Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
we all know it happens. just like on a market, all cash and who keeps track of VAT?
Paying tradesmen cash in hand morally wrong - minister
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Or what you're saying is, when I am offered a lower price by a tradesman if I pay cash and that discount ends up being around 20% of the cost, funnily enough, I'll put up my SHIELD OF NAIVETY? Come off it
No, it simply is not your responsibilty, his tax liabilities are his responsibilty alone. To be complicit in his avoidance you must have an explicit offer that is dependent on his avoiding taxes knowingly.....the implication or assumption of such is irrelevant.
As Mr Gauke said, it is about actively paying cash to avoid taxes, not paying cash to get a discount....that discount could be for any number of reasons. Whether he pays taxes or not is the tradesmans responsibilty, not yours.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So, if the president of Iran asked you for a nuclear missile that could reach Israel so that he can use it as a hat stand, that's fine then as you haven't been explicitly told what's going on its just totally glaringly obvious?
Estebanrey, you have just proven my point, rather than your own....you are complicit in a crime if you are actually aware of its occurrence, not if you just suspect one. If the tradesman says he is offering you a discount for cash because he can avoid taxes then you are complicit, if he simply offers you a discount for cash to secure the work or because he can offer the work lower due to other considerations such as lower material costs, banking charges etc then you are not.....
Just because you pay cash, doesnt mean that money is not recording in the traders books....and unless you have evidence that the discount is specifically due to tax avoidance, you are not legally complicit.
Just because you pay cash, doesnt mean that money is not recording in the traders books....and unless you have evidence that the discount is specifically due to tax avoidance, you are not legally complicit.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
When it comes to complicity, ignorance isn't usually a good defence though.
Nemo censetur ignorare legem.
While I agree it's hard to tell, I think with a few basic guidelines much of the evasion can be stamped out by enforcing people to avoid paying cash in hand (if they are just going to feign ignorance as an excuse to allow people to evade tax & get discounts because of it).
While I agree it's hard to tell, I think with a few basic guidelines much of the evasion can be stamped out by enforcing people to avoid paying cash in hand (if they are just going to feign ignorance as an excuse to allow people to evade tax & get discounts because of it).
I would like to see someone's neighbours arrested and charged for being complicit in a crime he commits, such as drug dealing, where you may suspect something, but not actually witness the crime itself......
And ignorance of any crime being commited is precisely the best defence for being an accessory complicit in its taking place....if someone steals my neighbours car and I am unaware or ignorant that it is being stolen, am I still complicit?
You simply make it a legal requirement to issue VAT receipts for all work carried out.
And ignorance of the law is not the same as being complicit in someone else breaking the law.....
Well, if depends on if your neighbour was giving you money on a regular basis to keep you happy (as to not call the police), or the car thief's dropped a few £20 notes in your letterbox after seeing you looking out of the window at the time.
In the case of workmen offering discounts to avoid paying tax they are involved directly & financially benefiting from it, in the cases you have cited the people near didn't benefit.
I fully agree, but benefiting financially does raise the bar past simple ignorance of the law in my opinion.
What about being charged for receiving stolen goods? You didn't see the crime but being offered a TV for a cheap price in a pub is pretty much being complicit in it.
That is an explicit offer to avoid, and as I said that would make you complicit....however paying in cash and recieving a discount is not necessarily an explicit offer dependent on breaking the law.....I have recieved discounts for work paid for in cash, yet my reciepts for such work make it clear that a portion of that cash price is attributed to VAT.....whether the tradesman then files that in his accounts is his responsibilty, not mine...I am not complicit in his tax avoidance.
If the receipt doesn't account for VAT or specifically states the VAT not payable due to a cash transaction then I could be accused of complicity.
Even if there is no receipt that doesn't make me complicit as the discount can be accounted for by a lack of guarantees and responsibilty of the tradesman to put any later defects right that a receipt would imply.
It simply is not as simple as saying anyone who pays cash in return for a discount is complicit in tax avoidance....
I fully agree, but benefiting financially does raise the bar past simple ignorance of the law in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I swear half the people havent read the very first line on this thread.
It is "morally wrong" to offer to pay tradesmen in cash in the hope of avoiding tax
So if you pay cash knowing he wont pay the tax off it to get a discount it is morally wrong and he is correct. Its not your responsibility to payhis tax, of course not however your paying him knowing he wont pay it.
Not the same thing.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
There is a difference between having no knowledge of something happening and being given clues and willfully ignoring them. The previous poster you were replying to made the point that if you are being given a discount for cash then you are obviously being given that for a reason, that isn't really comparable to a crime happening someone else you have no part in like your car theft example.
Anyway, I'll say it again, I brought up the complicity thing and it was to a poster who explicitly admitted knowing what the discount was for but simply not caring. You cannot argue that isn't him being complicit.
You have to have knowingly received stolen goods, buying a cheap TV privately doesn't mean you are complicit in a crime, or guilty of recieving stolen goods.
an email one of the plumbing lads sent to David Gauke
"Dear Sir
I am writing to let you know that I earned (as a self employed plumber) about £8,000 last year.
I declared EVERY SINGLE PENNY that I earned and have had my accounts cleared by my accountant and await my tax bill.
Many customers, especially the rich, think it is fine to delay payment by a few weeks. This affects cashflow, and is frustrating if you’ve spent well over £1,000 buying materials for that customer. You cannot take the materials you’ve bought out of your customer’s house because the law does not allow you to do that.
I give cash discounts to my customers because that way I know I have the money and I don’t have to worry about whether I’ll be paid for a job or not. Is this morally wrong?
I don’t claim for a second house as I don’t have one but I do dream that one day we’ll be able to afford a new car. A holiday this year would have been great too but the recession has hit my trade and my family can’t afford to go away, especially as my wife has also been redundant for around eight months.
I’m not asking for pity – just don’t tar all of us with the same brush while your energies would be more productive by going for some of the richer people."
"Dear Sir
I am writing to let you know that I earned (as a self employed plumber) about £8,000 last year.
I declared EVERY SINGLE PENNY that I earned and have had my accounts cleared by my accountant and await my tax bill.
Many customers, especially the rich, think it is fine to delay payment by a few weeks. This affects cashflow, and is frustrating if you’ve spent well over £1,000 buying materials for that customer. You cannot take the materials you’ve bought out of your customer’s house because the law does not allow you to do that.
I give cash discounts to my customers because that way I know I have the money and I don’t have to worry about whether I’ll be paid for a job or not. Is this morally wrong?
I don’t claim for a second house as I don’t have one but I do dream that one day we’ll be able to afford a new car. A holiday this year would have been great too but the recession has hit my trade and my family can’t afford to go away, especially as my wife has also been redundant for around eight months.
I’m not asking for pity – just don’t tar all of us with the same brush while your energies would be more productive by going for some of the richer people."
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
You should rather trade labour for labour, that way they can't tax it.
Say you work in IT and you know a plumber, say the plumber you will do his IT if he does your plumbing, trade out i think it is called. But i am sure the greedy government officials will find this practice immoral as well.
How dare you make a voluntary transaction without giving money to the state? How dare you make an honest living without handing over money to the state?
You pay up or they will break your knee caps, reminds me of the mafia.
Say you work in IT and you know a plumber, say the plumber you will do his IT if he does your plumbing, trade out i think it is called. But i am sure the greedy government officials will find this practice immoral as well.
How dare you make a voluntary transaction without giving money to the state? How dare you make an honest living without handing over money to the state?
You pay up or they will break your knee caps, reminds me of the mafia.
And again, you are proving my point.....to be complicit, you must knowingly be involved.....simply paying cash for a discount is not enough to be complicit, there are numerous reasons why a cash transaction is preferable to a tradesman that do not mean he is not declaring it.... only if the tradesman explicitly states that the discount is due to his not needing to declare those earning are you being complicit.