[Closed] Moral tax dilema - am I evil?

Yes

Phew, thank god for that. I was worried for a minute.

[url= https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1619/25009477184_0406988479_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1619/25009477184_0406988479_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/E717fu ]North Melbourne fun[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikewsmith/ ]Mike Smith[/url], on Flickr

Gold guillotine? Not very proletarian, if you ask me. Plus, you'll never get a decent edge on it.

No, there's a massive difference between tax efficiency and tax avoidance. There's also a huge grey area between the two that the government should legislate to narrow and clarify where boundaries lie but it sounds like you fall into the former.

However, you knew that didn't you, and just wanted to start an argument. 😀

And a troll...

No. Why would you even think you have to pay more tax than your legally obliged to do so ?
If you have excess income "YOU" decide how best to spend it for the general good.

Why would you pay CGT on an inheritance ? New allowances being phased in mean first £1m pounds is IHT free. Alternatively follow the lead of that national treasure Ronnie Corbert and have your wife's parents gift their wealth to you more than 7 years before their death. Then you can avoid being the scum of the earth by using an offshore company to achieve exactly the same thing

Never ever pay cash in hand for any job and get a VAT receipt. Don't buy any duty free either, just think of the needy. That way your conscience will be clear.

George Osborne's stance on tax avoiders is pretty clear:

[img] [/img]

@taxi see @grum's comment - this is a follow over from Panama Papers thread

@nick DOH

EVASION - illegal and immoral
AVOIDANCE - legal and morally correct

However, you knew that didn't you, and just wanted to start an argument.

No, but I can see why you would think that.

Honestly the thing that infuriates me is the politics in the arguments being trotted out today. None of it is about an actual moral issue. It's purely about points scoring in a political game.

I think if there is any real point to be made it's that if you hold our politicians to a higher moral standard than anyone else, you're asking for trouble.

Why would it be OK for me to benefit in the way I've described above and not the PM?

AVOIDANCE - legal and morally correct

I see. So why did Take That end up with a large bill and a fine, for tax avoidance?

In an effort to retire early I became [i]extremely[/i] tax efficient a few years ago.

I am actually slightly concerned that any new legislation will move me to the wrong side of the line and I will need to change everything.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem with this approach.

So I am probably evil-ish.

You don't pay CGT but the estate is liable for IHT subject to the thresholds and exemptions. Note: *you* don't pay IHT on *your* inheritance, it isn't *yours* at all until IHT has been paid. Of course the boundary between avoidance and evasion is fuzzy, and anyone who places it in a different place to me is *wrong* (joke).

If sCameron was doing it? you will be fine, not evil at all

EVASION - illegal and immoral
AVOIDANCE - legal and morally correct

The reaction of everyone form the Govt to the people to the owners shows that Google, or Starbucks or FB are not seen as morally correct when they do this - heck even you wanted to tackle avoidance on the other thread - though you did blame the EU for us not being able to do this

DO you often want to curtail morally correct behaviour?

You don't pay CGT but the estate is liable for IHT

Thanks for clarifying that.

Um

I think if someone is making money in the UK then intentionally and knowingly squirreling it offshore to avoid paying UK tax on that UK income then many would judge that to be "evil" as you say.

Maybe your wifes family did just that historically, maybe not. You can't be accountable for their actions. If I was to inherit such an estate and I felt this was "not on" then I would look into how I can contribute back to society in a meaningful way with the cash that would have been paid to the state.

If I had been a bit lazy with vetting my investments and subsequently found out they had done something I did not agree with my money, I would mitigate this by withdrawing my investment, reinvesting inline with my ethics and values.

EVASION - illegal and immoral
AVOIDANCE - legal and morally correct

Why would it be OK for me to benefit in the way I've described above and not the PM?

Because your not taking the position on behalf of the country that "We are all in it together",

Nor are you going large on the tax evasion / unpaid tax piece taking the moral high ground and being a shining example of doing the right thing, or placing yourself fair and square in front of the hypocrisy klaxon chairing a Tax Fraud / Tax Evasion summit.

It would seem so OP... Trolls are Chaotic Evil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

EVASION - illegal and immoral
AVOIDANCE - legal and morally correct

Well actually there's:
Evasion = illegal
Mitigation = legal and within the intent/letter of the law. A simple example would be an ISA. You get a tax free allowance from the gov't.
Avoidance = legal, but only because of a loophole/goes against the spirit of the law.

Mitigation and avoidance are both legal, but avoidance isn't necessarily morally right.

E.g.

Let's say a director is paid £2m. At the current marginal rate of 50%, nearly half of his or her earnings will go in tax. But if the company pays the director just £50,000 and puts the other £1,950,000 into an employer-financed retirement benefit scheme, and then the next day he or she borrows £1.9m from the pension scheme to spend as they like, the tax bill will be almost nothing

hese structures work so long as everyone agrees that the loan is repayable … but that's where the smoke and mirrors come in. There is a nod and a wink that the pension scheme will never ask for the money back, and the loan stays in place for perpetuity, until the person dies. At death, it disappears. The trustees of the pension scheme meet and agree to write it off,

It's legal, but it's obviously dodgy and not the intent of the law.

Because your not taking the position on behalf of the country that "We are all in it together",

OK but then that suggests that the moral position is not absolute. It suggests that what is moral is realtive to the individual.

Do you agree with that position?

It's legal, but it's obviously dodgy and not the intent of the law.

I think you will find most tax advisers wouldn't think that scheme would have a hope in hell of working, for the sake of its future, I hope the Guardian's own tax planning is more robust.

Why would it be OK for me to benefit in the way I've described above and not the PM?

i) You're a single man who has casual, consensual sex.
ii) The prime minister cheats on his wife whilst publicly proclaiming family values.

I think you will find most tax advisers wouldn't think that scheme would have a hope in hell of working, for the sake of its future, I hope the Guardian's own tax planning is more robust.

Just like it's perfectly legal to put your dog down and then buy a new one two weeks later because it's cheaper than putting it in kennels while you go on your summer holidays. That doesn't make it right!

EFRBs are a variant of Employee Benefit Trusts, although the workings are fundamentally the same.
Whilst some EBTs did indeed work in 2010 they have since come under concerted attack by Government & HMRC (particularly in the Finance Bill 2011) and although there is still not absolute clarity on every EBT (see the various rulings on the Glasgow Rangers scheme which have gone for and against HMRC at various points), I think the idea that they remain a sensible tool for tax "planning" is very misguided.

@ransos because the scheme they where invested in was decalred evasion (basically)

FWIW I have been shown similar schemes and decided they where not for me/too dodgy

@balls - yes basically thats exactly what the Labour dinar and wind farm owner did. Also don't forget paying yourself a salary/bonus attracts tax at 45% (assuming you are a top earner) plus 2% NI + 12.8% employers NI

@JY I think it would be easier for you if I just shortened my username, save you all that typing 😉 How about IMO ? I'm not ready yet for IMHO 8)

@ransos because the scheme they where invested in was decalred evasion (basically)

No, it was avoidance. The tribunal said so, and I consider their opinion to have more weight than yours.

it's just an example of the blurred lines between moral and legal, and spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

No its an example of a shit scheme and gives a false impression of the ease with which tax can be avoided and how the UK tax system works in reality.

It's only evil if this plays when you walk in the room. (If I was organising the next Tory conference, it might be worth a career limiting move 🙂

@ransos - happy to read the summing up - do you have a link ? There is some newish language/requirements where you have to declare all such schemes and then are reviewed for "spirit and purpose" (my words) and if successfully challenged they are declared against the rules, i.e. not legal. As I have posted numerous times pop stars/media/journalists/sports people are some of the worst abusers of the tax system - we need a scoop on Russell Brand that right on man of the people that pays more rent (why doesn't he buy eh ?) in Hoxton/East London than it costs to rent in Chelsea/Belgravia

Apply to be the Prime Minister, sounds a perfect job for you OP. 😆

[i]What a wonderfully black and white world you live in [/i]

The Govt make the rules and we follow them. Can't get much more black and white than that.

No, it was avoidance. The tribunal said so, and I consider their opinion to have more weight than yours.

Which is the correct answer, there is extraordinary naivety about the law on these matters and a complete lack of understanding of the difference between civil and criminal law. Tax evasion is a crime which will be heard before the criminal courts, other tax disputes, including avoidance schemes, are matters for the civil courts - starting at the tax tribunal. If it is heard by a tax tribunal it is not evasion.

@ransos - happy to read the summing up

If it is heard by a tax tribunal it is not evasion.

we need a scoop on Russell Brand

why doesn't he buy eh ?

JY the PMs tax position has always been clear - his father setup an offshore trust to provide for his family and to legally avoid paying IHT (which as I have repeatedly said its a daft tax as its its so easily legally avoided and is largely only paid by the middle classes who don't plan for it - £4.6bn this year by the way, a record). You can avoid it via a trust, giving the money away 7 years before your death or just dying whilst living the last year of your life in an IHT free country. I suppose its not news to me as I have always followed the story.

@ransons - understood - would still be happy to read it - will try and Google it. As I said I was shown many of the tax swerves including the film ones which have pushed a number of ex-footballers into bankruptcy. I can't imagine the Take That ones looked remotely legit, I don't really understand why they wouldn't just live in Villars (near Montreux) or Monaco as many of the F1/tennis players do

You keep going on about a trust, there is no evidence that I have seen of such a thing, they may have been one but there is nothing concrete.

Many of the film schemes were fine, they were designed to meet the requirements of a specific government incentive. Unfortunately they were misunderstood as they were deferral schemes so whilst you saved tax on day 1 and you had liabilities in the later years, typically years 8 to 15. Unfortunately too many punters did not realize or were not advised of this and didn't have the money to pay the liabilities.

EDIT:

why doesn't he buy eh ?

He has in Henley.

I don't really understand why they wouldn't just live in Villars (near Montreux) or Monaco as many of the F1/tennis players do

Because they are boring places to live.

The Govt make the rules and we follow them. Can't get much more black and white than that.

the PMs tax position has always been clear

I agree we all knew, well we should have, from where his dad got his money and how dave prospered due to this. It was not a secret.