No, there is unequivocal evidence that supports the claim.
I agree it is legal, I question the ethics.
Lords defeat government over tax credits cut
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
No, there is unequivocal evidence that supports the claim.
I agree it is legal, I question the ethics.
tax avoidance...
so the question still stands - why do you think you can ask anything based on that one parameter?
let me clarify, are you stating ALL tax specialists exploit loopholes or SOME tax specialists exploit loopholes? Because if it's the second so what? Some humans don't improve society much, that's life.
I would expect anyone who specialises in tax to exploit all the legal loopholes available.
They wouldn't be very good at their job otherwise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
That's nice. Good job tax is massive and you can specialise in things that aren't controversial or loopholes. But you knew that?
Eh?
Do you go to an accountant and say, how can I pay more tax please?
Actually I've seen people say that.
But anyway, define to me a "loophole". Is an ISA a loophole? Is the use of past trading losses a loophole? Is claiming capital allowances on the purchase of a piece of manufacturing equipment a loophole? Is claiming R&D incentives a loophole? Is claiming DTR a loophole?
Except in corporation tax though
Would you prefer to remove loss relief rules from the Corporation Tax Act 2010?
I agree with your point and the manner in which it was made, however it could be that the Osbornes being the Osbornes they got away with spurious accountancy claims, so the article stands and indicates a wider scandal.
I'm not suggesting this is the case, private eye is a satirical magazine not a paper of record the piece could be just a humorous bit.
Well then, it's quite easy to be a tax adviser and not exploit loopholes then.
Possibly yes, but then again they've been audited so they should be materially correct.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I would prefer it if business owners couldn't have it both ways. Please explain how a business can't afford to pay more corporation tax yet can afford to give it's owner an 18% pay rise.
Because you don't understand the position and it has nothing to do with "can't afford to pay more corporation tax" and has everything to do with loss relief rules in the Corporation Tax Act 2010.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The tax schemes you mention aren't "loop holes" in themselves. The loop holes are the rules that let people/businesses use those schemes when they were not designed for those cases.
For example, the bankers who deliberately delayed taking their bonuses until the tax rate fell from 50% to 45%. The drop itself wasn't a loop hole, but the action of deliberately not taking the money when they otherwise would have to purposely avoid paying that extra tax was.
Same with Jimmy Carr. The scheme he was using had good intentions, it was supposed to be used by people who genuinely wanted to provide loans but was abused by TV presenters who had no place in that sector to reduce their liability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I on't care what the "rules" say, I want to know how a business can simultaneously claim they are making losses (historically or today it doesn't really matter) yet can afford to give the owner a pay rise.
If they were making losses in previous years, isn't that an argument to reduce the CEO's salary (until they are making profits) rather than increase it?
Let's use George Osborne's own rationale. We have a deficit due to Labour's obsession with spending (i.e made losses in the past), yet despite those decisions and losses being made in the past, people today have to pay for it by reducing their incomes until we catch back up with ourselves. How is the opposite true for CEO salaries?