Search results

True. But whether we like it, or not, as a UK resident it is your duty to pay taxes and your duty to pay them correctly. That's the law and your responsibility. And I personally see the HMRC as there to help me do this. And my experience backs this up. Maybe if you approach them with a...

So the HMRC can also add politics into the mix? No thanks. I prefer them to enforce the tax laws of the land outside of political meddling....just like the judiciary. You've had a bad experience, but I have generally had good experience. I do find there is an onus of me to help them and explain...

A very good point. Maybe the it would be fairer for the HMRC to either freeze, or take a snapshot of the person's wealth at the time of the dispute and then be able to go after the assets once judgement is made?

Fair point

Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the HMRC should not send demands until a judgment has been made. When did this law come in though?

I'm not disagreeing on the "going in before a judgement". And I'm not suggesting the schemes were exclusive. But if you take one out it's your responsibility to ensure you are within the law. At times this isn't black and white and I agree it can difficult but ultimately it's your responsibility...

I will take your word for it. I don't know the exact legal definitions of evasion and avoidance.

I agree the HMRC should wait until the judiciary has decided. It's wrong that they can demand money in advance of a judgement. And as I understand it there are plenty of people who have invested in the film industry using this scheme as it was intended and who have nothing to fear. It's just the...

I agree with this latter point. When did this law come in as it seems to go against the innocent-until-proven-guilty idea.

Fiddling taxes is a crime. I'm not sure whether it's evasion or avoidance

Okay. It's a legitimate scheme but this will not always stop people fancifully interpreting the rules for their benefit. And if this is proven then they have to pay it back. It's no different to me being self-employed and buying myself a 10k watch and claiming it as a business expense as I need...

But if a court proves you have fiddled the system then you should pay it back. I imagine HMRC only go after the real piss-takers so I have little sympathy and I speak as someone who has been self-employed for almost 2 decades.

I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.

I also agree with the latter point. That's wrong.

And you seem to be presuming that footballers are totally and absolutely unemployable once they finish playing. They can always get a job on civvy street like me and you have to.

This.

I think ISAs are a bit different to the artificial, fancifully interpreted, schemes which these footballers seem to have paid into.

Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not. It's the...

Doh. Can the mods delete my similar thread please.