Loan charge - do these people want sympathy?

stockhausen said:
Tell that to Dominic Cummings!

I believe that tax "avoidance" by means of exotic interpretation of the law is not unusual in the UK. Successive Governments have been unwilling to address these cunning schemes, perhaps because they are exploited by "chums" but probably because specialist crooks are almost invariably one step ahead of legislators.

There is probably a reason why Britain is so popular with money launderers and people who rip off populations around the world and I don't think that it is something of which we should be very proud; ethics, morality and "fair play" are not regarded highly here.

Supporters of tax dodging always excuse themselves with the magic letters ISA - yeah, right :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think you need to understand the difference between evasion and avoidance before quoting someone and asking them to explain it to someone who clearly understands it better than you do.

I'm talking about one and you are quoting the other.
 
fezster said:
I actually agree with all you have said.

But govt should fix the law - not punish the small fry who dared to use the same schemes their rich friends had been using for decades. Moving goalposts is not the right approach - if we all stand idly by and allow one set of goalposts to be moved, the next ones to be moved may well affect us.

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if HMRC decide to go after IR35 retrospectively if they are allowed to get away with their current behaviour.
Click to expand...

Well you are wrong to agree.

He's talking about avoidance not evasion.

There is tax law to support avoidance and states it's okay to do.

Evasion isn't on the other hand.
 
fezster said:
You don't even understand the definition of tax evasion.

I agree - you've clearly laid out your position. Not going to waste my breath further.
Click to expand...

Really?

I've only had experts in the field educate me on the subject personally. People with 40 plus years of experience.

https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/bvc/2018-bvc-41

You might want to read the above.

This is case law that supports my argument.

I'd like you to point to case law that supports yours.

The company added a step, a middle company to get around their tax liability.

This went against the spirit of the law and went to court several times due to appeals, etc.

Please come educate me some more on a topic I clearly specialise in.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
HMRC don't go after multi nationals because most of them are compliant as they have a legal duty and obligation to their shareholders and parent companies to be above board. In fact a lot of multi nationals are proud of being above board and use that as a selling point for shareholders.

I see this nonsense spouted often.

https://library.croneri.co.uk/btc

You will find HMRC do take large companies to court every single day. In fact it sets a precedent for tax law.

You do know HMRC has specific divisions to police specific sectors?

They have a division known as wealthy and mid size. Which only deals with wealthy individuals and medium sized businesses.

They also have a division known as large business. I'll give you one guess who that division polices.

It's always the same crap being spouted though. Stop going after the little man go after Google. Problem is that Google do everything above board and have the best specialists working for them earning hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. However the little man goes for the cheapest accountant he can find and guess what they tend to make easy to find mistakes.

That's not to say big companies don't make mistakes and when they do they are punished just like the rest.

How else do you explain the £135 billion brought in by large business in 18/19 that's through compliance work and wouldn't have been paid had it not been for their efforts?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAPegQIJxAC&usg=AOvVaw2qElTBU8SEiElUwKs1go2m

Do you think HMRC could have brought in £630 billion plus by just targeting John the plumber?

Don't be so ridiculous
Click to expand...

You certainly live up to your username.

Two words, Transfer Pricing. Pretty much the goto tax avoidance scheme for large corporations that is simply not an options for your local plumber or IT contractor. Governments do have options available to tackle this if they want to (WHT springs to mind) but lack the political will to push through with it.
 
fezster said:
You've missed the point entirely. It's your arrogance that I was pointing out - you've no idea who someone on the other side of a forum is, yet you presume to know more than them?
Click to expand...

It's not arrogance if I do actually know more than you. You've yet to offer any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise and offered lots of evidence to suggest you don't know.
 
Freddie1980 said:
Two words, Transfer Pricing. Pretty much the goto tax avoidance scheme for large corporations that is simply not an options for your local plumber or IT contractor. Governments do have options available to tackle this if they want to (WHT springs to mind) but lack the political will to push through with it.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you bring that up as it is being actively audited and targeted.

As with everything it takes time, resources which are depleted and also staff which have had their wages in real world terms cut for over 12 years in a row up against companies with very deep pockets and motivated specialists.

It's not an easy or overnight fix.

Also resorting to personal insults only makes you look stupid and your argument weaker. So I'd probably quit that and focus on the facts.

https://tpcases.com/glencore-in-680-million-transfer-pricing-dispute-with-hmrc/

Yeah they aren't doing anything about it like you suggested maybe read the above.
 
Last edited:
Go back through my posts where I've quoted you and pointed out where you are wrong.

If you can do the same and/or answer any of my specific points, there's value in discussing this further. Otherwise, you're just throwing out random arguments and hyperbole.
 
fezster said:
Go back through my posts where I've quoted you and pointed out where you are wrong.

If you can do the same and/or answer any of my specific points, there's value in discussing this further. Otherwise, you're just throwing out random arguments and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Lol I just did and showed that you were completely wrong. See above.

I even quoted tax case law and asked you to do the same.
 
NVP said:
I think his comment was at Pudney
Click to expand...

I think it was as well. But as I've given examples already I can't really be bothered. I'm meant to be working not trying to stop the pervasive fairy tale that's been created around this subject.

On the plus side I'm more on his side than Sonny's.
 
NVP said:
I think his comment was at Pudney
Click to expand...

Yeah because I've called him out twice now and stated case law and positions which HMRC take officially and not had a response yet he says I don't know what I'm talking about when he quotes someone who was quoting avoidance when we are talking about evasion.

Which clearly proves he doesn't know what either are or the difference.

If he can quote case law that supports his position or what these guys were doing was okay then he has something to stand on.

I imagine this will never be produced but anecdotal evidence that some guy received a letter saying that it was okay from HMRC to support his argument.

Like I said show me the letter as I'd be amazed if it actually says what he thinks it does.
 
Pudney said:
I think it was as well. But as I've given examples already I can't really be bothered. I'm meant to be working not trying to stop the pervasive fairy tale that's been created around this subject.

On the plus side I'm more on his side than Sonny's.
Click to expand...

I think let's just agree to disagree. My original post was to try and give a balanced argument on the subject, as the majority of posts were predictably "they deserve all they get".

It doesn't sound like either of us are going to be swayed, perhaps too entrenched in our positions.

Your arguments were at least sound and comprehendible. Psycho sonny, however...... living up to his name, perhaps.
 
fezster said:
I think let's just agree to disagree. My original post was to try and give a balanced argument on the subject, as the majority of posts were predictably "they deserve all they get".

It doesn't sound like either of us are going to be swayed, perhaps too entrenched in our positions.

Your arguments were at least sound and comprehendible. Psycho sonny, however...... living up to his name, perhaps.
Click to expand...

I may post a more detailed background and history of this whole scenario later on tonight. Origins of this probably go back to the 90s/early 2000s and in particular banks and paying bonuses to bankers...

I will also say, I don't agree with the loan charge to a large extent. But HMRC haven't made any real volte-face, they've been clear about things for a significant period of time. Suggestions otherwise are normally given by those giving a false sense of hope to the situation.
 
Jokester said:
That's Fezter that's making that argument though...

Thoroughly confused now.
Click to expand...

You should try working in tax then you would know what confusion truly is.

The gist is that tax legislation was written a long time ago and then gets added to every year.

Because it was written originally a long time ago it's using language that's maybe not as common today and leaves lots of grey areas open.

Now it's the grey areas that people try to exploit and push the line further and further to the point that HMRC then need to push back and take to court.

I don't do income tax so I have no idea on the specifics however case law is case law.

There are instances where companies have tried similar things in the past. When found out taken to court and subsequently a line drawn in the sand in what was before a grey area.

This is a case where someone put additional steps, middle men, companies, countries, whatever it was they put additional steps in place to muddy the waters. The end result was less tax was paid.

Now all those additional steps had zero other purpose other than to circumvent tax. It's not like they had to do it this way because of a valid business reason.

It was done to evade tax and no other reason.

So rightfully challenged and they went to court as the defendant thought it was okay.

Case law was then written again with the Glasgow rangers tax case to support all the other cases before it.

Now there is case law that supports a business that set up their business. I believe it was a drinks company which had set up it's operation in a way that reduced it's liability however the judge found that they had a legitimate business reason for doing so and as a result it also reduced their tax liability however that wasn't the purpose of the set up.

So they were told what they were doing was okay and yes they were okay to pay less tax.

The judgment ended with that you don't need to set up your business in a way that maximises tax revenues. So long as you pay what's due within the spirit of the law.

This was not the case with these loan charges.
 
fezster said:
I think let's just agree to disagree. My original post was to try and give a balanced argument on the subject, as the majority of posts were predictably "they deserve all they get".

It doesn't sound like either of us are going to be swayed, perhaps too entrenched in our positions.

Your arguments were at least sound and comprehendible. Psycho sonny, however...... living up to his name, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Well, I say hanging is too good for them.

Looking forward to proper British laws, post-Brexit, where we can bring back suitable punishment: breaking on the wheel etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom