£5,000 fine for suggesting someone use a cash ISA?

Paul_Herring

Could include you talking to your mate in the pub.

Ok, possibly a bit of a hyperbolic subject (and it refers to The Mail,) but still, it's not entirely implausable:

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/05/fined-for-talking-about-tax.html

Instead, ‘deliberate wrongdoing’ is defined as an act capable of causing a ‘loss of tax.’ This in turn is defined as ‘relief, reduction, repayment or credit of any kind.’ These definitions mean that any advice on saving tax could be subject to a penalty.[...]

The maximum penalty is 100% of the tax ‘lost’, but with minimum £5,000 (reduced to £1,500 if you confess your wrongdoing to HMRC before they discover about it).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271398/Big-brother-law-threatens-innocent-advice-Tax-chat-land-5-000-fine.html

Innocent victims could include a person who mentions to a friend in the pub that an Isa is a way of saving £10,200 a year tax-free.

Even a vicar who encourages the congregation to donate money using the Gift Aid envelopes, rather than putting cash straight into the Sunday collection, may fall into the trap.

Ok - that Mail bit is certainly hyperbolic.

Lokolo

Remember, this forums are discussion only and no-one gives out advice.

So we cannot be fined.

StevieJ

Wouldn't it be easier and more profitable to just scrap the ISA

Rollinghome

The world must be a scary place for people who take the Daily Mail seriously.

Paul_Herring

Lokolo wrote: »

Remember, this forums are discussion only and no-one gives out advice.

My reading, of their interpretation, is that it needn't be advice that gets you into trouble. But being the Mail, they've probably found the 3rd end of the wrong stick to grab hold of.

Rollinghome wrote: »

The world must be a scary place for people who take the Daily Mail seriously.

You must be new here...

kennyboy66_2

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Could include you talking to your mate in the pub.

Ok, possibly a bit of a hyperbolic subject (and it refers to The Mail,) but still, it's not entirely implausable:

.

I'm afraid what you describe is totally implausable.

Paul_Herring

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I'm afraid what you describe is totally implausable.

Maybe in your country, but not in the UK:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implausible

im·plau·si·ble
adj.
Difficult to believe; not plausible.

Given that in this country, for example,

• tourists are prevented from taking legitimate photographs for fear of arrest under section 44 of the terrorism act
• you can be arrested, and fined, and imprisoned (for being unable to pay the fine) for people smoking on your premises when you're not even there, and
• legislation originally introduced to deal with violent and abusive rioters and football hooligans is used to curb free speech

I'm afraid this is plausible.

Gorgeous_George

Rollinghome wrote: »

The world must be a scary place for people who take the Daily Mail seriously.

Paul H's signature is a giveaway. Clearly a media-inspired Tory !!!!!cat.

GG

StevieJ

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Paul H's signature is a giveaway. Clearly a media-inspired Tory !!!!!cat.

GG

Why aye man, it must be Major Misunderstanding from his local rag