Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.
Fiddling taxes is tax evasion not tax avoidance.
I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.
I agree but I go back to my previous point that this would apply to people who were signed up to legitamite hmrc approved schemes.
You are not comparing apples to applesI wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?
The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.
We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.
Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.
Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?
Fiddling taxes is tax evasion not tax 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 to know the time at work. Business expenses are legitimate. I can argue it's a genuine business need/expense until I'm blue in the face but some might say I am being a little imaginative with my interpretation, it's really just a regular watch, and I'm just saying this to get the VAT and 40% off. Would a jury be convinced by my story?
If the players have put money into schemes in accordance with HMRC's advice, then surely a court will rule in their favour? Of course we know that a lot of the rich aren't investing money into government schemes, but they're moving it abroad using dodgy loopholes.It is absolutely disgraceful.
HMRC backed many of these schemes at the time and have now decided to rob the poor buggers that signed up. Most people on this thread seem to have any clue about this topic.
Fiddling taxes is a crime. I'm not sure whether it's evasion or avoidance
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.
Fair argument. Don't disagree with most of that. As some have mentioned here people are being ordered to pay money before being even allowed to challenge in court and that a violation of one's civil rights.
well yes, so why is it right for HMRC decide a investment is outside of the law before the completion of a judicial process. and while some of the investments using this tax relief may have been artificial companies, many where real businesses putting the money into the film industry, as the article refered lists. end of the day, even where people did take advantage, the government wanted investment and provided a vehicle for this. they could have limited it, put conditions around it, they did not.
You go to prison for tax evasion.
...It's just the piss-takers who will most likely get a knock on the door.
if only that where the case. they have already shown their hand going in before a judgment (yep, assumption of guilt), and they are pursuing everyone involved in the vehicles concerned, which could as well be the self-employed taking up an investment for their retirement as a footballer or band member. these investments weren't exclusive, i recall having paper work for one.
As a financial adviser who has seen these "schemes" come and go over the years, offered by people who think they have found loopholes in the legislation, I have absolutely no sympathy with those now getting tax bills be it a footballer or a contractor.
Tax planning is fine and everyone should do what they can to pay as little tax as possible using legitimate means such as pension contributions and ISAs etc but these "schemes" are just taking the piss.
If you had paid your taxes like everyone one else you wouldn't have a problem. These people are basically stealing from other taxpayers.
All the above is fair enough BUT if HMRC were claiming the people they are currently chasing were guilty of tax evasion then there would have to be a court case to prove tax was due and the individual had deliberately evaded payment then a successful hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act BEFORE they could force an individual to pay up.
In the cases in question they are using the civil courts to force individuals to pay tax on the basis that those they are claiming from have no right to dispute the amount due because legislation has been passed giving HMRC the final say on this until such time as a court decides otherwise - this just seems contrary to natural justice.
I know there was in the minds of government good reason for this legislation because some of these disputes were taking years to resolve but surely the answer was to speed up the dispute resolution rather than pass legislation like this.
All the above is fair enough BUT if HMRC were claiming the people they are currently chasing were guilty of tax evasion then there would have to be a court case to prove tax was due and the individual had deliberately evaded payment then a successful hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act BEFORE they could force an individual to pay up.
In the cases in question they are using the civil courts to force individuals to pay tax on the basis that those they are claiming from have no right to dispute the amount due because legislation has been passed giving HMRC the final say on this until such time as a court decides otherwise - this just seems contrary to natural justice.
I know there was in the minds of government good reason for this legislation because some of these disputes were taking years to resolve but surely the answer was to speed up the dispute resolution rather than pass legislation like this.