Tax avoidance after the state funeral

Moby

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

This reminds me of what Lord Clyde said in a tax case in the 1920s:

No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue

And in a case involving, I think, the Duke of Westminsterin the 1930s, another judge said:

Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

Ok then.....so long as tax advice is freely available to all of us and not just to those who can pay for it!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Ok then.....so long as tax advice is freely available to all of us and not just to those who can pay for it!

Who do you expect to pay then?

Carl31

Moby wrote: »

Ok then.....so long as tax advice is freely available to all of us and not just to those who can pay for it!

Tax info is freely available online for everyone. By paying, i assume you mean using an expert for advice. I would say thats a matter of choice whether you want to do that

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

It's just hypocrisy, almost everyone with savings avoids tax through having a pension or ISA.

The test is simple, do you follow the law or not? I you don't you deserve everything coming to you, if you do then you're fine.

So I take it you are happy with benefit claiments living in the most expensive areas and having more kids to optimise there benefit payments as after all it is within the law.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

So I take it you are happy with benefit claiments living in the most expensive areas and having more kids to optimise there benefit payments as after all it is within the law.

indeed so, one doesn't, by and large criticise people acting within the rules
however, if the rules are wrong one has to change them

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

So I take it you are happy with benefit claiments living in the most expensive areas and having more kids to optimise there benefit payments as after all it is within the law.

I’m not generali’s sockie logged in on the wrong account, it is just that I would like to give my two cents on that:

I don’t like paying for it no, but I don’t blame the claimants, they are only trying to make the best of an imperfect situation. But I do think that the Gov should address that and reduce benefits so that people on benefits are not getting more than some people that work.

In the same way I would like to see specialist (not talking about pensions, isa’s and NSI etc) tax loopholes closed but I would consider using one if it was legal, even though I would prefer it not to exist.

EDIT: For the record I haven't used anything like that before, but at the moment I have over 100k earning only 2.7% gross which p*sses me off because the net rate is well below inflation, my other savings which are still in long term savings bonds are not doing that much better either.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

So I take it you are happy with benefit claiments living in the most expensive areas and having more kids to optimise there benefit payments as after all it is within the law.

Yes I am. I think the law should be changed but I don't blame a benefit claimant for acting within the law.

If it were down to me I'd get rid of housing benefit entirely and wrap it up into other benefits.

gropinginthedark

BobQ wrote: »

So please do explain your assertion of billions saved

Shall we start with the £5 billion a year rebate from the EU she negotiated in 1984.

We've lost out by approx £10bn since Blair masterfully renegotiated the rebate downwards in return for ... NOTHING!

ILW

gropinginthedark wrote: »

Shall we start with the £5 billion a year rebate from the EU she negotiated in 1984.

We've lost out by approx £10bn since Blair masterfully renegotiated the rebate downwards in return for ... NOTHING!

I have often wondered why he did that.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Yes I am. I think the law should be changed but I don't blame a benefit claimant for acting within the law.

If it were down to me I'd get rid of housing benefit entirely and wrap it up into other benefits.

I think people at all levels of society (if that exsists) share a responsibility not to milk the system. But I realise that in the real world people don't so law should be change at both ends.