Would you scalp George Osborne
Comments
-
UpTheWall wrote:TailWindHome wrote:notsoblue wrote:TailWindHome wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Good luck finding a semantic flaw in that.
Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.
Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal
These two numbers can't be added together
An irrelevant argument to the point he's actually making.
We got the difference a while back.
Now we're talking about companies negotiating what tax they have to pay.
Get with the program dude.
I'm not sure posters do get the difference.
His point seems to be "Boo for Vodafone!". I get it. I agree.
Companies should pay what they are legally obliged to pay.
They are perfectly entitled to try to reduce this amount.
Do you never query any of your bills or hold on to the money for as long as possible?
(to be fair I'm at work and don't like the look of that link so haven't clicked it. I'm only talking about general principles here, not the facts of the Vodafone case)“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
This may help illuminate the debate.
I haven't read it in detail, but the tenor is as follows:
1. Tax avoidance isn't illegal.
2. HMRC doesn't like tax avoidance though.
3. If you try a tax avoidance trick, there's a risk HMRC will hold a large magnifying glass over you, get the relevant legislation re-written, and generally make your tax life unpleasant.
4. To "encourage" conduct that avoids this outcome, HMRC have made some rules as to when you must disclose to them a tax avoidance wheeze you've dreamt up.
5. As a further encouragement, if you do make that disclosure, HMRC may approve your scheme and give you a nice number. Or it might disapprove the scheme.
If HMRC disapproved the scheme, all that means is that they do not concede that it is lawful; they would be lining themselves up, therefore, to challenge the scheme in court to show that it is actually tax evasion, and a big chunk of tax is due.
Vodafone, it seems, declared its scheme. HMRC refused to approve it. Vodafone decided to go ahead anyway. Battle lines were drawn - the next step was for HMRC to go to court to show that Vodafone was engaged in tax evasion, collect its £6bn and generally be lauded as conquering heroes.
Except that's when HMRC lost its bottle and decided to cave in, declining to mount any challenge against Vodafone. Can't really blame Vodafone for that. Their cojones were bigger than HMRC's
India, OTOH, seems to be suing for tax that has not been paid. If that is accurately reported, then that tax is lawfully due.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Companies should pay what they are legally obliged to pay.
They are perfectly entitled to try to reduce this amount.
Do you never query any of your bills or hold on to the money for as long as possible?
(to be fair I'm at work and don't like the look of that link so haven't clicked it. I'm only talking about general principles here, not the facts of the Vodafone case)
I don't negotiate with HMRC and ask them to let me off most of my bill. That said, they're so bad at maths it woudln't be hard to. You wouldn't believe the asinine conversations I've had...
...well, the conversations I've told my accountant to have wth them
Link is sfw.0 -
Greg66 wrote:This may help illuminate the debate.
I haven't read it in detail, but the tenor is as follows:
1. Tax avoidance isn't illegal.
2. HMRC doesn't like tax avoidance though.
3. If you try a tax avoidance trick, there's a risk HMRC will hold a large magnifying glass over you, get the relevant legislation re-written, and generally make your tax life unpleasant.
4. To "encourage" conduct that avoids this outcome, HMRC have made some rules as to when you must disclose to them a tax avoidance wheeze you've dreamt up.
5. As a further encouragement, if you do make that disclosure, HMRC may approve your scheme and give you a nice number. Or it might disapprove the scheme.
If HMRC disapproved the scheme, all that means is that they do not concede that it is lawful; they would be lining themselves up, therefore, to challenge the scheme in court to show that it is actually tax evasion, and a big chunk of tax is due.
Vodafone, it seems, declared its scheme. HMRC refused to approve it. Vodafone decided to go ahead anyway. Battle lines were drawn - the next step was for HMRC to go to court to show that Vodafone was engaged in tax evasion, collect its £6bn and generally be lauded as conquering heroes.
Except that's when HMRC lost its bottle and decided to cave in, declining to mount any challenge against Vodafone. Can't really blame Vodafone for that. Their cojones were bigger than HMRC's
India, OTOH, seems to be suing for tax that has not been paid. If that is accurately reported, then that tax is lawfully due.
Nice post, explains it better than I could.
Anyway, my point is that this was a highly unethically affair. Vodafone declares scheme, HMRC judges it to be unlawful, Vodafone ignores HMRC, the exchequer cancels the tax bill, and then Andy Halford, the finance director of Vodafone, is appointed to the government’s Advisory Board on Business Tax Rates.
Come on people, doesn't that just seem a little ridiculous? Especially when you consider how much money this concerns. Private Eye estimated it to be around £6bn, even if its half that, thats more than the £2bn that the government is planning to save on welfare reform for the next couple of years.
It just shocks me that we live in a society where people get more wound up by people receiving housing benefits living in zone 1 than we do about large business effectively stealing billions of pounds. And then being rewarded by the government for it. Surely we're better than this?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.
Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal
These two numbers can't be added together
If you're still arguing the difference between avoidance and evasion then you've missed the point. Just read that you haven't seen the article. I would be really interested to hear your opinion of it. Ignore Hari's left wing rhetoric, just read the facts. They way I understand them this is government sanctioned tax evasion.0 -
Well said.
Where's the forking outrage?
And more to the point where's the context, the proper comparison of possible gains.
Schemes that cost a few hundred million that offer real value to society get the chop, yet items like this, or trident, or aircraft carriers, etc... are blithely continued.
It's analagous to the green movement banging on about light bulbs, when the amount of energy saved is sod all compared to dropping the temperature of your central heating a fraction.
Or the cruelty to animals bill being overtaken by the tiny fox hunting issue when squillions of battery farm chickens suffer.
Or spending a sh1t load on BSE when half a dozen people died, vs things like heart disease (60,000), bad driving (3000), flu (1000s) etc...0 -
notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:This may help illuminate the debate.
I haven't read it in detail, but the tenor is as follows:
1. Tax avoidance isn't illegal.
2. HMRC doesn't like tax avoidance though.
3. If you try a tax avoidance trick, there's a risk HMRC will hold a large magnifying glass over you, get the relevant legislation re-written, and generally make your tax life unpleasant.
4. To "encourage" conduct that avoids this outcome, HMRC have made some rules as to when you must disclose to them a tax avoidance wheeze you've dreamt up.
5. As a further encouragement, if you do make that disclosure, HMRC may approve your scheme and give you a nice number. Or it might disapprove the scheme.
If HMRC disapproved the scheme, all that means is that they do not concede that it is lawful; they would be lining themselves up, therefore, to challenge the scheme in court to show that it is actually tax evasion, and a big chunk of tax is due.
Vodafone, it seems, declared its scheme. HMRC refused to approve it. Vodafone decided to go ahead anyway. Battle lines were drawn - the next step was for HMRC to go to court to show that Vodafone was engaged in tax evasion, collect its £6bn and generally be lauded as conquering heroes.
Except that's when HMRC lost its bottle and decided to cave in, declining to mount any challenge against Vodafone. Can't really blame Vodafone for that. Their cojones were bigger than HMRC's
India, OTOH, seems to be suing for tax that has not been paid. If that is accurately reported, then that tax is lawfully due.
Nice post, explains it better than I could.
Anyway, my point is that this was a highly unethically affair. Vodafone declares scheme, HMRC judges it to be unlawful, Vodafone ignores HMRC, the exchequer cancels the tax bill, and then Andy Halford, the finance director of Vodafone, is appointed to the government’s Advisory Board on Business Tax Rates.
Come on people, doesn't that just seem a little ridiculous? Especially when you consider how much money this concerns. Private Eye estimated it to be around £6bn, even if its half that, thats more than the £2bn that the government is planning to save on welfare reform for the next couple of years.
It just shocks me that we live in a society where people get more wound up by people receiving housing benefits living in zone 1 than we do about large business effectively stealing billions of pounds. And then being rewarded by the government for it. Surely we're better than this?
HMRC don't get to decide what is illegal
They have to go to court for that“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:This may help illuminate the debate.
I haven't read it in detail, but the tenor is as follows:
1. Tax avoidance isn't illegal.
2. HMRC doesn't like tax avoidance though.
3. If you try a tax avoidance trick, there's a risk HMRC will hold a large magnifying glass over you, get the relevant legislation re-written, and generally make your tax life unpleasant.
4. To "encourage" conduct that avoids this outcome, HMRC have made some rules as to when you must disclose to them a tax avoidance wheeze you've dreamt up.
5. As a further encouragement, if you do make that disclosure, HMRC may approve your scheme and give you a nice number. Or it might disapprove the scheme.
If HMRC disapproved the scheme, all that means is that they do not concede that it is lawful; they would be lining themselves up, therefore, to challenge the scheme in court to show that it is actually tax evasion, and a big chunk of tax is due.
Vodafone, it seems, declared its scheme. HMRC refused to approve it. Vodafone decided to go ahead anyway. Battle lines were drawn - the next step was for HMRC to go to court to show that Vodafone was engaged in tax evasion, collect its £6bn and generally be lauded as conquering heroes.
Except that's when HMRC lost its bottle and decided to cave in, declining to mount any challenge against Vodafone. Can't really blame Vodafone for that. Their cojones were bigger than HMRC's
India, OTOH, seems to be suing for tax that has not been paid. If that is accurately reported, then that tax is lawfully due.
Nice post, explains it better than I could.
Anyway, my point is that this was a highly unethically affair. Vodafone declares scheme, HMRC judges it to be unlawful, Vodafone ignores HMRC, the exchequer cancels the tax bill, and then Andy Halford, the finance director of Vodafone, is appointed to the government’s Advisory Board on Business Tax Rates.
Come on people, doesn't that just seem a little ridiculous? Especially when you consider how much money this concerns. Private Eye estimated it to be around £6bn, even if its half that, thats more than the £2bn that the government is planning to save on welfare reform for the next couple of years.
It just shocks me that we live in a society where people get more wound up by people receiving housing benefits living in zone 1 than we do about large business effectively stealing billions of pounds. And then being rewarded by the government for it. Surely we're better than this?
HMRC don't get to decide what is illegal
They have to go to court for that
lol, I give up! Its a waste of time!
EDIT:
I'm mean seriously, thats your reply?0 -
notsoblue wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.
Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal
These two numbers can't be added together
If you're still arguing the difference between avoidance and evasion then you've missed the point. Just read that you haven't seen the article. I would be really interested to hear your opinion of it. Ignore Hari's left wing rhetoric, just read the facts. They way I understand them this is government sanctioned tax evasion.
I'm not arguing the difference, I'm explaining the difference.
There is no argument to be had.
The only argument is wether Tax Avoidance is immoral or unethical.
I think I know your view and I'm sure you know mine.
ETA The real question is should HRMC have backed down or gone to court?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:notsoblue wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.
Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal
These two numbers can't be added together
If you're still arguing the difference between avoidance and evasion then you've missed the point. Just read that you haven't seen the article. I would be really interested to hear your opinion of it. Ignore Hari's left wing rhetoric, just read the facts. They way I understand them this is government sanctioned tax evasion.
I'm not arguing the difference, I'm explaining the difference.
There is no argument to be had.
The only argument is wether Tax Avoidance is immoral or unethical.
I think I know your view and I'm sure you know mine.
Forget avoidance, consider the Vodafone case. Do you think thats right? Do you think its fair? Do you think you can compare that to the recent changes to benefits? Or that they're unrelated events?0 -
notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:This may help illuminate the debate.
I haven't read it in detail, but the tenor is as follows:
1. Tax avoidance isn't illegal.
2. HMRC doesn't like tax avoidance though.
3. If you try a tax avoidance trick, there's a risk HMRC will hold a large magnifying glass over you, get the relevant legislation re-written, and generally make your tax life unpleasant.
4. To "encourage" conduct that avoids this outcome, HMRC have made some rules as to when you must disclose to them a tax avoidance wheeze you've dreamt up.
5. As a further encouragement, if you do make that disclosure, HMRC may approve your scheme and give you a nice number. Or it might disapprove the scheme.
If HMRC disapproved the scheme, all that means is that they do not concede that it is lawful; they would be lining themselves up, therefore, to challenge the scheme in court to show that it is actually tax evasion, and a big chunk of tax is due.
Vodafone, it seems, declared its scheme. HMRC refused to approve it. Vodafone decided to go ahead anyway. Battle lines were drawn - the next step was for HMRC to go to court to show that Vodafone was engaged in tax evasion, collect its £6bn and generally be lauded as conquering heroes.
Except that's when HMRC lost its bottle and decided to cave in, declining to mount any challenge against Vodafone. Can't really blame Vodafone for that. Their cojones were bigger than HMRC's
India, OTOH, seems to be suing for tax that has not been paid. If that is accurately reported, then that tax is lawfully due.
Nice post, explains it better than I could.
Anyway, my point is that this was a highly unethically affair. Vodafone declares scheme, HMRC judges it to be unlawful, Vodafone ignores HMRC, the exchequer cancels the tax bill, and then Andy Halford, the finance director of Vodafone, is appointed to the government’s Advisory Board on Business Tax Rates.
This bit ain't right.
HMRC cannot judge (in the legal sense) something to be lawful or unlawful. It can do nothing about it, which is a practical concession that a practice is lawful, or it can challenge the practice in Court. The Court will then determine whether the practice is lawful or unlawful.
When HMRC disapproved the scheme, it said (a) we don't accept that's lawful; (b) we'll (probably) see you in court. Vodafone said "Ha! Dare you". And then HMRC bottled it. In effect, HMRC might as well have said "You we said that we were disapproving that scheme. Well, we've changed our minds. You've got a green light. Enjoy!"
"Cancelling the tax bill" isn't what happened: there was no tax bill in the first place (as HMRC hadn't won in Court). Who knows whether HMRC would, in fact, have won in Court?
I regard it as unsatisfactory for a different reason: it shows up very clearly that HMRC is spineless when the stakes get high.0 -
Notsoblue - either you didn't read my post back on page 8 or chose to ignore it as you're still spouting cr@ap about the Vodafone dispute with the UK taxman. It's above for reference. Would you like me to put you straight on the Vodafone tax dispute with the Indian taxman as well?Stevo 666 wrote:
Osborne didn't write it off - HMRC caved in after negotiations with Vodafone. The 'concept' - as you put it - is that the tax man's position was not legally enforceable. What you've been reading is the usual sh1t stirring in the press who don't understand the UK controlled foreign company rules - and clearly you don't either. Here's a slightly better informed reason for the back down:-neilmacd wrote:So what about the £6bn Vodafone tax bill that boy wonder Osborne decided to write off - what "concept" does that come under
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2220813/vodafone-escapes-2bn-tax-bill
As for the quote from Richard Murphy, a quick google shows him to have an agenda in favour of increasing taxes and makes money from advising governments how to do so. Completely unbiased then :roll: Anyone can find stuff on the internet that backs up what they believe - just look at almost any post by 'mybreakfastconsisted'. If you can show where he got his base data for the figures that he quotes I'd be grateful."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?0
-
Greg, can't agree with that based on personal/professional experience. HMRC are very litigious these days: if they have even half a chance of winning they will have a go, especially where it is big money. Even where it isn't big bucks they will try if they think it could set a precedent for other disputes, so the chances of a sensible out-of-court settlement also diminish. The irony is that given they are taxpayer funded they can afford to take a few shots that might not hit the target, whereas companies need to think more carefully about what they go to court about.Greg66 wrote:I regard it as unsatisfactory for a different reason: it shows up very clearly that HMRC is spineless when the stakes get high.
In the Vodafone UK case they probably knew they were onto a major loser and did not want to risk setting a bad precedent for themselves in court."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Greg, can't agree with that based on personal/professional experience. HMRC are very litigious these days: if they have even half a chance of winning they will have a go, especially where it is big money. Even where it isn't big bucks they will try if they think it could set a precedent for other disputes, so the chances of a sensible out-of-court settlement also diminish. The irony is that given they are taxpayer funded they can afford to take a few shots that might not hit the target, whereas companies need to think more carefully about what they go to court about.Greg66 wrote:I regard it as unsatisfactory for a different reason: it shows up very clearly that HMRC is spineless when the stakes get high.
In the Vodafone UK case they probably knew they were onto a major loser and did not want to risk setting a bad precedent for themselves in court.
Doesn't the fact that HMRC is spending so much taxpayers' money suggest that they consider a significant proportion of tax avoidance to be "against the rules"? I mean you can keep saying that its the fault of whoever drafted the tax legislation, but there will always be loopholes and ways of avoiding what that legislation intended should be paid.
Just out of curiosity, if a profession existed that assited people to claim benefits, by manipulating their personal income and circumstances, generally playing the system, how would people view that?0 -
I've already covered that earlier but hey...it's established case law that taxpayers can order their affairs in a tax efficient manner, i.e. it's our legal right. The law allows for a lot of possible outcomes in terms of tax and taxpayers can choose. There's a lot of propaganda about 'loopholes' and you choose to believe it.MatHammond wrote:Doesn't the fact that HMRC is spending so much taxpayers' money suggest that they consider a significant proportion of tax avoidance to be "against the rules"? I mean you can keep saying that its the fault of whoever drafted the tax legislation, but there will always be loopholes and ways of avoiding what that legislation intended should be paid.
Just out of curiosity, if a profession existed that assited people to claim benefits, by manipulating their personal income and circumstances, generally playing the system, how would people view that?
The spending of our our money on these cases is probably motivated more by the fact that HMRC and individual tax inspectors are given targets to hit in terms of amounts collected and number of 'adjustments' to tax returns made. So even where arrangements are perfectly legal, HMRC will challenge taxpayers as it is in their own (often personal) interests to do so.
We now have a tax authority more interested in maximising tax paid rather than getting a fair result, so you cannot really blame taxpayers for wanting to make sure they don't get screwed by the tax man. Instead of tax inspector, think sophisticated traffic warden."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
notsoblue wrote:TailWindHome wrote:notsoblue wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.
Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal
These two numbers can't be added together
If you're still arguing the difference between avoidance and evasion then you've missed the point. Just read that you haven't seen the article. I would be really interested to hear your opinion of it. Ignore Hari's left wing rhetoric, just read the facts. They way I understand them this is government sanctioned tax evasion.
I'm not arguing the difference, I'm explaining the difference.
There is no argument to be had.
The only argument is wether Tax Avoidance is immoral or unethical.
I think I know your view and I'm sure you know mine.
Forget avoidance, consider the Vodafone case. Do you think thats right? Do you think its fair? Do you think you can compare that to the recent changes to benefits? Or that they're unrelated events?
Greg has explained the case better than I ever could
Fair and right are not really relevant here. Think of it this way. Would you, if your pension fund invested in Vodafone think it was fair or right if Vodafone handed over £2bn to HMRC which not only were the not legally obliged to pay but the HMRC decided wasn't even worth pursuing.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
MatHammond wrote:Just out of curiosity, if a profession existed that assited people to claim benefits, by manipulating their personal income and circumstances, generally playing the system, how would people view that?
Depends what you mean by 'manipulating their personal income and circumstances'
Do you mean fabricating medical conditions to claim DLA, working 'cash in hand' while claiming to be unemployed or lying about live in partners? These are clearly illegal and any 'profession' offering this advice would be illegal, immoral and unethical.
However if you mean organising one's affairs for the maximum benefit within the law, then I have absolutely no issue with it.
Two examples
I worked in a factory which was owned by an US parent company who decided to close the plant. The employees were given what was a quite generous severance package. Many had been there for 30 -40 years and had never worked anywhere else. The company also provided some one to one financial advice as to what employees should do with their lump sums so that they could keep their severance packages and still claim benefits until they got another job or in some cases to bridge a couple of years to retirement.
My wife is currently on a career break looking after our 2yo twins. We can just about afford this as we can claim some tax credit and get child benefit. When the twins hit school age she will be going back to work (a reasonably well paid professional job). When that time comes we will sit down and do the calculation to determine how many days a week she will work. Factor will include income, benefits and child care costs as well as the practicalities of raising 4 kids. We may find that we are better off 'manipulating' her income by reducing her hours to maximise the child tax credit and child benefit we receive.
Edit - Typos“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.twitter: @JakeM19690 -
CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)
Any money paid will be donated to be the soon to be out of work servicemen/women and the soon to be displaced people of the cities...twitter: @JakeM19690 -
notsoblue wrote:Calling W1 and Spen666 to thread..
Whats your opinion on what has been reported here:
http://johannhari.com/2010/10/29/protes ... -the-proofthe Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there. Yes, the British state is less functional than the Indian state when it comes to collecting revenues from the wealthy. This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe, while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.
Would be interested to hear your take on it.
If HMRC don't think they can win at court, even they aren't confident that the tax is payable - so why should Vodafone volunteer to pay it any more than you or I would?
The real issue is why it should be so unclear in the first place....0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Calling W1 and Spen666 to thread..
Whats your opinion on what has been reported here:
http://johannhari.com/2010/10/29/protes ... -the-proofthe Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there. Yes, the British state is less functional than the Indian state when it comes to collecting revenues from the wealthy. This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe, while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.
Would be interested to hear your take on it.
If HMRC don't think they can win at court, even they aren't confident that the tax is payable - so why should Vodafone volunteer to pay it any more than you or I would?
The real issue is why it should be so unclear in the first place....
This.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:If HMRC don't think they can win at court, even they aren't confident that the tax is payable - so why should Vodafone volunteer to pay it any more than you or I would?
The real issue is why it should be so unclear in the first place....
This.
Tax gets more complicated if you are a Multinational group of companies trading in maybe 100+ countries all with their own tax laws.
ETA
Having read the Private Eye article it seems that HMRC collected £850 million from Vodafone with a further £450 million over 5 years. They chalked this up as a win. Maybe we shouldnt start burning their shops just yet.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:If HMRC don't think they can win at court, even they aren't confident that the tax is payable - so why should Vodafone volunteer to pay it any more than you or I would?
The real issue is why it should be so unclear in the first place....
This.
Tax gets more complicated if you are a Multinational group of companies trading in maybe 100+ countries all with their own tax laws.
The implication is that Vodafone avoided all the complicated (and highly inconvenient) tax in the UK, and then when the HMRC disagreed with it, successfully lobbied them down. So all this talk of legality is a bit of a red herring given that (some might say) Vodafone managed to manipulate proceedings before there was a formal legal challenge.
The real issue here for me is why a company like Vodafone can so easily manipulate the tax system. Can't really attribute a large multinational any kind of morality, it does what it needs to do to. The whole thing seems like a failing of the Exchequer and the HMRC to me.0 -
Difficult to get a black and white picture here.
Seems both legally and morally a grey area.
Without being a tax auditor that is.0 -
CdrJake wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)
Any money paid will be donated to be the soon to be out of work servicemen/women and the soon to be displaced people of the cities...
I think we may have solved the problem - get members of the public to pay to punch MPs - all donations to the national debt - we'd raise enough money in no time without having to cut anything0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)
Any money paid will be donated to be the soon to be out of work servicemen/women and the soon to be displaced people of the cities...
I think we may have solved the problem - get members of the public to pay to punch MPs - all donations to the national debt - we'd raise enough money in no time without having to cut anything
Put me down for Prescott and Livingston (do ex MP's count)? And Blears.0 -
W1 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)
Any money paid will be donated to be the soon to be out of work servicemen/women and the soon to be displaced people of the cities...
I think we may have solved the problem - get members of the public to pay to punch MPs - all donations to the national debt - we'd raise enough money in no time without having to cut anything
Put me down for Prescott and Livingston (do ex MP's count)? And Blears.
I'd pay to watch Prescott's right hook in response.0 -
MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:CdrJake wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:So, anyway, scalping Osborne. Would you need to wear special gloves - just the sound of his voice indicates he has incredibly greasy hair, liable to slip between your fingers, leaving you a nasty gloopy mess on your hands?
I could quite happily punch George at the moment. I offer this service free for the benefit of Britain.
I'd pay good money to watch 8)
Any money paid will be donated to be the soon to be out of work servicemen/women and the soon to be displaced people of the cities...
I think we may have solved the problem - get members of the public to pay to punch MPs - all donations to the national debt - we'd raise enough money in no time without having to cut anything
Put me down for Prescott and Livingston (do ex MP's count)? And Blears.
I'd pay to watch Prescott's right hook in response.
I'd be too quick for him. I'm like a butterfly, me.0
