Tax dodging builder?

Ergates said:
I have, in the past, refused to pay cash for a discount. I would never accept a quote from a build who *up front* declared discount for cash in hand.
Click to expand...

Good.

And you know why?

It is because the main drivers for the black economy are mostly the customers who actively ask for a discount for cash.

Traders are either put in the position of accepting that deal or risking losing the business to somebody who will.

And this isn't just about tax either

Remember this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38080743

Aggregate transport is the bottom of the pool for the haulage industry. You are transporting a low value commodity and the customers will beat you down to the lowest possible cost.

"Hell Drivers" is no different today than it was back in Stanley Bakers day!

I would risk a modest wager that this was mostly a cash in hand business too. and as far as the bad practice and the resultant accident was concerned. I reckon that the clients who demanded, and expected, a lowest price cash deal were just as responsible, if not rather more so, than the crooked operators.

I recall ages ago posting a thread suggesting that asking for a discount for cash should basically be regarded as an incitement to commit tax fraud and that the revenue should be carrying out stings to trap crooked customers rather than crooked traders in order to try to stamp out the practice.

Of course the responses were mostly howlws of outrage, hence my sugestion that "Most" people are total hypocirts regarding this issue.

After all, who is actually evading the tax?

Now, this wont' always be the case, but consider the hypothetical position where the trader gets the same money at the end of the week whether he does a £10,000 for cash or a £15,000 job all above board. The person who has effectively evaded paying the tax is actually the client not the trader!

Like with the lorries, in many ways the clients are more guilty of evasion than the trader is since they are the ones that are getting the benefit from the fraud! (The traders only advantage is the ability to get work that would likley go to somebody else if they didn't want to work for cash and were therefore unasble to give a best price)
 
I would report him right away, it's an absolute travisty that he might not be paying the correct amount of taxes! Brb just buying something from Amazon.
 
Last edited:
Orionaut said:
Good.

And you know why?

It is because the main drivers for the black economy are mostly the customers who actively ask for a discount for cash.

Traders are either put in the position of accepting that deal or risking losing the business to somebody who will.

And this isn't just about tax either

Remember this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38080743

Aggregate transport is the bottom of the pool for the haulage industry. You are transporting a low value commodity and the customers will beat you down to the lowest possible cost.

"Hell Drivers" is no different today than it was back in Stanley Bakers day!

I would risk a modest wager that this was mostly a cash in hand business too. and as far as the bad practice and the resultant accident was concerned. I reckon that the clients who demanded, and expected, a lowest price cash deal were just as responsible, if not rather more so, than the crooked operators.

I recall ages ago posting a thread suggesting that asking for a discount for cash should basically be regarded as an incitement to commit tax fraud and that the revenue should be carrying out stings to trap crooked customers rather than crooked traders in order to try to stamp out the practice.

Of course the responses were mostly howlws of outrage, hence my sugestion that "Most" people are total hypocirts regarding this issue.

After all, who is actually evading the tax?

Now, this wont' always be the case, but consider the hypothetical position where the trader gets the same money at the end of the week whether he does a £10,000 for cash or a £15,000 job all above board. The person who has effectively evaded paying the tax is actually the client not the trader!

Like with the lorries, in many ways the clients are more guilty of evasion than the trader is since they are the ones that are getting the benefit from the fraud! (The traders only advantage is the ability to get work that would likley go to somebody else if they didn't want to work for cash and were therefore unasble to give a best price)
Click to expand...

I agree with your point but VAT and tax for a company are different. The customer avoids the 20% VAT but as it hasn’t gone through the books the builder has technically earned less so will pay less tax.
 
It's really hard to run a small business, some people just don't have a clue what it takes. So what if he is asking for cash, last time I looked cash is currency and 4k is not a lot of money to pay. In other countries it's the norm.
 
wnb said:
It's really hard to run a small business, some people just don't have a clue what it takes. So what if he is asking for cash, last time I looked cash is currency and 4k is not a lot of money to pay. In other countries it's the norm.
Click to expand...

unless initially specified it think its fair to assume cash, cheque or BT....there is no way anyone can expect more than a few £100 cash (unless they specify before taking on the job)...
 
Orionaut said:
I recall ages ago posting a thread suggesting that asking for a discount for cash should basically be regarded as an incitement to commit tax fraud and that the revenue should be carrying out stings to trap crooked customers rather than crooked traders in order to try to stamp out the practice.
Click to expand...

If the customer carries out a 'cheaper for cash else I won't hire you for the job' negotiation at the start, then sure. But I think you're trying to paint a picture that this happens all the time. The reality for me was the guy I went with quoted saying 'all VAT is included', and reassured me while demanding payment in cash (which wasn't previously agreed) that it was 'nothing illegal at all'.

Orionaut said:
Of course the responses were mostly howlws of outrage, hence my sugestion that "Most" people are total hypocirts regarding this issue.

After all, who is actually evading the tax?

Now, this wont' always be the case, but consider the hypothetical position where the trader gets the same money at the end of the week whether he does a £10,000 for cash or a £15,000 job all above board. The person who has effectively evaded paying the tax is actually the client not the trader!

Like with the lorries, in many ways the clients are more guilty of evasion than the trader is since they are the ones that are getting the benefit from the fraud! (The traders only advantage is the ability to get work that would likley go to somebody else if they didn't want to work for cash and were therefore unasble to give a best price)
Click to expand...

The guy who I gave to the job to is seemingly actively tax evading (probably not paying income tax as well as VAT) and he got the job because he offered me a lower price than other legitimate businesses who were charging VAT - which he was able to do because he doesn't pay VAT but convinced me he does!

In all markets customers will demand the best value. That in no way absolves traders of evading tax. I don't agree with your thinking at all. Saying you can't blame tradesmen for evading tax to earn more business (because they are 'forced' to to be competitive) is like saying how can you blame shady bankers for committing fraud and flaunting financial conduct rules, they can be much more 'competitive' if they ignore them.
 
I've lost a job before because I wouldn't drop the VAT off the quote for payment in cash. It wasn't that small job either, £15k + VAT.

What really stuck in my throat was the customer wasn't exactly poor either, they were from an extremely rich family.
 
Minimum you need is a receipt for payment with a name that matches the name on the quote/invoice.

You get to ask for that regardless of how you pay.

You want to ensure there is no comeback when he says you didn't pay.

Other than that...job done.
 
I have no idea why he would want cash. The amount of free or cheap accounting and Bacs payment software that is out there is insane.

Although perhaps he ain't computer literate...
 
dl8860 said:
The guy who I gave to the job to is seemingly actively tax evading (probably not paying income tax as well as VAT) and he got the job because he offered me a lower price than other legitimate businesses who were charging VAT - which he was able to do because he doesn't pay VAT but convinced me he does!

.
Click to expand...

So you went ahead with the best price contractor despite the fact that you suspected him of only being able to give that price because of Tax fraud then.

This is exactly my point. In this example, you are just as big, possibly even a bigger part of the problem than he was and you are just as guilty of committing, and inciting even, tax fraud. Since tax evading tradesman will only continue to work this way as long as there are equally tax evading customers around who are willing to play along with the conspiracy to defraud the revenue.

Saying that you didn't know for certain is not actually a defense. Under English (I say English because I do not know about the Scottish situation. though it is probabally the same across the border too)

You can be convicted of attempting the impossible.

For example, a dodgy looking hoodie comes up to you in a bar and offers you a late model unlocked i-phone for £50 notes.

You think that at that price it has to be dodgy but he tells you that "Nah Bruv, its cool", so despite your reservations, the notes go one way and the phone goes the other.

Meanwhile, this transaction is observed by an undercover copper. Both you and the hoodie are arrested and interviewed.

On further investigation, it turns out that the phone was not stolen and the offer was completely above board, the Hoodie goes free.

However, you admit during the interview that you suspected the phone was stolen but because you didn't know for sure you thought that you were safe from any legal responsibility.

Wrong! you find your self up in front of the magistrates next morning on a charge of "attempting to purchase stolen goods". The fact that the goods were not stolen is not a defense. The fact that you thought they were is what makes you the criminal.

Now, this doesn't come up in practice very often. But back to your situation, if you go with the best price, for cash, suspecting that the trader is evading tax, then yes. IMO You are just as guilty as he is! And yes, I do call "Hypocrite" on anybody who goes along with a deal under these circumstances who then goes on the get all moralistic about dodgy traders evading tax!

:p
 
Orionaut said:
So you went ahead with the best price contractor despite the fact that you suspected him of only being able to give that price because of Tax fraud then.
Click to expand...

Talk about pooing on your own doorstep :)

Assumes possible tax evasion taking place, takes benefit of said assumption by paying less cash.
 
Orionaut said:
So you went ahead with the best price contractor despite the fact that you suspected him of only being able to give that price because of Tax fraud then.

This is exactly my point. In this example, you are just as big, possibly even a bigger part of the problem than he was and you are just as guilty of committing, and inciting even, tax fraud. Since tax evading tradesman will only continue to work this way as long as there are equally tax evading customers around who are willing to play along with the conspiracy to defraud the revenue.

Saying that you didn't know for certain is not actually a defense. Under English (I say English because I do not know about the Scottish situation. though it is probabally the same across the border too)

You can be convicted of attempting the impossible.

For example, a dodgy looking hoodie comes up to you in a bar and offers you a late model unlocked i-phone for £50 notes.

You think that at that price it has to be dodgy but he tells you that "Nah Bruv, its cool", so despite your reservations, the notes go one way and the phone goes the other.

Meanwhile, this transaction is observed by an undercover copper. Both you and the hoodie are arrested and interviewed.

On further investigation, it turns out that the phone was not stolen and the offer was completely above board, the Hoodie goes free.

However, you admit during the interview that you suspected the phone was stolen but because you didn't know for sure you thought that you were safe from any legal responsibility.

Wrong! you find your self up in front of the magistrates next morning on a charge of "attempting to purchase stolen goods". The fact that the goods were not stolen is not a defense. The fact that you thought they were is what makes you the criminal.

Now, this doesn't come up in practice very often. But back to your situation, if you go with the best price, for cash, suspecting that the trader is evading tax, then yes. IMO You are just as guilty as he is! And yes, I do call "Hypocrite" on anybody who goes along with a deal under these circumstances who then goes on the get all moralistic about dodgy traders evading tax!

:p
Click to expand...
That is a hilariously badly thought out post. Saying that I don't know for certain is not a defense? So I'm supposed to ask for his last 3 years of accounts upon appointing him as a tradesman or something? Like I said in my first post, he was a limited company, had a website, was registered on companies house etc. If you are telling me that there is an ounce of responsibility on me at that point to be verifying that he's paying his taxes, you're delusional.

Your analogy is terrible.
.
 
SpartaK said:
Talk about pooing on your own doorstep :)

Assumes possible tax evasion taking place, takes benefit of said assumption by paying less cash.
Click to expand...
Read what I said, not how @Orionaut is trying to falsely represent me. There was zero hint of tax evasion before the job was completed. I always assumed to be paying by bank transfer, and he has all the hallmarks of a legitimate company. Should people be choosing the most expensive tradesmen possible to lower chances of being apparently complicit in tax evasion? Do you not see how backwards it is to put the onus on the customer?
 
NoobCannon said:
Yes your being a nightmare

Hes given u a reciept. Give him the cash and stop overthinking your life. If hes tax dodging thats not your problem.

And if you cant get the cash then explain that and transfer the money and ask him to modify the reciept if needed
Click to expand...

first of all the guy should be VAT registered - if this one job was £5K and he's got sub contractors doing it for him. then he's likely doing more than 16 jobs a year.

second of all it is his problem if he isn't paying tax. by him not paying the correct tax the UK then doesn't have all the money it is supposed to have and then people somewhere are then punished as a result. either in less services being offered or services being diminished. longer NHS queues? or it results in tax payers paying more to make up the shortfall.

so it is his problem and this is the problem with everyone in the UK. nobody wants to shop anyone yet they all want to have their cake and eat it. what if we all just stopped paying tax?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Amazon pays all the tax it is legally required to. So your point is pointless
Click to expand...

Maybe legally but not morally. You can't have people on one hand complaining that you should report the tradesmen due to there not being enough tax to pay for services but then on the other hand give huge corporations a pass just because they can afford the top lawyers and accountants to find loop holes. At the end of the day it comes down to are they paying their fair share of tax for the amount of money they made based in what everyone else is paying.
 
sanaxe1 said:
Maybe legally but not morally. You can't have people on one hand complaining that you should report the tradesmen due to there not being enough tax to pay for services but then on the other hand give huge corporations a pass just because they can afford the top lawyers and accountants to find loop holes. At the end of the day it comes down to are they paying their fair share of tax for the amount of money they made based in what everyone else is paying.
Click to expand...

they aren't using any loopholes though.

this is the problem people who have no clue about tax saying they are abusing the system. when they aren't.

amazon doesn't make any money. they sell stuff for minimal profits and others for losses. it all evens out. their goal is to keep increasing their customer base whilst breaking even until they are the only place you can buy stuff.

so when you have a company who doesn't care about making profits then they can take advantage of that to pay no tax as they haven't made any money to pay tax on.

this why people have suggested companies with turnovers of over £500 million a year which are internet only should be subject to a tax on turnover rather than profit. which is why amazon are now starting to build physical stores to sell stuff in. so now they wouldn't need to pay that tax if it was introduced. as they would have physical stores.

but you keep on spreading fake news. it's also the number one line used by people when questions around paying tax arise. well if amazon isn't paying any why should i? because legally they don't need to as they didn't make any money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom