Do you think it's just that the HMRC hound a man to his death? Not directly at you, but the majority in here with no sympathy.
Nope. Generally it's...
Tax "avoider" commits suicide.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
- Status
Have they 'hounded' him though?
From what i've read it doesn't sound like it, lots of comments about him becoming obsessed with it to the detriment of his life but not seen any claims they were hounding him - in fact it's not even entirely clear if they ever directly contacted him or he just became increasingly worried from what he read in the news etc.
They deal with a lot of people who lie and cheat to avoid paying taxes. Some of them are unlikely to have a sunny disposition. Would you blame the police if a paedophile committed suicide before being sentenced because they caused him such stress by prosecuting him.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
Funny thing is the ones with zero sympathy hardly kick up a fuss about all rich toffs and corporations that avoid a shedload of tax.
They'll be licking boots telling us yeah but it's legal though durr.
Huh? I’m not even sure what you are saying here. I think most of us think that the rich avoiding tax is ****** and wrong but what does that have to do with this. It’s ok for the normal guy to do it because the wealthy do? It’s not OK period.
But of a stretch but let me bring it back in line first... If they put unwarranted pressure on the paedo then yes of course I would.
? My question was my answer as there is no evidence in aware of and assume I've read the same as everyone else.
Yes. The legal view is that the transaction from the employing company to the 3rd party you then “loaned” your money from was entirely artificial and only done as a means of disguising the true nature of your income. As such individuals were deliberately under stating their true income to evade tax and that’s why they are going back 20 years rather than 7 if it had been an honest mistake.
Wait wat???
Sorry NVP, you've got dowie quoting you again....
How the bleep are the police supposed to be putting "unwarranted" pressure on a paedo? Surely an actual paedo they have evidence against fully deserves to be pursued and prosecuted by the police/CPS and if his or her name is released to the press, they have to quit their job, face shame local etc.. then so be it. If that leads to them taking their own life then that is something they've brought on themselves. They're undoubtedly going to have an absolutely **** ton of pressure as a result of being charged/named, I don't think there is much more the police can unnecessarily add to that and it is generally warranted.
Obviously the police have some duty of care - if there are credible threats to their life then they might well get moved, if they are a suicide risk then they might need counselling... but being prosecuted and/or having names released would involve considerable pressure and it isn't something I think that really needs to be avoided - it would require granting them anonymity.
There is probably an argument for some level of anonymity initially in cases of sexual assault in order to prevent spurious allegations from ruining the lives of innocent people but once significant evidence is present that allows for a prosecution then IMO all the gloves are off, the rapist or nonce should be named and other victims can come forward.
I don't know I was just trying to relate his example a bit closer to my initial claimed situation
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2017
- Posts
- 291
- Location
- UK
Yeah you know exactly what you're doing here. Scummy move.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
Apart from the obvious issue around convincing yourself paying 1-2% tax on your income that should be taxed at often 40% or more, the other side is this removes revenue from the government removing its ability to fund numerous areas which support in part the most vulnerable in the country.
******* outrage!!
They only paid 1-2% tax on their dodgy loans. Bloody hell guys.
Such a shame your posts are moderated and we have to wait until the subject dies down for more insight.I was encouraged by a "Contractors Agency" to join one of these schemes some years ago.
The idea was that the Contractor and the Agency would "split" the tax "savings".
I smelt a rat and declined their "thoughtful" proposal - I am damned glad that I did
I don't think in practice that anything was "retrospectively applied"; I believe that what has happened is that HMRC has reviewed some of the creative schemes that were dreamt up by tax advisers and decided that some of them were never actually legal - I think that there was a tax avoidance scheme used by many people in the entertainment business that involved financing films.
Time for the constraints to be lifted? I mean, have they actually denied your posts in a while?
Its not really a stretch because you are talking in very vague terms. Some people have committed suicide because their family were going to find out they had a gambling problem. Other people are caught for child molesting and don't have any suicidal thoughts. "Unwarranted" is a subjective idea and there has been no suggestion that HMRC doggedly pursued him or did anything out of line. I would suggest that average debt collectors are far more aggressive with their methods.
Of course the family blame the people who are, on a basic level responsible for the reason he committed suicide but families in grief are not the most objective group usually.
- Status