PDA

View Full Version : The 'who's' getting shafted over tax avoidance thread?



MarillionFan
24th June 2012, 08:06
Ok. Now, Chris Hoy, after Jimmy Carr & Keep That.

BBC News - Sir Chris Hoy defends tax arrangements (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18564187)

Plus, we have a Tory donor with Jimmy on another scam - Top Tory donor linked to Jimmy Carr tax scheme | Business | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/24/tory-donor-tax-avoidance) (Also see AtW thread).

Who's next?

Cameron had better hope he's not sharing a cabinet with a 'tax avoider'! :eek:

(Least it's keeps them off our back for a while)

doodab
24th June 2012, 08:32
Chris Hoy is clearly not avoiding tax.

kingcook
24th June 2012, 08:33
I'm still waiting for an article to be published in The Daily Mail

"Thousands of IT Contractors not paying any tax"

Spacecadet
24th June 2012, 08:43
I'm still waiting for an article to be published in The Daily Mail

"Thousands of IT Contractors not paying any tax"

like they're ever going to alienate their core readership like that :laugh

doodab
24th June 2012, 09:05
I'm still waiting for an article to be published in The Daily Mail

"Thousands of IT Contractors not paying any tax"

I'm surprised they haven't mentioned that people claiming benefits don't generally pay tax on them yet. Never mind all those johnny foreigners who use the feeble excuse of living in their own country to avoid paying the exchequer a penny. It's an outrage!

BolshieBastard
24th June 2012, 09:48
Anyone trying to link what Hoy did (company loan) is in any way illegal tax avoidance (think about it) OR evasion just hasnt got a clue and is desparate for a story.

AtW
24th June 2012, 14:58
Anyone trying to link what Hoy did (company loan) is in any way illegal tax avoidance (think about it) OR evasion just hasnt got a clue and is desparate for a story.

Making a very large unsecured (as it was reported) loan to yourself under most certainly less than market rate for such unsecured loans is hmmmm unusual and suspicious for sure.

Certainly very mild stuff compared to dodgy offshore loans but that does not sound like a behavior of a noble Sir Knight in shining armour ...

Cameron should do the right thing and pass law that would make self assessment information completely public - that shoud flush out some of the parasitic cockroaches who think they are very smart.

Kanye
25th June 2012, 09:35
Making a very large unsecured (as it was reported) loan to yourself under most certainly less than market rate for such unsecured loans is hmmmm unusual and suspicious for sure.

Certainly very mild stuff compared to dodgy offshore loans but that does not sound like a behavior of a noble Sir Knight in shining armour ...

Cameron should do the right thing and pass law that would make self assessment information completely public - that shoud flush out some of the parasitic cockroaches who think they are very smart.

Is that ^^ really true?

I've taken a massive directors loan in order to buy a house.

I didn't think that was sailing close to the wind in the slightest. You either pay the rate of interest which HMRC dictate (4% I think) or treat it as a BIK.

Directors loans are as vanilla as it comes. Shocking piece of journalism!

AtW
25th June 2012, 09:40
I didn't think that was sailing close to the wind in the slightest. You either pay the rate of interest which HMRC dictate (4% I think) or treat it as a BIK.

It's pretty far away but still does not look good for public person who is a Sir now in current climant of dodgy tax avoidance among celebrities.

Old Greg
25th June 2012, 09:44
It seems as if it is the honest tax payer (corporate and individual) who is being shafted. A nice spot of retrospective legislation should sort this all out.

doodab
25th June 2012, 09:45
It's pretty far away but still does not look good for public person who is a Sir now in current climant of dodgy tax avoidance among celebrities.

The only way it doesn't look good is if you get pissed and squint very hard through a prism of malice. Not to mention that Sir Chris Hoy is Scottish and as such should be expected to be tighter than a ducks bumhole.

AtW
25th June 2012, 09:49
The only way it doesn't look good is if you get pissed and squint very hard through a prism of malice. Not to mention that Sir Chris Hoy is Scottish and as such should be expected to be tighter than a ducks bumhole.

Why did not he get massive unsecure loan from bank instead?

Oh yes - because bank would charge much higher level of interest perhaps? :laugh

Kanye
25th June 2012, 10:10
Why did not he get massive unsecure loan from bank instead?

Oh yes - because bank would charge much higher level of interest perhaps? :laugh

Why would you borrow it from a bank when you can borrow it from 'yourself'?

I choose to pay 4% back into the company instead of the 3% I could probably get a mortgage for. It's just much easier.

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether taking a huge directors loan (correctly accounted for and managed) is in any way a grey area?

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 11:12
Why did not he get massive unsecure loan from bank instead?

Oh yes - because bank would charge much higher level of interest perhaps? :laugh

If he owns a business that has enough money to loan him at a lower rate, why shouldn't he? Of course, if that business goes belly up as a result, then he as a director can be dragged in front of court and cleaned out, but it's his own responsibility as director to take the decision and ensure it's accounted for properly.

AtW
25th June 2012, 11:22
If he owns a business that has enough money to loan him at a lower rate, why shouldn't he?

It's not a problem if the business is about loaning money and has got it in articles of association that massive loans to directors at low interest rates without security are ok :laugh

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 11:27
It's not a problem if the business is about loaning money and has got it in articles of association that massive loans to directors at low interest rates without security are ok :laugh



"I saw an opportunity to buy property and with the guidance of my advisers I borrowed money from my company to do so. The loan was subsequently repaid shortly thereafter by declaration of fully taxable dividends."

This doesn't give me the impression that the loan was 'unsecured'. He took it out to buy property, which would most obviously be the security for the loan.

ASB
25th June 2012, 11:46
Does anyone else have an opinion on whether taking a huge directors loan (correctly accounted for and managed) is in any way a grey area?

Arguably it could be in breach of the companies act. Also there is the question of the 20% tax to be paid if not settled within 9 months of the year end.

Sure, some people might find it a bit "odd". If, in effect, the company is getting a rate of return of 4% or whatever rather than whatever it would otherwise get then it is sensible business.

It is, however, widely perceived to be a bit "odd".

AtW
25th June 2012, 11:56
This doesn't give me the impression that the loan was 'unsecured'. He took it out to buy property, which would most obviously be the security for the loan.

It would only be secured if the business got a charge on it (just like banks do when giving mortgages) - do you think he had it? According to news articles loan was not secured:

"This amount was unsecured and interest free with no fixed repayment terms."

Chris Hoy received loan from his own firm | Sport | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/22/chris-hoy-received-loan-firm?newsfeed=true)

How much would an unsecured loan cost without fixed repayment terms - perhaps 10-15%?

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:02
It would only be secured if the business got a charge on it (just like banks do when giving mortgages) - do you think he had it? According to news articles loan was not secured:

"This amount was unsecured and interest free with no fixed repayment terms."

Chris Hoy received loan from his own firm | Sport | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/22/chris-hoy-received-loan-firm?newsfeed=true)

How much would an unsecured loan cost without fixed repayment terms - perhaps 10-15%?

Yes, and the Grauniad found out by looking at his company's accounts, which were obviously published as they should be. It's not as if he's hiding something.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:04
Yes, and the Grauniad found out by looking at his company's accounts, which were obviously published as they should be. It's not as if he's hiding something.

His company is apparently now getting lots of applications for interest free no fixed term and no security needed loans :laugh

SupremeSpod
25th June 2012, 12:13
His company is apparently now getting lots of applications for interest free no fixed term and no security needed loans :laugh

Do you know what a "Directors Loan" is?

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 12:17
It's not a problem if the business is about loaning money and has got it in articles of association that massive loans to directors at low interest rates without security are ok :laugh

I have a business loan at 0% interest. I do not need any articles of association or board meeting, and my business is not a money lending business either. The loan has been oustanding for 3 years and the taxman has no problem with it whatsoever

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:17
Do you know what a "Directors Loan" is?

Yes.

And no - unless the business is a bank, building society or loan shark such loans should not be given to directors or employees.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:20
I have a business loan at 0% interest. I do not need any articles of association or board meeting, and my business is not a money lending business either. The loan has been oustanding for 3 years and the taxman has no problem with it whatsoever

And the taxman should have problems with such arrangements - it makes no business sense to give loans at 0% interest or give loans in the first place if company does not specialise for it. Quite why this is allowed under current tax system is a mystery to me.

I don't have any loans from company.

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 12:20
Yes.

And no - unless the business is a bank, building society or loan shark such loans should not be given to directors or employees.

:popcorn:

Oh even I'm interested in hearing how AtW explains away this latest idiotic statement.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:20
Yes.

And no - unless the business is a bank, building society or loan shark such loans should not be given to directors or employees.

Are you serious? You want British company law to state that a company can't lend money to a director who owns all the shares in the company? Or an employer can't lend money to an employee to help them through if some problem occurs that they can't immediately pay for?

Oh dear.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:22
Oh even I'm interested in hearing how AtW explains away this latest idiotic statement.

Gladly.

A purpose of any business should be making money rather than giving below market rate loans to employees or directors - the only valid case is banks who can feel that having employees/director is actually lower risk because they are better aware of their earnings.

Quite why 0% loans are not deemed sham transactions is beyond me.

SupremeSpod
25th June 2012, 12:22
Yes.

And no - unless the business is a bank, building society or loan shark such loans should not be given to directors or employees.

Come back when you've a clue.

Oi! AtW hasn't got a clue, has anyone got a spare he can borrow?

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:23
You want British company law to state that a company can't lend money to a director who owns all the shares in the company? Or an employer can't lend money to an employee to help them through if some problem occurs that they can't immediately pay for?

Yes - there are plenty of companies that specialise in loans and anybody who needs one should approach those.

If the company in question has got banking license of equivalent then it might be ok to allow a very small %-tage of total loans such company makes to give to employees at slightly lower rate.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 12:24
And the taxman should have problems with such arrangements - it makes no business sense to give loans at 0% interest or give loans in the first place if company does not specialise for it. Quite why this is allowed under current tax system is a mystery to me.

I don't have any loans from company.

I will give HMRC a call and ask them to get you to give them some advice.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:27
I will give HMRC a call and ask them to get you to give them some advice.

I am a bit busy at the moment but I'll be happy to advise HMRC on a few brutal but effective techniques to make people pay taxes as they should.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:28
Gladly.

A purpose of any business should be making money rather than giving below market rate loans to employees or directors - the only valid case is banks who can feel that having employees/director is actually lower risk because they are better aware of their earnings.

Quite why 0% loans are not deemed sham transactions is beyond me.

The purpose of a business is to make money for whom? Got it in one; the shareholders, and it's the responsibility of directors to do what they believe is in the interests of shareholders.

Loans for directors and employees are quite normal. Good employers recognise that they have a vested interest in their employees' well being. If an employee is facing some problem, like needing money to provide medical treatment for their kids, or simply needs a new car to get to work and back but is short of money due to some other problem, many employers are happy to lend that employee some money; that's because they have the security that they can withhold repayments from salary while their employee is able to continue working. I know a chap here who lent one of his employees money from the company to get a wheelchair adapted car so that he could get to work more easily while suffering from a degenerative disease; do you have a problem with that? I don't; the director did his best to keep a valuable person working for the benefit of shareholders. That's how it should be.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 12:32
I am a bit busy at the moment but I'll be happy to advise HMRC on a few brutal but effective techniques to make people pay taxes as they should.

Do you have a business?

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:40
The purpose of a business is to make money for whom? Got it in one; the shareholders, and it's the responsibility of directors to do what they believe is in the interests of shareholders.

Businesses have more responsibilities than just to shareholders.


Loans for directors and employees are quite normal. Good employers recognise that they have a vested interest in their employees' well being. If an employee is facing some problem, like needing money to provide medical treatment for their kids, or simply needs a new car to get to work and back but is short of money due to some other problem, many employers are happy to lend that employee some money; that's because they have the security that they can withhold repayments from salary while their employee is able to continue working. I know a chap here who lent one of his employees money from the company to get a wheelchair adapted car so that he could get to work more easily while suffering from a degenerative disease; do you have a problem with that? I don't; the director did his best to keep a valuable person working for the benefit of shareholders. That's how it should be.

Nice in theory but with such system with no caps on loans you get some jackarses that take the piss - use massive loan from company and pay pittance interest compared to what commercially they should have done.

If you want to help employees then you can ask them to get commercial loan from a bank and compensate them full interest they pay via PAYE (which will of course be higher cost due to taxes, but if you really value your employees you should not care about it).

Giving a MASSIVE 0% interest, no security and no terms loan to yourself is not right.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:41
Do you have a business?

I have large share in a business that I founded and continue to run.

Why?

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:45
Nice in theory but with such system with no caps on loans you get some jackarses that take the piss - use massive loan from company and pay pittance interest compared to what commercially they should have done.


Nice in theory but if companies aren't allowed to loan money to employees and directors, they'll loan in natura instead (i.e. 'loaning' someone a Rolex and calling it a Swatch or 'loaning' a director a pile of gold bars and calling them Mars bars in the accounts) which is much more open to abuse than money loans that are in the company's accounts and published at companies house for everybody to see, including Grauniad reporters with nothing else to do than trawling through the accounts of anyone famous, and including AtW.

doodab
25th June 2012, 12:46
Yes.

And no - unless the business is a bank, building society or loan shark such loans should not be given to directors or employees.

And what if said director needs to trot off abroad for several months on business? There is actually special provision to advance a sum as expenses but that only covers £1500 IIRC so it's handy to be able to take a loan to cover the rest, and that seems perfectly reasonable when the end result is £30k of fees that will be subject to UK corporation tax and UK income tax on the resulting dividends.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:47
And what if said director needs to trot off abroad for several months on business?

Wot? Like a professional athlete who travels abroad to compete?

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 12:47
I have large share in a business that I founded and continue to run.

Why?

Don't believe you. If you're the Managing Director of a top successful business... What the fook are you doing posting on here all day & night?

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:49
And what if said director needs to trot off abroad for several months on business?

Ever heard of a company debit card?!?!

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:50
Don't believe you. If you're the Managing Director of a top successful business... What the fook are you doing posting on here all day & night?

Recreation mate, very cheap one too - no need to travel, luggage does not get lost etc :smokin

doodab
25th June 2012, 12:50
Don't believe you. If you're the Managing Director of a top successful business... What the fook are you doing posting on here all day & night?

Some people have a very strange idea of what constitutes success...

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 12:51
Some people have a very strange idea of what constitutes success...

He's got his own sofa dontcha know.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:52
Nice in theory but if companies aren't allowed to loan money to employees and directors, they'll loan in natura instead

Then perhaps HMRC should rename itself as Outland Revenue and start breaking some thumbs?

That would be the British way surely? :smokin

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 12:52
I have large share in a business that I founded and continue to run.

Why?

Mind it

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 12:53
Then perhaps HMRC should rename itself as Outland Revenue and start breaking some thumbs?

That would be the British way surely? :smokin

You clearly have too much time.

AtW
25th June 2012, 12:54
Mind it

It's my business because my business actually pays taxes, so I am not very keen at those who dodge them :laugh

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 12:56
It's my business because my business actually pays taxes, so I am not very keen at those who dodge them :laugh

So who dodged taxes?

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:01
So who dodged taxes?

In my view Sir Chris Hoy dodged bank tax by taking massive 0% loan from his own company which even with BIK attracted much lower rate of tax than actual market rates charged by banks on loans with such conditions.

Hence, he deprived banking system which is mostly owned by the taxpayer from essential revenues.

I rest my case my Lords - please reach your fair decision and execute the offender without any undue delay.

:tired

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:03
You clearly have too much time.

I do indeed spend way too much time argueing with idiots...

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 13:04
It's my business because my business actually pays taxes, so I am not very keen at those who dodge them :laugh

Really Jimmy?

Then how come your company bank balance is so high then? Is it because you're paying yourself minimum dividends and salary isn't it? :eyes

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:06
In my view Sir Chris Hoy dodged bank tax by taking massive 0% loan from his own company which even with BIK attracted much lower rate of tax than actual market rates charged by banks on loans with such conditions.

Hence, he deprived banking system which is mostly owned by the taxpayer from essential revenues.

I rest my case my Lords - please reach your fair decision and execute the offender without any undue delay.

:tired
You can rest your case but it's so full of holes that your underpants are falling out of it. Please tidy it up.

' he deprived banking system which is mostly owned by the taxpayer from essential revenues.' This is absolute, unadulterated bollocks. There's nothing to prevent another company offering a service that a state owned bank offers. Indeed, any law preventing that would be transgressing competition laws. You don't understand this 'free market economy' thing do you?

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:08
There's nothing to prevent another company offering a service that a state owned bank offers.

The business would need a banking license, deal with FSA, money laundering requirements and lots of other very real and very expensive bollocks.

He made a massive loan to himself, if that loan was most of money his business had perhaps that changed nature of his business into loan company? It's not five grand he took here - the loan was (as published) to buy real estate, something normally financed by proper companies that specialise in it - banks.

His saving grace was that he repaid the loan quickly.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:11
The business would need a banking license, deal with FSA, money laundering requirements and lots of other very real and very expensive bollocks.

He made a massive loan to himself, if that loan was most of money his business had perhaps that changed nature of his business into loan company? It's not five grand he took here - the loan was (as published) to buy real estate, something normally financed by proper companies that specialise in it - banks.

This is the most idiotic phrase of the lot. There's a chap nearby who has a 'proper company that specialises' in selling lollipops and other sweeties and choccy bars. Do you think the petrol station should be banned from selling wine gums because it isn't among 'proper companies that specialise in it'?

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:12
Then how come your company bank balance is so high then?

It would have been higher if I never found this place :frown

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:13
This is the most idiotic phrase of the lot. There's a chap nearby who has a 'proper company that specialises' in selling lollipops and other sweeties and choccy bars. Do you think the petrol station should be banned from selling wine gums because it isn't among 'proper companies that specialise in it'?

If petrol station decides to sell alcohol it will need appropriate license to do so. Even selling petrol is likely to require some extra paperwork.

If his business starts competing with banks it should be on the same level playing field.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:17
If petrol station decides to sell alcohol it will need appropriate license to do so.

If his business starts competing with banks it should be on the same level playing field.

Oh dear.

We all compete with the banks. I work at clientco, clientco pays me 60 days later. When I do that, I am lending them money, giving them credit. They could in fact borrow money from a bank and pay me before I start each day, but because I can offer a better deal, they don't. Your ideas would destroy all normal business transactions where payment is given after receiving the service or product.

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:19
We all compete with the banks. I work at clientco, clientco pays me 60 days later. When I do that, I am lending them money, giving them credit.

Providing services without being paid in advance is not the same as lending money.


Your ideas would destroy all normal business transactions where payment is given after receiving the service or product.

Not at all - but now that you mentioned late payments I'd certainly make sure that payments are fairly quick.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:21
Providing services without being paid in advance is not the same as lending money.

How so?

Please explain for the benefit of me and indeed Dodgy, who probably has to pay some of his contractors before he gets paid by the client (hence taking on some credit risk).

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:27
Please explain for the benefit of me and indeed Dodgy, who probably has to pay some of his contractors before he gets paid by the client (hence taking on some credit risk).

You provide credit but you do not lend money.

Hence your example is irrelevant.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:32
You provide credit but you do not lend money.

Hence your example is irrelevant.
You need to learn about the concept of creditors and debtors in company accounts.

Kanye
25th June 2012, 13:32
And the taxman should have problems with such arrangements - it makes no business sense to give loans at 0% interest or give loans in the first place if company does not specialise for it. Quite why this is allowed under current tax system is a mystery to me.

I don't have any loans from company.

Mate you are flat out 100% wrong on nearly every post in this thread! It's 100% valid, simple, vanilla thing to do, and HMRC have no problem with it whatsoever as far as I can tell.

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:33
You need to learn about the concept of creditors and debtors in company accounts.

I am well aware of it.

What you seem to fail to understand is that providing credit is not always the same as lending money.

rd409
25th June 2012, 13:34
It would have been higher if I never found this place :frown

It's still not too late I guess.

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:35
Mate you are flat out 100% wrong on nearly every post in this thread! It's 100% valid, simple, vanilla thing to do, and HMRC have no problem with it whatsoever as far as I can tell.

Yes they most likely don't.

What I am saying is that they should and hopefully will.

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 13:36
I am well aware of it.

What you seem to fail to understand is that providing credit is not always the same as lending money.

How?

I charge x groats per hour for testing and I test for y hours. I send an invoice for (xy+ NL sales tax @19%). Therefore, having sent the invoice, assuming I have carried out the testing, I am now a creditor to the sum of xy and the tax office is a creditor to me to the sum of 0.19xy. Please explain the difference between this and a simple loan of money to the clientco, in accounting terms.

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:36
It's still not too late I guess.

No, but the pleasure of winding up some people here is priceless - as soon as I start earning as much I'd quit this place in a second :smokin

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:38
Please explain the difference between this and a simple loan of money to the clientco, in accounting terms.

In accounting terms it can be the same but in tax terms or compliance terms it can be completely different.

If you are in business of lending money then you need appropriate license.

This case relates to somebody lending themselves money from business.

doodab
25th June 2012, 13:52
If you are in business of lending money then you need appropriate license.

What a load of shitbiscuits. Where do you think bank deposits come from? Ordinary people and companies lending money to the bank. What about when you start a business and you lend the company £20k of working capital? Or lend your mate a fiver in the pub?

AtW
25th June 2012, 13:57
Ordinary people and companies lending money to the bank. What about when you start a business and you lend the company £20k of working capital?

None of this dodges taxes though, eh? :eyes

doodab
25th June 2012, 13:59
None of this dodges taxes though, eh? :eyes

And neither does taking a loan from ones company and then paying it off with a dividend. The effect is the same as crediting the dividend directly, it's nothing more than an accounting convenience.

AtW
25th June 2012, 14:02
And neither does taking a loan from ones company

At 0% MASSIVE unsecured loan without any time limits? :laugh

So, are you saying now that the following is not tax dodge:

1) setup Ltd
2) invoice for work via Ltd
3) pay 20% corp tax
4) loan yourself all the money, no security etc - 0% rate, but say 4% or whatever BIK rate
5) spend on hookers, cars, drugs - when you default company just winds up

So, one such loan per year from new company with effective tax rate of like 25%? :laugh

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 14:04
At 0% MASSIVE unsecured loan without any time limits? :laugh

So, are you saying now that the following is not tax dodge:

1) setup Ltd
2) invoice for work via Ltd
3) pay 20% corp tax
4) loan yourself all the money, no security etc - 0% rate, but say 4% or whatever BIK rate
5) spend on hookers, cars, drugs - when you default company just winds up

So, one such loan per year from new company with effective tax rate of like 25%? :laugh

Hookers and drugs are expensible.

AtW
25th June 2012, 14:04
Hookers and drugs are expensible.

If it's escorts business then they are wholly necessary right? :smokin

doodab
25th June 2012, 14:08
At 0% MASSIVE unsecured loan without any time limits? :laugh

So, are you saying now that the following is not tax dodge:

1) setup Ltd
2) invoice for work via Ltd
3) pay 20% corp tax
4) loan yourself all the money, no security etc - 0% rate, but say 4% or whatever BIK rate
5) spend on hookers, cars, drugs - when you default company just winds up

So, one such loan per year from new company with effective tax rate of like 25%? :laugh

No, I'm saying that taking a loan and paying it off in a short timeframe with a dividend, which is what Chris Hoy has actually done, isn't a tax dodge.

MarillionFan
25th June 2012, 14:08
If it's escorts business then they are wholly necessary right? :smokin

Staff bonding.

AtW
25th June 2012, 14:21
No, I'm saying that taking a loan and paying it off in a short timeframe with a dividend, which is what Chris Hoy has actually done, isn't a tax dodge.

What is it - legitimate bona fide business operation for the company that he is a director of?

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 14:22
What is it - legitimate bona fide business operation for the company that he is a director of?

Yes.

AtW
25th June 2012, 14:26
Yes.

In which case I'd like to apply for such 0% loan from his company to buy a house (but he does not get any security on it), without any specific term to repay loan.

doodab
25th June 2012, 14:28
In which case I'd like to apply for such 0% loan from his company to buy a house (but he does not get any security on it), without any specific term to repay loan.

You can't apply because you are not a director of his company. You are however free to take such a loan from your own company.

DodgyAgent
25th June 2012, 14:31
No, but the pleasure of winding up some people here is priceless - as soon as I start earning as much I'd quit this place in a second :smokin

My cheque is in the post.

It is addressed to "Mr Sanctimonious"

cojak
25th June 2012, 14:32
I'm waiting till they start looking at ISA's.

And since my shares ISA have only just put back the amount I originally put into them, I'd tell them where to go..

Mich the Tester
25th June 2012, 14:33
You can't apply because you are not a director of his company. You are however free to take such a loan from your own company.

He possibly can apply if he becomes an employee of Chris Hoy's company, but somehow I think Chris Hoy has enough brains to avoid employing AtW.

AtW
25th June 2012, 15:14
My cheque is in the post.

It is addressed to "Mr Sanctimonious"

I hope you've left enough in your bank account to prevent this cheque from bouncing...

MarillionFan
30th June 2012, 19:27
BBC NEWS - Frankie Boyle hits back over tax claims (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18658241)

Frankie Boyle for closing his company and claiming entrepeneurs tax relief at some point. I think the Daily Mail can **** right off to be honest.

adubya
30th June 2012, 19:30
I wonder what circumstances changed such that he had to close the company down ?

MarillionFan
30th June 2012, 19:31
I wonder what circumstances changed such that he had to close the company down ?

I don't know. Let's look it up in the Daily Mail Guide to Tax book. Daily Mail Tax Guide - Jane Vass - Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4B9GCUZ5O-QC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=entrepreneurs+relief+daily+mail&source=bl&ots=hqXW9Z3IFQ&sig=sHJ-_wF3hNphV2wfkRo2LM_t8i4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X1PvT-bVOcWp0QX1oeWVDg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCA)

:eyes

adubya
30th June 2012, 19:33
Ah, so you're suggesting he closed it down to avoid some tax then. Perhaps the Daily Mail have a point :)

AtW
30th June 2012, 19:34
I wonder what circumstances changed such that he had to close the company down ?

He was probably warned that the way things go Enterprenuers relief would be withdrawn soon :laugh

It's utter bull that company can be liquidated and Enterprenuers relief can be claimed - if you have to liquidate company you ain't successful enterprenuer surely? :eyes

MarillionFan
30th June 2012, 19:36
He was probably warned that the way things go Enterprenuers relief would be withdrawn soon :laugh

It's utter bull that company can be liquidated and Enterprenuers relief can be claimed - if you have to liquidate company you ain't successful enterprenuer surely? :eyes

When you sell your business for £2million AtW will you be paying 50% or take the 10% entrepeneurs relief?

adubya
30th June 2012, 19:36
He was probably warned that the way things go Enterprenuers relief would be withdrawn soon :laugh

It's utter bull that company can be liquidated and Enterprenuers relief can be claimed - if you have to liquidate company you ain't successful enterprenuer surely? :eyes

+1

Closing down a company, trousering a load of cash and then starting up the same business with a different name is double glazing company territory ;)

AtW
30th June 2012, 19:58
When you sell your business for £2million AtW will you be paying 50% or take the 10% entrepeneurs relief?

You don't see the difference between selling company and liquidating it?

Entrepeneurs relief was designed to offset removal of CGT taper relief, I am suprised that liquidation of company isn't treated as paying final dividend to all shareholders - it's totally inappropriate to use CGT in such case in the first place.

I am pretty sure a lot of this tulip is going on at the moment and next budget will destroy nice principle that honest hard working entrepeneurs get some kind of material recognition :mad

Old Greg
30th June 2012, 20:33
When you sell your business for £2million AtW will you be paying 50% or take the 10% entrepeneurs relief?

It will all be used for his tax deductible cryogenic storage bill.

AtW
1st July 2012, 01:38
"This tax relief is approximately half of the tax saving the Mail quoted in its article today. 4/5"

Source: https://twitter.com/frankieboyle

Looks like confirmation from him that the relief was claimed. Assuming 20% corp tax then 10% CGT on remaining that would be (100*0.8*0.9 -> 72 or effective tax rate of 28%).

It's very odd that enterpreneurs relief can even be claimed upon liquidation. This will probably change next year :eyes

MarillionFan
1st July 2012, 07:22
"This tax relief is approximately half of the tax saving the Mail quoted in its article today. 4/5"

Source: https://twitter.com/frankieboyle

Looks like confirmation from him that the relief was claimed. Assuming 20% corp tax then 10% CGT on remaining that would be (100*0.8*0.9 -> 72 or effective tax rate of 28%).

It's very odd that enterpreneurs relief can even be claimed upon liquidation. This will probably change next year :eyes

Maybe Northernladuk had advised him?

Personally id like to pay as little tax as possible. **** everyone else.

AtW
1st July 2012, 12:25
Personally id like to pay as little tax as possible. **** everyone else.

Save words of love to your new husband Bubba in HMP Wandsworth where allegedly all tax avoiders will go eventually :laugh

SupremeSpod
1st July 2012, 16:22
Save words of love to your new husband Bubba in HMP Wandsworth where allegedly all tax avoiders will go eventually :laugh

Even people with ISAs and those bastards who invest in Children's Bonus Bonds, they're really gonna get it! Line the f*ckers up and shoot 'em!

AtW
1st July 2012, 16:24
Even people with ISAs and those bastards who invest in Children's Bonus Bonds, they're really gonna get it! Line the f*ckers up and shoot 'em!

Those are ok because they were explicitly created for such reason and their net tax avoidance effect is offset by making people save for the future.

HTH

SupremeSpod
1st July 2012, 16:52
Those are ok because they were explicitly created for such reason and their net tax avoidance effect is offset by making people save for the future.

HTH

Still tax avoidance. They're still used by individuals to mitigate their tax liability and therefore depriving the exchequer directly and indirectly us!

Hang the f*ckers, every last one of 'em.

AtW
1st July 2012, 16:56
Still tax avoidance.

It's not avoidance actually, there is no income tax on such activity as explicitly approved by Parliament.

There is no VAT on food, that does not mean that eating it is tax avoidance.

doodab
1st July 2012, 16:56
Still tax avoidance. They're still used by individuals to mitigate their tax liability and therefore depriving the exchequer directly and indirectly us!

Hang the f*ckers, every last one of 'em.

What about those cheeky ****ers who choose lower paid jobs so they can pay lower rate tax?

SupremeSpod
1st July 2012, 17:00
It's not avoidance actually, there is no income tax on such activity as explicitly approved by Parliament.

There is no VAT on food, that does not mean that eating it is tax avoidance.

No but earning interest on your savings and not paying income tax on that interest is avoidance, surely.

You're saving money in an ISA and avoiding the tax liability that you would incur in another type of account. That is tax avoidance - true or false?

AtW
1st July 2012, 17:01
No but earning interest on your savings and not paying income tax on that interest is avoidance, surely.

There is no tax on ISAs as intended by Parliament, using them you are no more avoiding tax than cooking meal at home instead of buying VATable take away.

doodab
1st July 2012, 17:03
There is no tax on ISAs as intended by Parliament, using them you are no more avoiding tax than cooking meal at home instead of buying VATable take away.

Those rotten immigrants cooking at home and doing British workers out of British jobs. It's an outrage!

AtW
1st July 2012, 17:06
Those rotten immigrants cooking at home and doing British workers out of British jobs. It's an outrage!

I don't use ISAs and buy take aways :laugh

SupremeSpod
1st July 2012, 17:06
There is no tax on ISAs as intended by Parliament, using them you are no more avoiding tax than cooking meal at home instead of buying VATable take away.

Ah but the ISA accounts are advertised as a way of saving without paying tax on the interest! That's blatant tax avoidance!


Individual Savings Accounts, or ISAs, provide an easy and tax efficient way for you to build up your long-term savings pot. Crucially, you have no income tax or capital gains tax liability on investments held within an ISA. These tax savings mean your money can work harder, potentially boosting long-term returns.

Oh how they tease! It's almost like they're enticing you into becoming a "tax avoider"!

AtW
1st July 2012, 17:07
Ah but the ISA accounts are advertised as a way of saving without paying tax on the interest! That's blatant tax avoidance!

As I said there is no tax on them because it was intended by Parliament just like no VAT on certain food, given near 0 saving rates in this country it's all academical anyway.

MarillionFan
1st July 2012, 17:07
There is no tax on ISAs as intended by Parliament, using them you are no more avoiding tax than cooking meal at home instead of buying VATable take away.

What about those people who eat in Greggs? Been avoiding VAT for years the bastards. Anyone who's eaten in Greggs should be put in jail surely.

SupremeSpod
1st July 2012, 17:10
What about those people who eat in Greggs? Been avoiding VAT for years the bastards. Anyone who's eaten in Greggs should be put in jail surely.

If ever there was a case for retrospective taxation, you're it.

A fat bastard like you must've got away with hundreds of thousands in unpaid pasty-tax over the past six years.

AtW
1st July 2012, 17:13
What about those people who eat in Greggs? Been avoiding VAT for years the bastards. Anyone who's eaten in Greggs should be put in jail surely.

Well, if there was no VAT on such foods then it's just the way it is.

Personally I think everything should be VATable at same rate without any exemptions whatsoever.

This would probably allow to drop income tax rates to levels which would encourage people actually pay tax rather than get into crazy schemes, my plan (no NIC bulltulip - single rate of tax):

10% for income under £20k
20% for income in range £20-50k
30% for income in range £50-100k
20% for income in range £100-250k
10% for income in range £250k+

CGT: 10% for long term holdings, 90% for short term.
Gambling wins of any kind (including lottery): 90% tax
Dividends etc - treat as income with tax credit as it is now.
Corp tax - reflect personal income rates.
Business rates - removed.
VAT - 25% on everything (implemented gradually).
Fuel duties set at level that at least 50% of income goes into roads.
Booze - higher on retailed stuff and a LOT less for pubs.

Anybody who fails to pay material amount of tax on time for any reason will be deemed tax evader.

HTH

mudskipper
1st July 2012, 17:28
The whole VAT thing is stupid. No VAT on books, but VAT on kindle books? Stoopid.

Sysman
1st July 2012, 18:25
What about those cheeky ****ers who choose lower paid jobs so they can pay lower rate tax?

I considered that back in the days of 60% tax. I really wasn't keen on seeing more than 50% of my income going in taxes & NI payments.

What to do? Stop working and have a much earned holiday?

Nah! I bought a new car, new computer, fax machine and office furniture!

Which when you look at it in terms of the bigger economic picture was the Right Thing To Do. I was stimulating the economy with that spending.

And as a bonus I got some rather nice cheques from the VATman.

Sysman
1st July 2012, 18:32
The whole VAT thing is stupid. No VAT on books, but VAT on kindle books? Stoopid.

In the mid-90s nobody seemed to know what to do with computer books which came with a CD. If I remember correctly the official VAT Handbook had it that if a CD was included, VAT should be charged on the lot.

Yours truly found a shop which ignored that rule, so I got my Winders Server Resource Kit VAT free. At 150 quid that was a decent saving (OK I was VAT registered so could have got the VAT back, but I wasn't complaining).