• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

“ I owe £180,000 in tax and I haven’t told my wife”

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Whose sockie are you?
    This is a _V_ery good question...


    Comment


      #52
      Unfortunately, retrospection is a necessity because HMRC seem to sit on things for ages. I can't see that changing so they'll probably need to fire up the time machine again in a few years.
      Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
        Unfortunately, retrospection is a necessity because
        ... financial benefits of dodgy taxes will always be bigger than what civil servants can do, plus it's the only practical deterrent to legal tactics delaying decisions for "schemes" (AKA tax evasion conspiracies) for many years, it's not HMRC's fault that courts won't issue summary judgements on the spot and order immediate execution (of the harsh but fair (to the taxpayer) sentence).

        HTH

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by AtW View Post
          ... financial benefits of dodgy taxes will always be bigger than what civil servants can do, plus it's the only practical deterrent to legal tactics delaying decisions for "schemes" (AKA tax evasion conspiracies) for many years, it's not HMRC's fault that courts won't issue summary judgements on the spot and order immediate execution (of the harsh but fair (to the taxpayer) sentence).

          HTH
          Making it a criminal offence to run schemes would be a better deterrent. The risk of jail time would soon put a stop to the scheme pedlers.
          Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
            Making it a criminal offence to run schemes would be a better deterrent. The risk of jail time would soon put a stop to the scheme pedlers.
            Jail is already available for tax evasion - “schemes” fit perfectly into evasion, not avoidance, or at least they ought to be and if the law disagrees then it should be changed.

            Comment


              #56
              But for the grace of god go i - Thankfully never signed up to these loan schemes

              There is also a file on 4 podcast which is very interesting and that le me to read the 66 page loan charge forum

              I d still like to know what the guy must have billed to result in a 180K loan charge? Assume no penalties and no interest which I know is incorrect but what sort of billing amount would leave that liability

              Comment


                #57
                A better question is what did he spent roughly £ 360k (minus 10% “scheme provider” fee)

                That’s like what - 15 years of average UK wage?

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View Post
                  But for the grace of god go i - Thankfully never signed up to these loan schemes

                  There is also a file on 4 podcast which is very interesting and that le me to read the 66 page loan charge forum

                  I d still like to know what the guy must have billed to result in a 180K loan charge? Assume no penalties and no interest which I know is incorrect but what sort of billing amount would leave that liability
                  Might not be that much. Assuming the £180K is the loan charge added to the tax year. Assume he's already in the 40% tax bracket and that the £180K will have put him over the £150K threshold, so using 40% and 45%, that puts his taxable income at between £400K and £450K for the years he used the scheme.

                  If he used the scheme for 10 years, that's less than £50K per year
                  Last edited by Paralytic; 26 October 2020, 14:34.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    20 years if it was BrillioPad

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View Post
                      I d still like to know what the guy must have billed to result in a 180K loan charge?
                      Assuming 40% tax, then he'd have received £450k in loans. The scheme provider probably took about a 10% fee, and there would have been a small salary as well as the loans. So, all in all, north of £500k.

                      Then it depends how long he was in the scheme. Could have been 10 years at £50k p.a., or 5 years at £100k p.a. etc.
                      Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X