Google Tax

Pollycat

BethanyD wrote: »

I think it naive to believe that HMRC do not do deals for expediency

This story does keep rolling on and many others plainly believe it to be an unjust if not illegal settlement

How is it illegal?

takman

BethanyD wrote: »

I think it naive to believe that HMRC do not do deals for expediency

This story does keep rolling on and many others plainly believe it to be an unjust if not illegal settlement

They have paid all tax that they legally have to and now have made a deal to pay this extra. That's why I asked the question if you pay more tax than you legally have to?. I would be very surprised to meet someone who has ever paid more tax the they have to.

A lot of people use accountants to make sure they pay as little tax as legally possible when self employed. So why is it wrong when a large company does it?.

stugib

takman wrote: »

A lot of people use accountants to make sure they pay as little tax as legally possible when self employed. So why is it wrong when a large company does it?.

All a matter of scale I suppose but putting a lunch or buying something on 'business expenses' is one thing. Charging a 'cost' of hundreds of millions from another one of your set of companies (which consists of a post office box on an island specifically set up for this purpose) to another, which miraculously is exactly the same amount as the profit you made that year in your main business, is another.

So yes by the letter of the law, nothing wrong. By the spirit of it, people can see through it for what it is - a complete p*sstake, and one which HMRC is happy to be complicit in at the expense of the rest of us. I don't entirely blame them for doing so, after all it may be against their duty to their shareholders not to. It's the laws that need to change but I don't see any appetite from our governments being far too cosy with big business and the accountants.

ailey

This might be of interest to many people who may wish to sign the petition on change.org about a taxman for the people.

https://www.change.org/p/consider-steve-lewis-for-next-chief-executive-of-hmrc-board-peoplestaxman?recruiter=51668165&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-petition_update-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

takman

ailey wrote: »

This might be of interest to many people who may wish to sign the petition on change.org about a taxman for the people.

https://www.change.org/p/consider-steve-lewis-for-next-chief-executive-of-hmrc-board-peoplestaxman?recruiter=51668165&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-petition_update-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

But yet he took part in a television program where he tried to avoid paying as much tax as possible!

takman

stugib wrote: »

All a matter of scale I suppose but putting a lunch or buying something on 'business expenses' is one thing. Charging a 'cost' of hundreds of millions from another one of your set of companies (which consists of a post office box on an island specifically set up for this purpose) to another, which miraculously is exactly the same amount as the profit you made that year in your main business, is another.

So yes by the letter of the law, nothing wrong. By the spirit of it, people can see through it for what it is - a complete p*sstake, and one which HMRC is happy to be complicit in at the expense of the rest of us. I don't entirely blame them for doing so, after all it may be against their duty to their shareholders not to. It's the laws that need to change but I don't see any appetite from our governments being far too cosy with big business and the accountants.

Obviously they need to change the laws to close down tax "loopholes" but you can't expect the companies to pay tax they legally don't owe!. Imagine if they changed the tax laws then expected everyone in the country to pay extra tax for the last 5 years. I doubt many people would agree with that, yet they expect large companies to agree with it!.

ailey

takman wrote: »

But yet he took part in a television program where he tried to avoid paying as much tax as possible!

Did he? I've still to watch that programme.

shaun_from_Africa

stugib wrote: »

So yes by the letter of the law, nothing wrong. By the spirit of it, people can see through it for what it is - a complete p*sstake, and one which HMRC is happy to be complicit in at the expense of the rest of us.

How can HMRC be complicit in not disputing tax payments that are made in full compliance with relevant requirements and legislation?
HMRC don't make laws, but if people are following those laws then they have no option but to accept it.