Take That!

Fella

Annie1960 wrote: »

The tax rules are very clear

Lol, that is a ludicrous statement if ever there was one. One thing our tax rules certainly AREN'T is clear. Our tax system is incredibly complicated. The rules covering it doubled in size under Gordon Brown. It's precisely because it isn't clear that you get issues like this.

Running_Horse

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

These groups are held in high regard by the renting yoof. Another win for the boomers.

Don't know many youths who rent property. They are generally at school. Take That were famous 20 years ago, so their fans are generally in their mid thirties. The ones I personally know are over 40.

chucknorris

Fella wrote: »

Lol, that is a ludicrous statement if ever there was one. One thing our tax rules certainly AREN'T is clear. Our tax system is incredibly complicated. The rules covering it doubled in size under Gordon Brown. It's precisely because it isn't clear that you get issues like this.

They certainly aren't clear when it comes to capital allowances, which is why chartered quantity surveyors (which is my profession, although I am lecturing now)) have been able to move into that specialist field (alongside accountants) and often argue it out successfully with tax inspectors. Especially when it comes to builders work in connection with services.

moneyinmypocket

geri1965 wrote: »

What is the 'renting yoof'?

Yoof that rent and that go to take that concerts instead if saving for a house

geri1965_2

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Yoof that rent and that go to take that concerts instead if saving for a house

So this is all their fault then. If they hadn't spent their money on the concert tickets, Take That wouldn't have made any money and wouldn't be in this mess.

Fella

I don't actually care about them dodging tax I just wish they hadn't inflicted so many horrible songs upon us.

chewmylegoff

Fella wrote: »

Jimmy Carr had already admitted what he did was wrong & should never have happened etc. Whereas Barlow at the time was claiming he'd done nothing wrong & fought the claim that he had. Two completely different scenarios.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

At the time Cameron commented on it, Jimmy Carr was insisting that he paid everything that was due and it seems from HMRC's comments that their investigations into both schemes were at a similar stage.

So not "two completely different scenarios" then unless by "completely different" you meant "exactly the same".

wotsthat

Cameron's doing a great job of not providing a running commentary as horrorbag Margaret Hodge tries to make some political capital.

The chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge had suggested Barlow "might show a bit of contrition by giving back his OBE".

But the PM told ITV's Good Morning Britain that that was not necessary.

He added that Barlow had done a "huge amount" for the country

Tax avoidance is, in these cases, these very aggressive tax avoidance schemes, they are wrong and we should really persuade people not to do them, and that's why we have these court cases where the court looks at whether a scheme is more about avoiding tax than anything else

The only difference between the way Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow have been treated relates to the colour of Mr Barlow's nose.

DCodd

Let's be perectly clear here. While we all would like people to pay what we think is the "correct amount of tax", there is no such thing. What anybody pays is a mutally agreed compromise.

HMRC are not the moral guardians of correct taxation. Their job is to maximise the revenue for the treasury and are quite happy to recieve more than is owed. It is only these dreaded accountants that challenge HMRC that hold them in check. Granted, some do find overly aggressive ways of avoidance but it is extemely rare, which is why it hits the headlines.

If the Government were truly committed to fair taxation then they would scrap the current tax legislation and rewrite the rules from scratch. Simple and concise tax rules that the vast majority of people could understand with severe punishments for evasion. They won't as it would take longer than their term in Government to orchestrate and even longer to see the benefits, so no personal gain.

Fella

chewmylegoff wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

At the time Cameron commented on it, Jimmy Carr was insisting that he paid everything that was due and it seems from HMRC's comments that their investigations into both schemes were at a similar stage.

So not "two completely different scenarios" then unless by "completely different" you meant "exactly the same".

Fair enough I remembered that incorrectly, I thought Cameron's comments came after Jimmy Carr completely changed his stance, not before.