There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 77 comments are related to the topic:
Sir Alex Ferguson among hundreds ordered to pay back TWENTY times their investment in tax scheme
Sir Alex Ferguson among hundreds ordered to pay back TWENTY times their investment in tax scheme
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 77
|
By:
Are they paying their fair share then ?
|
|
By:
is there some sort of threshold where you stop paying then
|
|
By:
No they obviously aren't paying their share johnny as these avoidance schemes illustrate.
|
|
By:
even PM confused
 Ted Charlton @ted_charlton Teresa May at says she is coming after all Financial Advisers who help clients "Avoid paying Taxes" should she have said "Evade paying Tax |
|
By:
It isn't quite as simple as that Sparrow. Tax legislation is a few feet thick.
What avoidance schemes are OK and what aren't ? - Most people organise their affairs in such a way to maximise their income. Why is it considered part of the game for some members of society but a hideous crime by others? There will be far more people cheating the system at lower income levels than at the top end. |
|
By:
300,000 people pay 25% of the nation's income tax.
Are those guys paying their fair share ? |
|
By:
I would guess that 99.9% of people who are self employed pay less than what they should pay. Every accountant is creative when it comes to submitting a self employer persons books, with every invoice and receipt possible submitted that has nothing to do with their business expenses!!
If I could get away with paying less tax legally I certainly would. |
|
By:
My point is merely a simple one in that everyone should pay tax as I did before I retired. As a bus driver I paid tax on all earnings above the tax free allowance. There are no tax avoidance schemes for the vast majority of working people and nor should there be for anyone in this country.
|
|
By:
Did you pay into a pension sparrow ?
|
|
By:
HMRC approved these schemes in the first place!
|
|
By:
HMRC approved these schemes in the first place!
|
|
By:
More than twice - lol
|
|
By:
Tax legislation allowed film scheme investments.
|
|
By:
There is tax relief on pension schemes which you join and contribute to (within limits) but you do pay tax on the pension you receive - they are not tax avoidance schemes as you infer
|
|
By:
Of course they are tax avoidance schemes. That is exactly what they are !
|
|
By:
Just one that is deemed morally acceptable.
Why should some other schemes , allowed by legislation, be deemed morally unacceptable? |
|
By:
Tax avoidance (evasion) is illegal ie; the film schemes which did not receive prior approval because they were created as a means to fraudulently avoid tax
Schemes approved & authorised by HMRC are not illegal (company pension schemes) |
|
By:
I'm not defending this particular scheme.
Film scheme investments were given extra tax breaks by the government to generate investment. HMRC write legislation. Like any law , who is to say what it really means until it is tested in the courts. Only then can you say what is avoidance or evasion. There will always be borderline cases, as with any law. |
|
By:
These schemes were approved and authorised by HMRC
so accountants advised their clients accordingly |
|
By:
Tax "avoidance" is not illegal. Tax "evasion" is.
|
|
By:
What about the guy who earns £150K a year and dumps £140K into a pension and pays no tax ?
Is that OK ? |
|
By:
Yes but accountancy principles and avoidance schemes are pushing the boundaries of the law to its limits - sometimes they succeed other times they don't - but many times they are outside of the morality of what legislation intended them to be
|
|
By:
You cannot put so much into a pension scheme because there are percentage limits - (a lot less than 90%+ of your salary) to what you can invest into any scheme in any year
|
|
By:
Who is the judge of the morality of the law ?
Yes, there are limits geordie, but that is certainly possible. Is that guy immoral because he should be paying his fair share ? |
|
By:
mini me - in the past avoidance schemes were set up without prior approval & were subsequently challenged by HmRC on appeal
now the scheme organiser is supposed to request prior approval from HMRC to test their legitimacy before they are set up |
|
By:
the judge of the law is usually public opinion
|
|
By:
Public opinion sets the law ?? How does that work then ?
What part does the actual legislation play or the courts ? |
|
By:
parliament sets out the legislation and enacts it but if they want to voted back they should listen to the electorate because if they shout that there is an inherent unfairness in a system where a millionaire pays nothing but someone on the average wage of say £26K pays £4 to £5K then they might find themselves out of work
|
|
By:
A while ago now, but the law is the same, even here.
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Judge Learned Hand. |
|
By:
Providing they comply with the tax laws we have - the film schemes palpably failed that test so the contributors to the said schemes are required to pay back the benefits claimed together with interest & penalties because they were cheating the system
|
|
By:
What about tax laws that are unclear , open to interpretation, or maybe just badly drafted ?
Is it OK to test or take 'advantage' of these ? What about the multi-millionaire who has no income and therefore pays no income tax ? Is that OK on your moral compass? |
|
By:
Yes I do receive a public sector pension. I paid into the scheme for 34 years paying tax at 10% then and now receive £140 a week which is now taxable at the appropriate rate. As a result my state pension is reduced for being in the scheme. So much for the so called "gold plated public sector" schemes. How anyone can compare this to the tax avoidance schemes enjoyed by the very rich is beyond me.
|
|
By:
How can one legal tax avoidance scheme be socially acceptable, and encouraged but others deemed so immoral ?
|
|
By:
How about the millionaire who runs his business through a company (drawing little out) and paying just 20% corporation tax ? Is that OK ?
|
|
By:
What about the tradesman who 'employs' his wife as his bookkeeper ? Is that OK ?
Or the employee who makes sure they work exactly 16 hours a week to maximise tax credits ? Is that OK ? Where exactly do you draw the line ? |
|
By:
Sparrow if you contributed into that scheme for 34 years .... it would appear very poor value.
 Did you have the option of a tax free lump sum, this may have reduced your current tax bill  I would like to thank the 300,000  |
|
By:
with the new rules coming in,universal credit etc the cleaner at philip greens office at the moment would be paying an effective tax rate of about 95% on any extra hrs worked,even with the new rules on universal credit they will be paying 67% tax rate,so whilst the billionaire green steels from his employers pensions and pays clever accountants to pay 5% tax his cleaner is paying an effective 67% tax rate if he/she attempts to better themselves,madness but he has got 3 super cruisers to maintain
|
|
By:
I think it is reasonable that HMRC are getting tough on people who only pay small amounts of tax in relation to their income. There is a swing of the pendulum going on here, for years these people have been getting away with it very nicely,
well life has a habit of kicking EVERYONE in the teeth now and again |