Why no 'outrage' on TAX FRAUD, David?

Generali

Putting money in an ISA rather than a normal savings account is tax avoidance as is putting money into a pension.

A company car rather than a pay rise used to be a very common form of tax avoidance.

Thrugelmir

JasonLVC wrote: »

Tax evasion (ie, not avoidance/planning, but where one sets out to break the law to avoid paying tax) is equally as bad as benefit fraud but so much harder to prove. At a corporate level, who owns the business, where are the Directors based in the world, where is the business based, which jurisdiction takes precedent?

Why is tax evasion harder to prove at a Corporate level?

frank_begbie

MORPH3US wrote: »

Nail on the head for me.

Don't they pay VAT then?

frank_begbie

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I would prefer those that dont work a jot starve than those that do contribute to get away with underpaying tax. Being needy is not a desirable quality in my eyes; at least those underpaying tax are not a burden to the rest of the state like 3rd generation benefit claiming doleite scum are.

Indeed, if we had no needy people in this country, there wouldnt be any need for tax!

That obviously a wind up.

No way you could be serious.

ILW

It does pee me off when the government take a big chunk out of what I earned legally and then had it over to layabouts so they can sit in their council flat all day smoking cheap fags, drinking Stella and watching £60 per month Sky sport on their plasma telly. Thats why I have more sympathy for those avoiding tax than those fiddling benefits.

mbga9pgf

frank_begbie wrote: »

That obviously a wind up.

No way you could be serious.

If someone is contributing to production and the GDP stats, bringing trade to the UK, how are they a burden?

Its not a wind up. If people didnt suck the life out of this country by being needy and requiring support from the state, in its most extreme form, there would be no need for tax. Look at the US as an example of this. Much lower sales taxes, income tax and capital gains tax, lower state provided services. I know what scheme I would prefer to be under.

I wonder whether so many poor people would be obese and chain smoke if they knew there was no treatment for them when their poor lifestyle choices manifested itself as disease?

Pete111

ILW wrote: »

It does pee me off when the government take a big chunk out of what I earned legally and then had it over to layabouts so they can sit in their council flat all day smoking cheap fags, drinking Stella and watching £60 per month Sky sport on their plasma telly. Thats why I have more sympathy for those avoiding tax than those fiddling benefits.

Exactly. This is why tax payers get more upset about benefits fraud than tax evasion in general. They can empathise better with the tax evaders (especially as most will have paid for stuff 'in cash' before)

That image you describe resonates far more strongly with the general populace than thinking of a businessman who pays shed loads of tax anyway squirrelling a little away pre tax into a dodgy offshore account...after all, at least he had the decency to earn it in the first place!!

JasonLVC

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why is tax evasion harder to prove at a Corporate level?

Depends what you mean by Corporate?

For multi-nationals, things like transfer pricing arrangements ensuring 'profts' are earnt outside the UK and not subject to UK taxation. Offshore arrangements, etc.

For smaller businesmen, the whole matter of suppression (ie, cash sales aren't recorded to reduce the reported turnover of the business) and MTIC Frauds are very difficult to trace and even more difficult to prove in court (that old mens rea test!)

I was talking to a HMRC friend of mine last month and he was telling me that in the old days they'd go to a Indian restaurant as a group, buy beers/meals, pay cash and then return the next morning with their HMRC hat on and inspect the records......and low and behold that cash sale wasn't recorded.

But they now have to pre-notify the taxpayer they intend to do invigiliation of their premises before they do it and so once tipped off, the restaurant owner isn't going to supress for the period they've been warned they'll be visited!. With less HMRC staff and human rights laws meaning they cannot do a surprise visit, the chances of getting caught are slim and so the opportunity to fiddle increases.

I guess in summary, direct tax is generally self-assessed (ie, your employer is responsible for calculating PAYE, VAT, NI etc and so they submit their records to HMRC and HMRC trust them to be correct but subject to random or computer generated checks in the future but with so many taxpayers to check chances of getting spotted is low.

StevieJ

I am confused here, are some people trying to justify the illegal activity of tax evasion? and is at least one of those people paid his wages out of public funds?

mbga9pgf

Not justifiable at all.

All I am saying is that I personally view tax adversion as a white collar crime, whereas scum that are intentionally needy have no excuse and are a burden to us all on this overpopulated planet.