Ban nasty accountants Ban nasty accountants
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1

    Contractor Among Contractors

    kingcook is good enough for Jehovah!

    kingcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    ::1
    Posts
    1,705

    Default Ban nasty accountants

    Government wants to ban nasty accountants who use loopholes to avoid paying tax.

    BBC News - Ban 'insider' tax accountants from government - MPs
    Contracting: more of the money, less of the sh1t

  2. #2

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak is always on top

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Yeah, watch out Kate C - they've got you in their sights!
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

  3. #3

    bored now

    eek is always on top

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    24,622

    Default

    Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

    1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.
    2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

    Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  4. #4

    My post count is Majestic

    vetran has reached the peak. Play again?

    vetran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Come Friendly Bombs
    Posts
    34,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

    1) A scheme has to be paid to be checked and approved before it can be used & Annually and changes announced 18mo 2 years advance otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.

    Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.
    no retrospective tax

    but yes agree,
    "If you didn't do anything that wasn't good for you it would be a very dull life. What are you gonna do? Everything that is pleasant in life is dangerous."

    I want to see the hand of history on his collar.

  5. #5

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,934

    Default

    They run a system so feckin terrible and needlessly complicated that they have to use outside agencies to manage it as the staff are so utterly useless. Now the problems seem to be the fault of the outside accountants who presumably work to instruction.

    They have some cheek constantly telling us that tax does not have to be taxing.

  6. #6

    bored now

    eek is always on top

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    24,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    no retrospective tax

    but yes agree,
    Thats not retrospective. The rules there are simple:-

    approved scheme fine
    others pay up the standard rate.

    HMRCs current approach with S58 is scandalous. But so is the fact that they are so far behind that the tribunals are still dealing with tax cases from 2003/4.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  7. #7

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak is always on top

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

    1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.
    2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

    Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.
    Exactly. How difficult can it be??
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

  8. #8

    More fingers than teeth

    OwlHoot - scorchio!

    OwlHoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Its the wrong approach. This is one thing Australia has right:-

    1) A scheme has to be checked and approved before it can be used otherwise its not valid and standard tax is due.

    2) there is nothing to stop the government changing the law to make the scheme invalid once its started running.

    Implement that and while people will complain few will be able to do much about it.
    (2) Is fair enough, as long as rules aren't changed retrospectively, but (1) is iniquitous and an affront to personal liberty.

    Why should anyone be "checked and approved" when going about their lawful business of minimizing tax obligations within the current rules?
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

  9. #9

    My post count is Majestic

    NickFitz has reached the peak. Play again?

    NickFitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Your local branch
    Posts
    49,586

    Default

    The point is that HMRC is paying these people to come and work with them, and they then use what they've learned to avoid tax. It's a bit like paying somebody to work in your house and them then using what they've learned to burgle you; although of course, unlike burglary, tax avoidance isn't illegal unless it's found to constitute evasion.

    Either way, it seems a bit stupid to pay somebody to spend time learning how to rip you off.

  10. #10

    bored now

    eek is always on top

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    24,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OwlHoot View Post
    (2) Is fair enough, as long as rules aren't changed retrospectively, but (1) is iniquitous and an affront to personal liberty.

    Why should anyone be "checked and approved" when going about their lawful business of minimizing tax obligations within the current rules?
    Because most tax saving schemes are artificial and wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the purpose of saving tax.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •