Tate Brothers - Round 2

Wasn't that how they "got" Capone via tax evasion?
Basically, they IIRC changed the law to close some loopholes on tax/income declarations.

It's similar to how/why we have all sorts of rules now about cash purchases and bank deposits, it's much harder to launder large sums of money when you have to be able to explain to the taxman where the cash you just used to buy a house came from.
 
Always declare your income. One way or another it can catch up with you.

They’re going by a video he made a long time ago saying he didn’t declare any income he earned. Thus, leading to a compliance check (last thing you want).

Whether anything will come of it? Who knows.
 
Devon and Cornwall Police having a go:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjk3xglre0ko





I am confused here... Why are the police pursuing a CIVIL case for Tax Evasion and not criminal when they explicitly state that they believe its Fraud by Misrepresentation? :confused: Surely this is not simply because the burden of proof is far less in Civil cases than Criminal.... IMHO, Police Forces should not be able to pursue civil cases if they are stating it amounts to a criminal offence and the reason to go civil is the burden of proof... It reeks of desperation.

DISCLAIMER - IANAL so perhaps someone better qualified can explain that one to me.



EDIT: Link fixed... No idea WTF happened :o, cheers @Hades

Where the police are already investigating a person for criminal activities they sometimes also take over the role of HMRC where they have related information that points towards tax irregularities. I believe HMRC normally have a number of staff seconded to certain police agencies to assist in this type of work.

The reality is most legal processes around non-payment of tax will be done through civil procedures as it’s easier, quicker, and cheaper to pursue. It also shifts the burden of proof in a lot of ways, e.g., the police don’t need to prove the Tates have underpaid tax, the Tates would have to prove they have been overcharged by whichever agency is leading it (normally it’s the NCA which is a little confusing).
 
So are they taxing his supposed sex trafficking?!?

We detest you and everything you do, we must prosecute you for your crimes and your actions towards women, but also I need my slice of the action - UK Government

A trade or business is taxable. It’s irrelevant the legality of the trade or business.

Edit: although illegal expenses of your illegal trade may not be deductible from your income.
 
Last edited:
A trade or business is taxable. It’s irrelevant the legality of the trade or business.

Edit: although illegal expenses of your illegal trade may not be deductible from your income.
Pretty much it.

It's why women who engage in the sex trade, at least at the slightly higher end of the range tend to be quite careful to declare their income, prostitution in itself isn't illegal* and if they're discrete about it the police won't care much, it's usually the things like doing it on "the street" (due to the disruption and the fact the men then go expecting every girl/woman in the area to be a prostitute), "pimping" or running an "immoral house" that will get the police's attention, meanwhile the HMRC start to wonder where the money they are spending is coming from.
Declare it properly as income for "services" and the taxman is happy.


*IIRC there is a semi joke about it not being illegal because no one could come up with a definition of it that isn't both easy to work around, and also likely to mean normal dating/relationships couldn't fall under the definition.
 
Last edited:
What did I do?!?

The poster didn’t mean you. They’re imagining the thought of the government towards criminals.

Which if you really think about it is a stupid way of thinking of it. Why should the market trader who buys and sells fruit and veg be more taxable than the drug dealer who buys and sells class A drugs.
 
Back
Top Bottom