There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 115 comments are related to the topic:
So Dettori takes UK tax payers for £765,542...
So Dettori takes UK tax payers for £765,542...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 115
|
By:
A repugnant toerag, end of.
|
|
By:
Reputation trashed irreversibly. Stupid man.
|
|
By:
Like him or not sad to see such a figure in a position like this, where did all his money go
|
|
By:
Not skint, just accounting chicanery
|
|
By:
bellico, I know it's awful, to think that once he's paid his debts he'll be living in Cardboard City.
|
|
By:
:)
|
|
By:
The BBC has set aside up to £12m to pay off the past tax liabilities of BBC presenters being pursued by HMRC for tax avoidance using personal service companies, the latest BBC annual report has revealed.
However, the National Audit Office (NAO) has questioned whether the payments are a legitimate use of BBC funds, and has issued a qualified opinion of the BBC accounts as a result. The NAO highlights the difficulties that the BBC and other organisations have got into when seeking to avoid tax, and the thorny issue of who pays when tax avoidance schemes go wrong. The BBC started to employ presenters via personal service companies from the late 1990s. A personal service company is a company that is set up to manage the affairs of an employee. Instead of contracting with the employee directly, the BBC contracted with their company. This benefited the BBC because it would mean that the employee would be responsible for their tax affairs, and the corporation would no longer need to operate PAYE or pay employers national insurance. The presenter could minimise their tax payments by paying themselves a small wage through their company and receiving the rest of their income in dividends. This had a substantial tax benefit. The BBC got into these kinds of arrangements in a big way. Previously the BBC has said that 800 of their presenters were at risk of tax investigations by HMRC, 300 of them for their use of personal service companies. The other 500 were employed as freelancers through other schemes not involving personal services companies which the BBC is now also facing a large bill for. It is not made clear in the BBC annual accounts the nature of these schemes, however, it is possible that these are the kind of loan based tax avoidance schemes now being caught by the HMRC Loan Charge. It is also not clear what the liability is on these schemes. The total tax and litigation provision in the BBC accounts is £40m, this includes other money set aside for other issues and the £12m for liabilities arising from the personal service company schemes. In the case of presenters that did not use a personal service company, the issue is quite straight forward. The presenters should have been considered as BBC employees and the Corporation should have operated a PAYE system. In these cases the BBC has agreed to pay the bill. Doesn't excuse FD, but he is not uniquely culpable. |
|
By:
Sports presenter Gary Lineker has won his appeal against HMRC over a £4.9m tax bill.
The UK tax authority pursued the star over taxes on income from both the BBC and BT Sport from 2013 to 2014 and 2017 to 2018. Lineker presents BBC's Match of the Day and used to also work for BT Sport. HMRC said he was an employee of both broadcasters but a judge has now ruled he was a freelancer and had contracts with both broadcasters. "The effect of my conclusions is that because there were direct contracts, between the BBC and Mr Lineker and BT Sport and Mr Lineker, the intermediaries legislation (IR35) does not, and cannot as a matter of law, apply," Tribunal Judge Brooks said in a statement. "Accordingly, and notwithstanding GLM (Gary Lineker Media) being a partnership, that is the end of the matter and the appeal succeeds." Mr Lineker wrote on social media, external: "I had already paid all tax due at the top rate and happily so. I'm totally flabbergasted as to why I was expected to pay double. Thankfully justice was done." IR35 is designed to clampdown on tax avoidance by so-called disguised employees, who charge for their services via limited companies. Gary Lineker cried over Wright and Shearer support Gary Lineker to return as BBC denies climbdown Lineker revolt becomes a test of BBC's values Throughout proceedings, the presenter, 62, insisted all taxes were paid on the income via a partnership (GLM) set up in 2012 with his ex-wife Danielle Bux. The case follows similar attempts by HMRC to target other broadcasters including Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams. Earlier tribunal documents said Mr Lineker was disputing the bill and it had been agreed he paid the income tax in full. Last month Mr Lineker's lawyer James Rivett KC told a preliminary hearing in London that the star had been "dragged through the papers accused of not paying income tax which has been paid", and claimed there was a political element to the investigations. Following the ruling an HMRC spokesperson said: "The tribunal has confirmed the off-payroll rules apply to partnerships, as we have always said. "However, we do not agree with its decision that the rules cannot apply in this case and we're considering an appeal. "It is our duty to ensure everyone pays the right tax under the law, regardless of wealth or status." HMRC has 56 days to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). hmmm |
|
By:
frankies political hero is mussolini i heard
|
|
By:
Hearsay then.
|
|
By:
frankies political hero is mussolini i heard
surely it's Gary, he got away with it. |
|
By:
Superb Jockey , selfish human being .Pity the TV media give him such an easy time !
|
|
By:
Chapman early favourite for the 'I did nothing wrong and I'm really a great person' interview.
|
|
By:
horrible person
|
|
By:
NEVER LIKE HIM A ....
|
|
By:
Pretendee likeable chap. I find him fake and he without doubt he has an agenda.
He will be on the "Dave Chiznall" before we know it.... |
|
By:
Mjk spot on ,everbody pays there fair share says rachel from accounts so why not flankie
|
|
By:
Clearly, some of you not understand the concept of limited liabilities
|
|
By:
He's earned many multiples of his tax bill. As such, I think he should have paid HMRC what he owes legally. And, to use the bankruptcy route - a convenient but legal - to avoid payment shows he's chosen self-interest before the correct moral and responsibility to UK Plc as a resident.
|
|
By:
And,top of the list is implausible who consistently remains as thick as an elephants trunk
|
|
By:
7 % of lifetime earnings in racing…..probably around 10 million…..creepy hog….
|
|
By:
And that’s only prize money…..earnings for rides another lorry load….
Dreadful thing greed….. |
|
By:
Greed is legal
 |
|
By:
Send him to El Salvador…..
|
|
By:
He probably has a tour planned there
|
|
By:
Why is there not a Guantanamo for high-worth tax dodgers? I cannot think of a better deterrent.
|
|
By:
El Salvador prison……wipe the smile off a few..
|
|
By:
Really sad that the 2 best jockeys in my adult life have ended up either broke (Dettori) or in jail (Piggott) It does not detract from their riding ability for me though. Just makes me sad that they end up in disgrace.
|
|
By:
Countless sports people earned funny money and ended up without a bolt…..
|
|
By:
Is there any particular point that you are trying to make,Aceform or is this one of your usual meaningless rants?
|
|
By:
Fk off ……idiot.
|
|
By:
Becker is another.
|
|
By:
An endless list impossible…..
|
|
By:
formoftheace • January 15, 2026 7:43 PM GMT
Fk off ……idiot. The response of a moron with no argument to make. Under Company Law he owes F/A you utter cretin |
|
By:
Ok Einstein…..
|
|
By:
A certainty no UK honour will be awarded for his contribution to horseracing in the near or middle term. However, he does have one already eg a ban for taking cocaine.
But, not paying income tax on money earned easily eg through mega prize money, no hard or manual labour, not paid minimum wage, etc, is unforgivable and affront to society and every paye taxpayers. |
|
By:
Cider misunderstands the history of limited liability.
It was never meant to be a tax dodge for the earnings of individuals. |
|
By:
Since I'm qualified, that's unlikely
 It's a fact that there is no standard personal liability with limited companies. Advisers have sought to take advantage of the opportunities that the taxation system provides, for time immemorial. In the UK, sometimes HMRC permits activity and retrospectively determines that it's wrong. Is that fair or not, praps not. There are not many adults in Britain who do not seek to limit their own tax liabilities, using every option available to them. Certainly I do not. Certainly not our current virtue signalling leader. Anyhow, I don't have enough insight into FD's affairs to make any conclusions outside of what's already in the public domain. It would be pretty interesting to see how much tax he actually has contributed as an individual, and indirectly via business operations. Rather than what he hasn't. |
|
By:
It was originally introduced to allow companies to grow without individuals facing losing everything if they went bust. For instance centuries ago if I had 1% of the shares in a company if it went bust then I stood to lose everything. Clearly I wouldn't buy such shares as it would be too risky. The economy would therefore have stagnated.
You may be a qualified accountant but I suspect you haven't a dgree in Economic History. You're living in a sparkling cider bubble. |
|
By:
I wrote a reply and the f u k k i n g AI deleted it again. So I am not typing it out again
 Your understanding isn't any different to mine. When dividend tax is lower than income tax, of course advisers will seek to channel income though a company, where possible. It can be achieved in more than one way. I don't suppose banks offer switching bonuses so that customers can switch away again after a month, and get another bonus from a different institution. But I have done that over 10 times and done absolutely nothing wrong. Seems to me you are confusing morality with compliance. Do limited companies exist so that individuals can mitigate their personal tax liabilities occurring within their own affairs. Absolutely not. Can individuals legitimately use limited companies to mitigate their personal tax liabilities. Absolutely. |