us would fight to keep our 10 million bonus on the same situation if we could  :D

Offline Blackpool Rock

It was such an extreme mistake as well…patently given her positions and responsibilities the board should have sacked her, rather than backed her (only to see her forced to resign soon after.)

Surprised the Chairman managed to cling on.
You don't let go of a gravy train that easily do you

Offline chrishornx

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

I would venture that most of us would avoid taxes if possible. They just do it on bigger scale and we criticise them for doing what we would all do if we had their money

Offline The0neAnd0nly

Alison Rose the ex boss of NatWest (40% owned by all taxpayers) was paid £12.4 million over 4 years  She has resigned as CEO admitting mistakes over the 'debanking' of Nigel Farage and her subsequent personal breaches of data protection laws; but is now fighting to keep her £10 million bonus.

Just seen this..  she's lost 3/4s of her severance. Ouch!!!

External Link/Members Only

Offline timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,340
  • Likes: 86
  •  
  • Reviews: 33
Kaye Adams - host of Loose Women and other radio/TV shows has just won a case against HMRC
HMRC claimed she was an employee she claimed she was self employed - the difference in tax was £127k

Offline The0neAnd0nly

£173,000,000 on't Euromillions tonight. Good luck to everyone having a flutter...

Maybe my wish on post #13 could be about to come true!!
💷 💷 💷

Offline george r

Kaye Adams - host of Loose Women and other radio/TV shows has just won a case against HMRC
HMRC claimed she was an employee she claimed she was self employed - the difference in tax was £127k

there is always a legal loophole for these so called stars , lorraine kelly was a similar case a bit back

Offline Spunky34

  • Age Check : 18+

  • Ban Countdown
    Loading...
  • Posts: 446
  • Likes: 6
  •  
  • Reviews: 11
there is always a legal loophole for these so called stars , lorraine kelly was a similar case a bit back

Not always, for example Eamonn Holmes lost his case.  The employee/self-employed distinction is extremely complex and it really is a case by case basis. 

Offline george r

Not always, for example Eamonn Holmes lost his case.  The employee/self-employed distinction is extremely complex and it really is a case by case basis.

he should have got lorraine kellys legal team

Offline berksboy

Maybe the circumstances were different ?  :unknown:

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
Maybe the circumstances were different ?  :unknown:

Yep, there's a lot of ways and combinations / caveats for HMRC to define you as an employee.

e.g. just a few;

Do you work for more than one company

Do you have control over what hours / times / days you work

Do you use specialist equipment that you need to complete the work you're contracted to do - do you own that equipment

« Last Edit: December 01, 2023, 02:51:44 pm by PilotMan »

Offline timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,340
  • Likes: 86
  •  
  • Reviews: 33
It does seem that the rules are shall we say "open to interpretation" - which of course means lawyers make money and people with deep pockets get away with shall we say "bending" those rules

But the bottom line is that they are HMRCs own rules and as they have lost several high profile cases then the surely the rules need looking at.

Without straying into politics there is also a major question as to why if 2 people have broadly similar jobs one should pay £127k less tax just because their lawyers/accountants did a better job of interpreting the fine print.

I say this as someone who has benefitted from self employed status in the past - although not to the tune of £127k!

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
Without straying into politics there is also a major question as to why if 2 people have broadly similar jobs one should pay £127k less tax just because their lawyers/accountants did a better job of interpreting the fine print.


They may be in broadly similar roles, but £127k isn't the tax that they paid on the same amount of ("broadly") income, it's the HMRC claim value.

You have no idea over what time frame the claim covers, what their gross earnings were, and any additional income that was made inside or outside of their "PAYE" job, etc etc.

Offline 8MillionDollarMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Likes: 24
  •  
  • Reviews: 30


But the bottom line is that they are HMRCs own rules and as they have lost several high profile cases then the surely the rules need looking at.



I'm somebody that knows form first hand experience the trouble is HMRCs rules are ambiguous and it's hard to get a straight answer from them so tax advisors try and do the best for their clients within the guidelines.
As it was the bastards lost their case against me which would have cost me a significant sum if I'd lost.
Banned reason: Habitual one line reviews.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
As it was the bastards lost their case against me which would have cost me a significant sum if I'd lost.

$8M?  :P

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
HMRCs rules are ambiguous and it's hard to get a straight answer from them so tax advisors try and do the best for their clients within the guidelines.

Unlike the justice system, it's pretty much the reverse. If HMRC says you're guilty (owe tax in their opinion) you have to prove otherwise.

The same with UWO'S (unexplained wealth order), you have to prove you're innocent.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2023, 08:37:43 pm by PilotMan »

Offline Bonker

One penny more than my expenditure.
My dear Copperfield.

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
One penny more than my expenditure.
My dear Copperfield.

And save it for a rainy day.

Online Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,062
  • Likes: 294
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
$8M?  :P

 :D

Unlike the justice system, it's pretty much the reverse. If HMRC says you're guilty (owe tax in their opinion) you have to prove otherwise.

Yes indeed. This was something I learned back in the early eighties when a colleague was the subject of a HMRC investigation. He disproved the accusations, but cost him a great deal in accountancy fees doing so. From that day I ensured I had annual insurance in place to cover such investigation fees. Fortunately never needed to claim.

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Likes: 322
  •  
  • Reviews: 205
:D

Yes indeed. This was something I learned back in the early eighties when a colleague was the subject of a HMRC investigation. He disproved the accusations, but cost him a great deal in accountancy fees doing so. From that day I ensured I had annual insurance in place to cover such investigation fees. Fortunately never needed to claim.

We also insure against tax investigations, the cost isn't the issue, it's the upheaval it causes.

I had my first "discussion" with HMRC many years ago, I learned a lot from that. When they can't find anything, they often pick apart small things to justify their time. Like looking at petrol receipts and seeing if you bought a sandwich as well  :unknown:

A few years ago, and for the first time ever, we submitted a VAT return that was a refund, because we exported a lot over this period. The VAT office decided that they needed to visit us, immediately! Fortunately, our books were all perfect and our export paperwork was all properly completed.

We had a similar period recently when we exported a lot, and had we submitted it, the VAT return indicated a refund. We decided to put a few purchase invoices on query, which meant that they fell over in to the next return. The net result is that we paid VAT, and I reckon avoided another visit. It's often these abnormalities that trigger visits.

HMRC aren't the bad guys, they are just doing what they're tasked to do, they're just employees. If you talk to them about a potential tax liability and what you are planning to do, they will give you pre-approval. Some of these celebs are using very ominous schemes, many of these schemes have been "flagged" by HMRC or their operators have been flagged up as repeat offenders.

You can negotiate with HMRC as well, not everything is black and white. They've just let me defer a £72k corp tax bill, and pay it over 18 months, interest free. If you don't ask, you don't get  :dance:

Online Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,062
  • Likes: 294
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
We also insure against tax investigations, the cost isn't the issue, it's the upheaval it causes.

Yes the stress and upheaval is considerable. In his case he was a sole trader, but a much larger business he traded with was busted by HMRC and so he fell under the spotlight.

Offline 8MillionDollarMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Likes: 24
  •  
  • Reviews: 30
Unlike the justice system, it's pretty much the reverse. If HMRC says you're guilty (owe tax in their opinion) you have to prove otherwise.

The same with UWO'S (unexplained wealth order), you have to prove you're innocent.

I can't see what that has to do with my post.
Banned reason: Habitual one line reviews.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline 8MillionDollarMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Likes: 24
  •  
  • Reviews: 30
Banned reason: Habitual one line reviews.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline 8MillionDollarMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Likes: 24
  •  
  • Reviews: 30


You can negotiate with HMRC as well, not everything is black and white. They've just let me defer a £72k corp tax bill, and pay it over 18 months, interest free. If you don't ask, you don't get  :dance:

Cool "story" bro.
Banned reason: Habitual one line reviews.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline binbag

Evasion and avoidance are legal constructs and it's the government's that make the laws so, what's evasion today might be avoidancevnext week and vice versa. The government tries to get as much as possible. Certain targets (most of us) are easy targets but we don't have a lot to give. The targets that are more lucrative are harder to pin down so pursuing them is more costly and more time consuming. Tax officials, like most of us look for the 'best bang for the buck'. 'Fair share' doesn't come into it because it doesn't exist

Offline GreyDave

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Likes: 78
  •  
  • Reviews: 109
:D

Yes indeed. This was something I learned back in the early eighties when a colleague was the subject of a HMRC investigation. He disproved the accusations, but cost him a great deal in accountancy fees doing so. From that day I ensured I had annual insurance in place to cover such investigation fees. Fortunately never needed to claim.

I was subject to an investigation we had insurance which paid for the intial legal advise which we then found we would not be covered as it was considered a Criminal charge :( dispite going to court and it being dismissed the only costs we got back were for travel to and from court .... This is why so many cases plead gulty or pay up as the expense of fighting can often be much much more than the intial sum requested ....I and the advisers we used were "none the wiser to the system after"  the ability to demand payment then  prosecute with penelty,  just as the investigators have a "feeling" that they are correct.

As one commenter said its a case by case basis .but there is NO CLEAR guide at all... :unknown: :unknown: :hi: 

Offline GreyDave

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Likes: 78
  •  
  • Reviews: 109
Evasion and avoidance are legal constructs and it's the government's that make the laws so, what's evasion today might be avoidancevnext week and vice versa. The government tries to get as much as possible. Certain targets (most of us) are easy targets but we don't have a lot to give. The targets that are more lucrative are harder to pin down so pursuing them is more costly and more time consuming. Tax officials, like most of us look for the 'best bang for the buck'. 'Fair share' doesn't come into it because it doesn't exist

Best Quote of summing up their action so far Sir :hi: :hi: