• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

I read it as the total bill was £480 million for 81 people.

It is a bit thin on detail. I would hope that they would have to pay a) the tax they attempted to avoid paying, b) a massive fine for tax evasion and, c) the court costs. 

In an ideal world, they should be serving time for this scam. Sadly, they are not little people so this will probably not happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem is that the line between tax avoidance and evasion is kept deliberately unclear.

I've been approached about some dubious avoidance schemes in the past, by dodgy accountants, and it isn't worth the risk.

But when twats like Lineker get caught out, it is most satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, One percent said:

It is a bit thin on detail. I would hope that they would have to pay a) the tax they attempted to avoid paying, b) a massive fine for tax evasion and, c) the court costs. 

In an ideal world, they should be serving time for this scam. Sadly, they are not little people so this will probably not happen. 

To be slightly fair to them, they're mostly really thick (apart from their chosen tiny niche) and are completely reliant on experts to get them where they are today.  So it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that these sorts of people get taken in by this sort of scheme.

Anyway, what's interesting about these type of schemes is that the charges are high and they're heavily dependent on debt.  Without the rebate they could well actually cost more than the invested amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgul said:

To be slightly fair to them, they're mostly really thick (apart from their chosen tiny niche) and are completely reliant on experts to get them where they are today.  So it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that these sorts of people get taken in by this sort of scheme.

Anyway, what's interesting about these type of schemes is that the charges are high and they're heavily dependent on debt.  Without the rebate they could well actually cost more than the invested amount.

The gift that just keeps giving. xD  good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

One problem is that the line between tax avoidance and evasion is kept deliberately unclear.

I've been approached about some dubious avoidance schemes in the past, by dodgy accountants, and it isn't worth the risk.

But when twats like Lineker get caught out, it is most satisfying.

Well, it isn't really.

The deal is 'if the investment only makes sense for the tax benefits, then it is evasion'.

That's actually really simple.  

The people pushing these schemes like to say things like 'doesn't fall foul of the law' and some such, but if you take them to any 'normal' accountant they'll suggest that investing would be mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought under Gideon's encroaching powers he gave to HMRC they can demand 100% of the tax they believe they are owed before setting a foot in a court.

Have these :wanker:s paid it back already? I hope so, one rule for them etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dgul said:

Well, it isn't really.

The deal is 'if the investment only makes sense for the tax benefits, then it is evasion'.

That's actually really simple.  

That definition captures pretty much all defined contribution pension schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopeful said:

I read it as the total bill was £480 million for 81 people.

I don't think that's right, although it's open to interpretation. I'm guessing that they are 81 famous people amongst those investing, rather than averaging £6m each. 

I once had a client that was invested in by Ingenious. Think it was a musician rather than a film production though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheBlueCat said:

That definition captures pretty much all defined contribution pension schemes.

Ah, sorry, apart from the ones on the list that are allowed.

And that is pretty much it -- they've got a list of schemes that are allowed tax breaks.  If it isn't on the list then it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Happy Renting said:

One problem is that the line between tax avoidance and evasion is kept deliberately unclear.

I've been approached about some dubious avoidance schemes in the past, by dodgy accountants, and it isn't worth the risk.

But when twats like Lineker get caught out, it is most satisfying.

There's an element of that.

Another factor is that accountants are being destroyed by software accounting packages.

Accountants made their money by billing for a chartered accountant and getting a little old lady (or kid) bookkeeper to do much of the work.

These days all the grunt work is done by the software.

To try and make up the money, more and more accountants - esp. the ones let go  - are doing nut.

At the mo Im trying to help a relative avoid a huge tax fuckup. Bascially said relative has got himself a IR35able job. Hes pulling good money for what a task that is not that skilled - 70k.

However ....

The good money is him doing something 70h./w work - basically hes doing 2 jobs. The contracting compnay is happy with that as relative is the toekn sacrifice if/when things go wrong.

Relative appears to be using a one man band bookkeeper moe used to dealing with offshore workers. And trying to apply the same dodges which work when you outside of UK tax authority but dont work when you are working onshore.

Relatrive has already been in for an HMRC interview. Oh I lost 500 having to that. FFS! I exlaimed, if you are called in then you are probabvly doing something very expensively wrong.

Oh they just wanted to look at my recvcepts. Im really good, they wont catch me out, I keep all of them, for everything.

FFS, they are not looking at your receipts for scamming, they are working out if you work for a single company during the tax year i.e. if you are an actually employee.

Oh no, I dont get paid holioday or sick leave....

And so it continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

FFS, they are not looking at your receipts for scamming, they are working out if you work for a single company during the tax year i.e. if you are an actually employee.

Thats actually the rule for the australian version of IR35, IR35 itself is a lot more complicated. I've worked outside IR35 since its inception in and the majority of the time with only a single client during a tax year (and that includes working on HMRC projects where HMRC themselves have allowed the contracts as outside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

There's an element of that.

Another factor is that accountants are being destroyed by software accounting packages.

Accountants made their money by billing for a chartered accountant and getting a little old lady (or kid) bookkeeper to do much of the work.

These days all the grunt work is done by the software.

Very dismissive, there is a definite skill to being an accountant, most of it is simple arithmetic but......... I've undertaken so many jobs where the very simple and straightforward preparation of periodic accounts had been allowed to degenerate into confusing labyrinths of processes procedures and controls. 

Pretty much like saying cooking is easy, you just prepare the ingredients and heat them. 

Anyway, I always recommend my contracting clients take out insurance against the situation your relative finds themselves in. https://www.contractoruk.com/insurance/ir35_insurance.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Very dismissive, there is a definite skill to being an accountant, most of it is simple arithmetic but......... I've undertaken so many jobs where the very simple and straightforward preparation of periodic accounts had been allowed to degenerate into confusing labyrinths of processes procedures and controls. 

Pretty much like saying cooking is easy, you just prepare the ingredients and heat them. 

Anyway, I always recommend my contracting clients take out insurance against the situation your relative finds themselves in. https://www.contractoruk.com/insurance/ir35_insurance.html

Without clicking that link I don't think it really works anyway. They won't take you on if they think you are inside - and if you are caught I don't think they will be paying it all off for you ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Very dismissive, there is a definite skill to being an accountant, most of it is simple arithmetic but......... I've undertaken so many jobs where the very simple and straightforward preparation of periodic accounts had been allowed to degenerate into confusing labyrinths of processes procedures and controls. 

Pretty much like saying cooking is easy, you just prepare the ingredients and heat them. 

Anyway, I always recommend my contracting clients take out insurance against the situation your relative finds themselves in. https://www.contractoruk.com/insurance/ir35_insurance.html

Yes, there is a skill at being an accountant. I didnt say there wasnt.

I was explaining how small accounting  business worked in regionals towns. i.e how they made their money.

The fact that the number of accountants i down by a hefty percentage and there are very few book makers these days confirms this.

 

17 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Very dismissive, there is a definite skill to being an accountant, most of it is simple arithmetic but......... I've undertaken so many jobs where the very simple and straightforward preparation of periodic accounts had been allowed to degenerate into confusing labyrinths of processes procedures and controls. 

Pretty much like saying cooking is easy, you just prepare the ingredients and heat them. 

Anyway, I always recommend my contracting clients take out insurance against the situation your relative finds themselves in. https://www.contractoruk.com/insurance/ir35_insurance.html

Has iR35 ever paid out?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

 

Thats actually the rule for the australian version of IR35, IR35 itself is a lot more complicated. I've worked outside IR35 since its inception in and the majority of the time with only a single client during a tax year (and that includes working on HMRC projects where HMRC themselves have allowed the contracts as outside).

I dont care about Oz. Just the UK.

IR35 is a bit vague.

The UK contracting situation was open to abuse, so it was abused. Then Brown abused it back using his clump fisted approach.

Realtive is grasping to the vague 'OK working for one person for under 24 months' approach.

I dont think that works anymore.

I tell him he needs to get multiple sources of revenue during a tax year.

Ive told him to write and try and sell books. Or host seminars whatever at a loss - just to have an extra revenue stream through the books.

Butyno, hes theres 70h week, creaming it, putting all travel and food expensives through the books.

His problem is not him being dragged in by HMRC but his client getting dragged in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spygirl said:

Yes, there is a skill at being an accountant. I didnt say there wasnt.

I was explaining how small accounting  business worked in regionals towns. i.e how they made their money.

The fact that the number of accountants i down by a hefty percentage and there are very few book makers these days confirms this.

 

Private practice accounting is a dire and depressing job. The work is dull and the only challenging bit of it is collecting your fees.  The money is good but that's all you can say for it.

Ken Ichikawa (mad Ken) was doing this for a bigger firm so wasn't even getting the good money; I sent him a few job vacancies local to him to try to get him into an accounting job he would enjoy but he decided to run a chip shop instead. It may have burnt down or I may be conflating it with his other various disasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Frank Hovis
      Here are the charts for 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18 forecast and I think we're seeing here what we're picking up upon generally:
      VAT - people buying things - goes up steadily: 133, 138, 143 - increasing population buying increasing amounts of tat NI - people having jobs no matter how low paid - goes up steadily - 115, 126, 130 - increasing population albeit in monkey jobs Income Tax - people earning over £12k a year - is actually projected to fall - 170, 182, 175 - increasing population but less tax = less good jobs So more people buying things, more people in work, but the wages over £12k pa are actually reducing.
       
      For the second time today I will say it: Atlas Shrugged.
       

       
       
       


       
       
    • By Mirror Mirror
      Italy mulls tax breaks to lure retirees to its Southern regions. This piqued my interest, not sure why.
      At least Five Star have realised that African migrants areen’t the problem to the depopulation problems.
      My other thought was, I wonder who else might have moved into your chosen region recently.
       
      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/24/italy-mulls-massive-tax-break-lure-retirees-including-britons/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1535108411
    • By One percent
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44526156
      Former Conservative leader Lord Hague has called for a "decisive change" in the law on cannabis - suggesting that the Tories should consider legalising recreational use of the drug.
      Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he said "any war" has been "irreversibly lost". 
      Lord Hague goes further than senior Tories who have suggested a law change after a boy with epilepsy was given a special licence to use cannabis oil.
      The government is creating an expert panel to look into individual cases.
       
      Now call me a cynic but if they legalise it, their mates can make money producing it and government by taxing it. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.