• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Then we are pretty much all in agreement - the question is why is so little effort / resources are being put into prosecuting tax evaders.

I think you'll agree that this "issue" you have so much to say about is not one that started in 2010, and that both parties are guilty of failing to act during their tenure.
 
I think.....some people divert conversations onto technicalities because their politics are more one sided that they like to let on....

I think certain people lack the required understanding when educated analysis is brought into conversation and prefer to change the subject, ignore the facts and take the conversation back to a place that suits them.
 
Everyone has a pet subject and yours lead you to be frustrated on the terminology being used instead of being frustrated that the tax burden is heavier on the average person because some large companies and high earning individuals are underpaying.

Your little c economic conservative ideals lead to big C Conservative voting. A situation which paints the government in a very bad light can be partly defused by airing frustration at the average person's understanding of tax laws. Reigniting the outrage at the situation is more likely to get the issue tackled. What has happened to Starbucks' tax burden after all of the headlines about their tax reduction policies? Nothing. The government are borrowing more and more to pay for the general functioning of the country and that borrowing could be reduced if they did something about tax reduction policies.

This is a big issue and the fact that us PAYE payers have no relationship with tax laws as our contribution has gone before we even get paid so do not tend to know the ins and outs of tax law is not the issue. Margret Hodge is chair of the Commons public accounts committee and if she is outraged then that is the most important peice of terminology as far as I am concerned.

Avoidance / evasion? PAYE. Outrage.
 
I think you'll agree that this "issue" you have so much to say about is not one that started in 2010, and that both parties are guilty of failing to act during their tenure.
It was reported to HMRC in 2010. There was some information given by France in 2007 but with limits imposed by them on the information and how it could be used.
 
Would a closely regulated private 'tax evasion' firm(s) be a good solution? 1%(or more?) of all reclaimed tax is kept by the firm. The firm are free to manage themselves and hire the very best and pay the very best salaries?

Can't believe I'm suggesting privatisation...
 
Would a closely regulated private 'tax evasion' firm(s) be a good solution? 1%(or more?) of all reclaimed tax is kept by the firm. The firm are free to manage themselves and hire the very best and pay the very best salaries?

Can't believe I'm suggesting privatisation...
Or set up a section of the tax office under the same terms...
 
I find this all so depressing. Using offshore bank accounts is not illegal. Failing to declare interest, dividends and earnings paid to said account that are subject to UK tax is illegal.

Some people will be failing to report their earnings and should be pursued. HMRC have a list of account holders and will be able to reconcile to filed tax returns and prosecute/recover tax accordingly.

Others will have an account but not be subject to UK tax, for example because they are non-resident. A lot of people in my industry work outside the UK and are not UK tax resident. They work in places with unreliable banks and use other arrangements (Swiss, UK or their home country where different). They pay tax in the country they work in but are not liable to UK tax because they are not tax resident in the UK and not performing work duties in the UK. This is not tax avoidance. If it is then there are approximately seven billion individuals who have structured their residence status to avoid UK tax.

It is pretty tiring to listen to politicians screaming about a subject they know little about when neither have done much to tackle the issue as it is easier to make unsubstantiated accusations about each other.

I'm sure this will descend into the usual point scoring, but wouldn't it be nice for once to listen to a discussion about what the problem is, what is the scale of the problem, what could be done to fix it, what resources would be required and what would the consequences be? I don't expect it to happen.

But when the people that have evaded tax are propping up a political party it is an issue. That is what needs to be looked into.

However, on the whole I agree with you. If something is legal, then why can't people do it?

Here's a good article from the daily mash. For PwC, read HSBC:

Daily Mash

(Beware, contains swear words.)
 
Perhaps the receipts (based on estimated liability and likelihood of conviction) doesn't warrant additional resources?

it would be politically difficult to do anything other increase resources these days. I suspect it won't lead to much in additional revenue though.

They don't have to increase resources. They can re-allocate from the huge number of people looking into benefit fraud - redress the balance somewhat.
 
Everyone has a pet subject and yours lead you to be frustrated on the terminology being used

I'm not frustrated by terminology. I'm frustrated by outrage in advance of consideration of the facts.

instead of being frustrated that the tax burden is heavier on the average person because some large companies and high earning individuals are underpaying.

On what basis is that true? There are some large multi-nationals engaged in tax avoidance strategies. These largely work because international tax law, and the Double Tax Treaty network in particular, is insufficient to deal with virtual, global commerce in the 21st century.

Some of those multi-national companies that have been accused of tax avoidance probably wouldn't actually have a liability to pay at all (Amazon for example made a loss globally in 2013). There are laws that favour high net worth individuals - the remittance basis for example - which are designed to encourage such people to live in the UK. I disagree with the basis of the law (incentivising people to keep money out of the UK) but there we are. There are also some high net worth individuals who use more aggressive tax avoidance strategies (offshore trusts loaning money to themselves) that are typically used by those with income other than earnings (footballer image rights, entertainer appearance fees, athlete prize money, self employed capital gains etc). The scale of this is difficult to determine, but exclude this and you'll find that the highest earners suffer the highest effective rates of tax and contribute by far the most tax revenue.

A situation which paints the government in a very bad light can be partly defused by airing frustration at the average person's understanding of tax laws.

I don't care in what light the government is painted. I don't get outraged by something just because it happened on "someone's watch". I'm only interested in the facts.

Reigniting the outrage at the situation is more likely to get the issue tackled.

Really? Name me something that was resolved by "outrage"

What has happened to Starbucks' tax burden after all of the headlines about their tax reduction policies? Nothing.

I read the other day Starbucks paid tax in their last filed corporation tax return. As above, the Starbucks transfer pricing scenario was permissible under inadequate international tax law. HMRC signed off on Starbucks not for lack of resources or conspiracy but because there position is in accordance with international law. I think that law should be changed and work is being undertaken at OECD level to do so. It is not a quick process though.

The government are borrowing more and more to pay for the general functioning of the country and that borrowing could be reduced if they did something about tax reduction policies.


Actually, the government is borrowing less and less to fund annual spending. There is substantial economic evidence showing that increasing tax take has a bigger negative impact on growth than reducing government spending. I'm not saying the government shouldn't collect liabilities, they should for moral hazard and justice reasons if nothing else, but it is not an economic free hit.

This is a big issue and the fact that us PAYE payers have no relationship with tax laws as our contribution has gone before we even get paid so do not tend to know the ins and outs of tax law is not the issue. Margret Hodge is chair of the Commons public accounts committee and if she is outraged then that is the most important peice of terminology as far as I am concerned.

Hodge is grandstanding and herself uses trusts for the purpose of tax planning. Nothing wrong with that, it is entirely legal, just as the tax arrangements of Starbucks, Amazon and thousands of non-domiciled and non-resident individuals who have Swiss bank accounts are.

In summary, if you are angry about tax avoidance then campaign for a change in the law and its enforcement. What we have now is point scoring and no action.
 
I presume this is aimed at me. If you mean that I consider the facts and look at root causes then, yes, you are right.

I've been very open about my politics - I am economically conservative and socially liberal. I believe in free trade, open markets and small government whilst, broadly, letting people do whatever they want with their lives. I can't abide social conservatism, but the main factor for me is always the economy and I have only ever voted Conservative. I don't consider myself partisan though and have criticised all parties on issues I disagree with.

the world is not as black and white as the Tories are heartless and evil and Labour always run out of other people's money.

On the subject of tax evasion there is a lot of screaming on both sides and talk of conspiracy whereas the likely reality is somewhat more mundane.

But that isn't what you did. You said you didn't read the report. That isn't considering the facts.
 
They don't have to increase resources. They can re-allocate from the huge number of people looking into benefit fraud - redress the balance somewhat.

Redressing the balance is probably reasonable, but it's only going to do a little, and it's window dressing really. You can throw as many overworked and relatively underpaid accountants and lawyers as you like at this, but they're still going to be trying to trap farts.

The good lawyers and accountants who know tax law and accounting will have left HMRC a long time ago and be earning triple at PwC. When the HMRC are able to offer similar terms, packages and incentives then we might have a department who are more committed and equipped to tackle this issue.
 
Redressing the balance is probably reasonable, but it's only going to do a little, and it's window dressing really. You can throw as many overworked and relatively underpaid accountants and lawyers as you like at this, but they're still going to be trying to trap farts.

The good lawyers and accountants who know tax law and accounting will have left HMRC a long time ago and be earning triple at PwC. When the HMRC are able to offer similar terms, packages and incentives then we might have a department who are more committed and equipped to tackle this issue.

That really depends on a number of things. Given the numbers involved, even a small change may lead to big savings.

What is also interesting is that my dad has a friend who is an accountant who investigates fraud etc. He's never worked for one of the big firms. He's also very good. Not everyone will move. (He may be the exception to the rule, but he's the only person I know who does this kind of work, so from my sample population, you are 100% wrong!)

(My dad told me a story about having this guy and his wife over for dinner one night. My dad noticed a police car outside, and wondered what on earth was happening, and which of his neighbours was in trouble. He mentioned it to this guy, who explained it was there to keep an eye out for him. IIRC He was, at the time, working on a case involving a drug dealer who had laundered a huge amount of money, and he was trying to track it all down. The police were worried for his safety. As interesting as his job may be, I don't think I could do that.)
 
Looks like someones bluff is being called.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-tax-avoidance-claims-and-I-will-sue-you.html

Now this is why politicians should keep quite until advised to speak by people with brains bigger than peas.

[That's all politicians not just the one mentioned above.]

Fink has now retracted the bluff calling - and you were expecting Milliband to blink first!

'But in an interview with the Evening Standard, Lord Fink acknowledged that if Miliband accused him of "ordinary tax avoidance" he would be unable to sue.'

Aparently it was the word 'dodgy' he objected to!
 
Fink has now retracted the bluff calling - and you were expecting Milliband to blink first!

'But in an interview with the Evening Standard, Lord Fink acknowledged that if Miliband accused him of "ordinary tax avoidance" he would be unable to sue.'

Aparently it was the word 'dodgy' he objected to!

*sigh*

I thought I'd already pointed out that tax avoidance is totally legal.

Suggesting someone indulges in dodgy practices on the other hand is potentially libellous.
 
Fink has now retracted the bluff calling - and you were expecting Milliband to blink first!

'But in an interview with the Evening Standard, Lord Fink acknowledged that if Miliband accused him of "ordinary tax avoidance" he would be unable to sue.'

Aparently it was the word 'dodgy' he objected to!

Yeah, saw that. As I said earlier, all politicians should keep quite before being advised by somebody with a brain bigger than a pea. Obviously applies to Fink as well.
 
*sigh*

I thought I'd already pointed out that tax avoidance is totally legal.

Suggesting someone indulges in dodgy practices on the other hand is potentially libellous.
'Sigh' - don't be downhearted. Is tax avoidance something that you think members of the government should be indulging in? That's pretty low expectations if so.
Fink doesn't seem so fussed about the potential libel now - maybe he has checked his dealings overnight and decided he should keep a low profile....
 
Back
Top