IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jammie Tax Dodging
Andy Capp
post Nov 7 2017, 12:50 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,676
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



OK, who would not avoid paying tax they needn't pay? How many people have their partner as a 'company secretary' and other such 'scams'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 7 2017, 01:19 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,712
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



Wow! Anybody NOT heard of tax havens? Like it came as a real surprise. To no-one. All anyone need do is walk through Douglas to see every office 'home' to dozens of companies registered there. So long as it's legal then some people with either enough nous or a half decent tax accountant will be doing the same. Note I said, 'if it's legal'.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirWilliam
post Nov 7 2017, 02:38 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 618
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341



Conspiracy theorists amongst us may well ask if this is not some non-story dreamt up by the spin-doctor general in order to deflect from something a little less palatable . Surely if there is a loophole in the system it is up to HM collector of taxes to plug it ? I have no time for the idle rich but if someone made a cost effective offer to me to reduce my tax bill , my legs would move pretty rapidly .
Interesting note to the remoners , Isles of Man and Channel are not members of the EU so soon our respective fiscal systems may be a little more comparable .


--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 8 2017, 03:10 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



I see that the holders of this data are refusing to let HMRC have a copy - so much for all their calls for transparency.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Nov 19 2017, 09:22 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,650
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Nov 7 2017, 02:38 PM) *
Conspiracy theorists amongst us may well ask if this is not some non-story dreamt up by the spin-doctor general in order to deflect from something a little less palatable . Surely if there is a loophole in the system it is up to HM collector of taxes to plug it ? I have no time for the idle rich but if someone made a cost effective offer to me to reduce my tax bill , my legs would move pretty rapidly .
Interesting note to the remoners , Isles of Man and Channel are not members of the EU so soon our respective fiscal systems may be a little more comparable .

Bangs on about Brexit, soveriegnity, and patriotism but is happy not to pay tax. How does that go together?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirWilliam
post Nov 19 2017, 11:34 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 618
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341



QUOTE (Strafin @ Nov 19 2017, 09:22 AM) *
Bangs on about Brexit, soveriegnity, and patriotism but is happy not to pay tax. How does that go together?


Surely the idea is that HM collector of Taxes closes any loopholes that allow avoidance of said payment ? They are , after all , paid to do exactly that . I do not recall advocating non-payment anymore than suggesting that somehow it is acceptable to engage the services of an accountant that is more au fait with current legislation than the people who drew it up . I very much doubt anyone would pay tax if they were not asked to but most of us abide by the law .


--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 22 2017, 01:23 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Nov 19 2017, 11:34 AM) *
Surely the idea is that HM collector of Taxes closes any loopholes that allow avoidance of said payment ? They are , after all , paid to do exactly that .


Surely they are paid to collect taxes - not to enact legislation. The Chancellor is the man responsible for tax law.

I suspect the problem is with the tax itself - the method used by the likes of Starbucks, Apple etc is cleary a corporation tax avoidance scheme, but I struggle to see how corporation tax rules could be adjusted to overcome it. They set up a subsiduary in Jersey or similar that the US parent licences to control brand rights in Europe - this then charges Apple UK an immense sum for the right to use the Apple brand (name, logo, etc) - enough to ensure that the profits of the UK arm is around zero. Thus Apple Jersey rakes in immense sums from the national operations all over Europe and makes an immense profit - in a country where corporation tax does not exist.

I suppose this loophole could be closed by a new 50% tax on brand rights payments - or 80% - as long as it is higher than Corporation Tax. But then we will have iPhones and Starbuck coffee imported via Jersey - with a huge mark up as they nominally pass through the tax haven - once again reducing the profitabilty of the national operations. Profits are so nebulous, so easily moved offshore by multinationals, taxing them will always be fraught with difficulty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 22 2017, 02:17 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,668
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 22 2017, 01:23 PM) *
Surely they are paid to collect taxes - not to enact legislation. The Chancellor is the man responsible for tax law.

I suspect the problem is with the tax itself - the method used by the likes of Starbucks, Apple etc is cleary a corporation tax avoidance scheme, but I struggle to see how corporation tax rules could be adjusted to overcome it. They set up a subsiduary in Jersey or similar that the US parent licences to control brand rights in Europe - this then charges Apple UK an immense sum for the right to use the Apple brand (name, logo, etc) - enough to ensure that the profits of the UK arm is around zero. Thus Apple Jersey rakes in immense sums from the national operations all over Europe and makes an immense profit - in a country where corporation tax does not exist.

I suppose this loophole could be closed by a new 50% tax on brand rights payments - or 80% - as long as it is higher than Corporation Tax. But then we will have iPhones and Starbuck coffee imported via Jersey - with a huge mark up as they nominally pass through the tax haven - once again reducing the profitabilty of the national operations. Profits are so nebulous, so easily moved offshore by multinationals, taxing them will always be fraught with difficulty.


Yes, Corporation Tax is like Poll Tax was, unpopular but easy to 'legally' avoid.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 22 2017, 02:17 PM) *
Yes, Corporation Tax is like Poll Tax was, unpopular but easy to 'legally' avoid.

Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it.

Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 23 2017, 01:33 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,668
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) *
Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it.

Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place.


Sorry, meant with the people doing (or not) the paying. I've not yet one firm who feel corporation tax is particularly fair. Mind, most business sees direct tax that it can't pass on as restricting growth and innovation.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,676
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) *
Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it.

Not amongst the payers I believe.

QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) *
Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place.

The principle is fairer, but the policy they tried to implement wasn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 24 2017, 07:04 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM) *
Not amongst the payers I believe.


A universal law of taxation I suspect.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM) *
The principle is fairer, but the policy they tried to implement wasn't.


How did the policy differ from the principle?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th May 2018 - 05:34 PM