Tax Avoidance
- Thread starter marchantsuk
- Start date
Probably a question for an accountant on how to properly model that one.
What it comes down to is this:
What they are doing is ENTIRELY LEGAL
If government has issues with it then they need to change the law and close the loop-holes.
Lets all be honest though, if someone said to you "Would you like to pay less tax and keep more of your hard-earned money?" You would all say yes (well I would anyway
)
What they are doing is ENTIRELY LEGAL
If government has issues with it then they need to change the law and close the loop-holes.
Lets all be honest though, if someone said to you "Would you like to pay less tax and keep more of your hard-earned money?" You would all say yes (well I would anyway
)When big companies are avoiding tax like these quoted in the news are doing (legally) it should tell you that the tax rate is too high.
I have a friend who is a tax lawyer, and some of his experiences are shocking.
HMRC just don't have enough tax lawyers or clever enough tax lawyers. They can collect more taxes from these companies without changing the law, they just need to have the balls to take them to court and prepare their cases enough to win.
HMRC just don't have enough tax lawyers or clever enough tax lawyers. They can collect more taxes from these companies without changing the law, they just need to have the balls to take them to court and prepare their cases enough to win.
I have a different view. Rather than trying to screw more tax out of individuals and companies we should be shrinking the size of the public sector and reducing the need to levy high taxes in the first place. That will increase employment, wealth and inward investment and will lead to a reduction in avoidance techniques.
Public sector is so bloated it is unbelievable. I have to visit Government Depts. regularly and the waste is unbelievable, it really does take 3 people to do one job and to a standard that would get you sacked in the private sector.
As WLH and OG said - stimulate the companies. My company is only small compared to the big players, but my reactions are the same to some extend. I employ in good times up to 20 people, and in bad times I shrink that to 5. The more money the company makes, the more people I employ so when trying to get more tax out of me, I have less funds available to employ people and therefore everyone loses out.
20 years ago when I started, I had no need to do all sort of complicated tax structures and it was a straight case of taxation. As the tax started to erode the business and the profits it made (note that 90% of my business is not originated in the UK), I had to resort to complicated holding companies structures which cost a fortune to run as well as huge accounting fees.
As WLH and OG said - stimulate the companies. My company is only small compared to the big players, but my reactions are the same to some extend. I employ in good times up to 20 people, and in bad times I shrink that to 5. The more money the company makes, the more people I employ so when trying to get more tax out of me, I have less funds available to employ people and therefore everyone loses out.
20 years ago when I started, I had no need to do all sort of complicated tax structures and it was a straight case of taxation. As the tax started to erode the business and the profits it made (note that 90% of my business is not originated in the UK), I had to resort to complicated holding companies structures which cost a fortune to run as well as huge accounting fees.
I thought the whole object of creating loopholes that can be used to avoid paying company tax ...... was to encourage companies to do business here and create jobs ......
Tax avoidance is encouraged and is legal ......
Change the laws if they want them to pay tax ...... simple.
MP's fiddling / ripping the arse out of expenses .... is criminal. Removal of toenails, 6 months in a cell with Big Harry, then deportation to the antartic at the very minimum.
Tax avoidance is encouraged and is legal ......
Change the laws if they want them to pay tax ...... simple.
MP's fiddling / ripping the arse out of expenses .... is criminal. Removal of toenails, 6 months in a cell with Big Harry, then deportation to the antartic at the very minimum.
Some legal accountants/lawyers are SO good at that game...
A
Anonymous
Guest
pvr said:
And your 4x4 is a company car and your garage alterations are tax deductable=having your cake and eating it.
Shabby way to operate a business IMO
I seem to recall you posted you were being investigated by HMRC, and I'm not surprised
Some companies have a social conscience and pay their fair share, if you're not making the margins you would like do better, hospitals have to be paid for.
One thing that I dislike about companies like Starbucks. Is the fact that they very publicly present a very left leaning, Green ecomentalist is good, the government owes everyone a living public personna. That way they attract the business of the uber liberal/socialist latte generation. Yet. just under that ecomentalist exterior. Lay a pure capitalist profit driven organization. 
I have no problem with any company using the existing "laws" to their advantage. If the government wanted to. They could change those laws. I would also say that the whole tax issue is a very, Very complex one. There is no one size fits all solution. But the biggest factor contributing to all this mess. Is the bloated governments that spend money like a drunken sailor after six months in a submarine.
I have no problem with any company using the existing "laws" to their advantage. If the government wanted to. They could change those laws. I would also say that the whole tax issue is a very, Very complex one. There is no one size fits all solution. But the biggest factor contributing to all this mess. Is the bloated governments that spend money like a drunken sailor after six months in a submarine.
Kryton said:pvr said:
And your 4x4 is a company car and your garage alterations are tax deductable=having your cake and eating it.
Shabby way to operate a business IMO
I seem to recall you posted you were being investigated by HMRC, and I'm not surprised
Some companies have a social conscience and pay their fair share, if you're not making the margins you would like do better, hospitals have to be paid for.
... and all cleared, thanks
How exactly am I supposed to travel if I did not have a car by the way - and only claim 25% business which HMRC was very happy with.
Of course hospitals have to be paid for but are you confident they are as efficiently run as they could be? I'm not talking clinically either because you can't have a debate about NHS funding without being castigated as a nasty privatiser who wants to give the poor a second class service.
You can blindly pay your tax without question if you want but I won't because taxes are a negative not a positive and should be as low as humanely possible. A bloated state rewards the work shy and penalises hard work and enterprise.
You can blindly pay your tax without question if you want but I won't because taxes are a negative not a positive and should be as low as humanely possible. A bloated state rewards the work shy and penalises hard work and enterprise.
chrissrush
Member
If you stay within the law/regulations there's absolutely nothing wrong (in law) in minimizing your (or your companies) tax liability.
"Every man is entitled if he can, to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be.
If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax."
Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1.
If we don't like the tax laws as they are ,then just like any other law, we need to change them - but once changed the above will still apply.
"Every man is entitled if he can, to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be.
If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax."
Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1.
If we don't like the tax laws as they are ,then just like any other law, we need to change them - but once changed the above will still apply.