Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Tax dodging

The tax system has become far too complex but provides a living for lawyers and accountants. Tinkering at the edges with it just invites the discovery of more loopholes. A fundamental reform is due to cut through the swathes of legislation. This, of course, will never happen because there are too many vested interests.

A simplistic statement I know but if we all paid what we should then we would pay less but how you get big companies to do this I'm not sure.
Could one way be to stop the absurdity of " in work benefits" where we all subsidise low paid workers and force companies to pay a realistic wage. We all know that having been taxed on PAYE all our lives, we are now taxed on our pensions and still HMG thinks we are well off because we saved during our lives.
IMHO, if big business and the super rich want the privilege of living in our wonderful country, they should pay up, but then what do I know?

OH NO THEY DON'T!!! I resent that remark.

A lot of truth there Reg , how to make these multi nationals pay thats the problem as countries want their business and don't want to upset them , daft !

I dont think that this is correct. The top 1% or earners pay 27% of income tax, and the bottom 50% get more benefits than they pay in taxes.



Do they? I'm not wealthy but if I were, then the last place I would go for medical treatment is the NHS. Just like I wouldnt use state schools or claim social security.

I'll ignore the reference to the forces because I cant imagine them ever "delivering when necessary".

But as for "tax avoidance = tax doidging" then we all do it. Hands up the forum member whose pension is not in a tax free fund - after all we could save for our retirement without using tax free pension funds. Hands up the member who doesnt have an ISA - certainly you can save in a taxed savings account. Hands up the member who doesnt claim his personal tax allowance.

All these are tax avoidance measures but our attitude to them is different. Bit like our attitudes to theft - we condemn someone who steels from the surpermarket but dont think twice about bringing home a pen from work or using works time for private calls etc. All of which are theft.

At the root of this debate ( based on stolen documents by the way) is a feeling of unfairness. Few would defend the actions of the likes of Google or Amazon. But Hamilton and other celebs? Well maybe, maybe not. He would probably not see shelling out tens of millions in income tax as fair

There was a rash of similar cases relating to mail order businesses (Grattans was one I recall) where the supplying retailer paid VAT on the full price of goods supplied because HMRC wouldn't at the time accept the premise that the price of goods was retrospectively price less commission paid to customers (who were also 'agents' of the business and allowed to offset commission as a discount against purchases of goods). When the 1978 VAT directive was implemented, it allowed for the retrospective adjustment of the cost of goods for mail-order businesses. The opportunity to reclaim 'overpayments' of VAT for the period from 1973 (introduction of VAT) to 1978 (new directive) or later, arose much more recently. I remember an investment analyst explaining the likely outcome, but don't recall why the opportunity for redress against HMRC came so long after the period to which it related.

Completely agree with the HMRC win on the issue of compound interest and Littlewoods - its not as if HMRC has unfairly enjoyed an opportunity itself to earn compound interest on the money it withheld and has already paid simple interest on as a rebate. The Barclay brothers were just stupid/ill-advised/greedy (choose any you think apply!).

I dont doubt you but there equally is no doubt that the largest missing part of our tax is from the self employed / black economy. According to HMRC the,mselves.

Yes, it's particularly interesting for the EU which of course is currently led by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker who (as Finance Minister of Luxembourg) led a massive proliferation of 'brass-plating' corporate registrations to bring third-country earnings under Luxembourg's low corporation tax umbrella. Typically, the Luxembourg subsidiary would own 'image rights', brand or Intellectual Property which it internally charges its overseas businesses for in order to move profit from high tax to low tax countries). There are quite literally thousands of these tax-avoiding business subsidiaries, invited into Luxembourg by JCJ, benefitting Lux at the expense of its EU neighbours. I can't believe the lid hasn't come off this yet...

That's as maybe but please don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Yes I would like to say that I pay all taxes due too. I also pay two accountants, one in Australia and one in Italy, because although my income is derived in Australia I have to submit a tax declaration in Italy resulting in me paying any difference between the fractionally lower rate in Australia and that in Italy. Being no longer fiscally resident in Australia I also lose the tax free threshold.