hsbc

VTech

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm back

VTech wrote:

I will say again, I can sell a product from the UK, sell it to a client in the UDSA or the Middle East, bank it in Dubai and pay nothing to the UK government and there is nothing they can do.

Let's keep that to remind ourselves of what you said. And here's what I said:
"1. If you are UK resident tax payer (person or company) who sells good to the Middle East, where you put the proceeds is of no relevance to the taxability of that transaction - you are taxable on the profit."

VTech wrote:

I will explain more but I did not actually want to post this because I don't agree with it but to keep the usual few who try everything they can to argue with what I say at bay, here goes.

I have an agreement with a mail forwarder in Dubai.
I "ship" that forwarder product with zero sale to store.
I broker in the UK because that is where I live.
I forward that order to my forwarder in Dubai.
He/she ships to the reseller.
Money gets paid into account in Dubai.

NO TAX TO PAY UK GOVERNMENT.

- If you own that product (by 'you' I mean you or your company) and you are a UK resident then at some point you are selling that product to the reseller. It doesn't matter where the ownership of the product passes, you are taxable on the profit. FAIL.
Only if you follow the full taxation system, as you are aware, only someone trying to avoid paying tax would try and avoid paying tax so with that in mind what I said is correct, no fail

- If you are saying that you don't own the product and you are only a broker, then you're not actually selling the product, are you. Someone else is selling and that someone else will make the profit. If you get a brokerage commission then because you are UK resident, you pay UK tax on the brokerage commission. FAIL.
someone actively trying to avoid paying tax could simply work at minimum salary and avoid tax or at least pay a minimal amount and take a very low income, this would work faultlessly and of course dismiss your daft fail comment once more.

- If you are saying that you sell the product to a third party in Dubai for a big undervalue or nothing then you've given away your profit on the sale and you make nothing or a loss. FAIL
No, Of course, in reference to someone actually actively trying to avoid paying tax they will use whatever excuse to avoid and you can give ownership and pay an intermediate to avoid paying tax as the sale won't actually go through your UK system simply because you are brokering rather than actually selling. This is of course morally wrong but its not illegal.

- If you are saying that you sell your product to a connected party (company you own) for a big undervalue of nothing then you are flouting the UK transfer pricing rules that say all transactions between connected parties must be done at arms length (market rates). Crude tax avoidance at best and easily detected by HMRC. FAIL.
No, I can legally supply goods to anywhere in the world at a value I see fit as the owner of a company, the other section of the chain can legally sell at a profit, this is business101 my friend, its how companies stay afloat, we call it profit.

VTech wrote:

Another way is:
I "work" for a company in Dubai (example) and I sell from my home location because my job allows me to work from home.
I get paid a salary from my job in Dubai.
Customers pay into the Dubai account.

NO TAX TO PAY UK GOVERNMENT ON STOCK SALES.

- If you are an employee of a Dubai company but work in the UK then you pay UK tax on your earnings from that company. FAIL.
As I mentioned above, for someone actively trying to avoid tax they would simply work at minimum salary or low salary to avoid or pay tiny amounts of tax, no fail sir

- If you actually live and work in Dubai and own the Dubai company then you are not UK tax resident so of course you don't pay tax as there is no tax in Dubai. But that's a different fact pattern from your original assertion that you can sell tax free to the Middle East if you are UK based. NOT RELEVANT.
- If you live in the UK and own the company in Dubai, then the Dubai company will pay no tax because there is no tax in Dubai as mentioned above. However as I'm sure you're aware, the UK has anti-tax haven rules that allow HMRC to send a tax bill to the UK shareholder of the Dubai company for the UK tax it would have paid if it was UK tax resident. There are certain exemptions if the company has proper substance (office, staff, etc) and is actually managed in Dubai. However all too often these turn out to be brass plaque companies - are you happy that yours passes these tests? So either NOT RELEVANT or FAIL.
How do you work this out as a fail ? you seem to be willing to make assumptions with no proof or even line of decent argument.


Let's not forgot that company law in Dubai states that a local Dubai 'sponsor' must own at least 51% of the company, but of course you would know that already...
[/b]This is not always the case depending on "who" is part owner, I have 3 businesses in Dubai and am minority in all 3 but that isn't to say I could be the major shareholder.[/b]

VTech wrote:

I was also asked to provide proof of big companies paying little or no tax, I used Peugeot as an example as they had worked a deal with the UK government to be subsidised in order to create new jobs.
We also had Rover which according to some reports was funded by the UK government to the tune of £3,000,000/day.

Starbucks
Experian
RSA Insurance http://rsaar13.g3dhosting.com/system/files/ar13/rsa_annual_report_2013_financial_statements.pdf Corporate tax charge in accounts £140m
G4S http://www.g4s.com/~/media/3A387C7DC35049C6950D738F6AEBDB88.ashx Tax charge in accounts £70m.
Vodaphone
Rolls Royce
TUI Travel http://www.tuitravelplc.com/system/files/uploads/financialdocs/TUI_Travel_PLC_ARA_2014_single_interactive.pdf Tax charge in accounts £93m.
Tate & Lyle
Smiths Group
Intertec
British American Tobacco

I await the usual silly replies

Let's take a random sample of the companies above shall we. 0/3. Not very good examples are they I will only deal with corporate tax, but if your statment is right then we also have to assume that these companies pay no income tax or NI when the do their payroll runs, and pay no VAT on any of their sales. Not very likely, wouldn't you agree? Now look again at my link on total tax contribution and reconsider your statement above.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287216/Revealed-One-UKs-companies-pay-tax.html

Based on the above I'm puzzled. For a man of your immense wealth I can't understand why the **** you can't afford a decent tax advisor

You seem to have actually "failed" at every point.
You seem to have misunderstood the entire point of my post, when I mentioned companies finding ways round paying tax, that in itself should have made you realise that they were not simply falling onto the path of not paying the correct tax but actively trying to pay little or no tax, ACTIVELY being the prime word. With that in mind they will do whatever is necessary to avoid the amount due and for you to suggest that this isn't the case is daft

I will await your reply.

pblakeney

I await Stevo's response but I can summarise in one word - Evasion.

Anonymous

Also companies pay precisely 0 vat. Consumers pay VAT, it is just collected by companies.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

I await Stevo's response but I can summarise in one word - Evasion.

I will do a bit more this evening as I'm busy saving tax as it happens

Vtech you are now trying to say that your original point is something different. As mentioned above, your original point was:
"VTech wrote:I will say again, I can sell a product from the UK, sell it to a client in the UDSA or the Middle East, bank it in Dubai and pay nothing to the UK government and there is nothing they can do."
I showed you how this couldn't be done legally and your reply was effectively 'well they can if they break the law.' :roll:

You original point was not that companies are actively trying to avoid tax (of course many are).

But in summary, what you are saying is that companies can avoid paying tax if they commit tax evasion. Well knock me over with a feather I never knew that: do tell me about your other tax wheezes, I am all ears

I'll deconstruct your other points in more detail tonight

VTech

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I await Stevo's response but I can summarise in one word - Evasion.

I will do a bit more this evening as I'm busy saving tax as it happens

Vtech you are now trying to say that your original point is something different. As mentioned above, your original point was:
"VTech wrote:I will say again, I can sell a product from the UK, sell it to a client in the UDSA or the Middle East, bank it in Dubai and pay nothing to the UK government and there is nothing they can do."
I showed you how this couldn't be done legally and your reply was effectively 'well they can if they break the law.' :roll:

You original point was not that companies are actively trying to avoid tax (of course many are).

But in summary, what you are saying is that companies can avoid paying tax if they commit tax evasion. Well knock me over with a feather I never knew that: do tell me about your other tax wheezes, I am all ears

I'll deconstruct your other points in more detail tonight

No, now your twisting again.

I am saying companies can legally avoid tax which is different from schemes were people cross the line and actually break the law with what is seen as evasion.
As you are fully aware, it is not so black and white as people think, loopholes are found and HMRC try and close them, its always been a cat and mouse game with tax.

Tax evasion could be me selling from the UK and actively not paying tax, this would be a mixture of illegal/evasion/fraud, whatever.

On the other hand I could do as I mentioned above and there is nothing HMRC can do about it, nor the police, nor the government AT THE MINUTE This is morally wrong but not illegal and not evasion in the eyes of the law.

Likewise companies make huge profits in the UK and write off losses here so as to avoid paying tax here which again isn't illegal but morally wrong.
Also our government DO work deals with corporate in exchange for jobs so please Steve, tell me where I am wrong ?

slowmart

Since the revenue have more powers than plod and the noise towards actively raiding bank accounts of the individuals in question is a massive step change in approach and aggressiveness.

Further the "retrospective" aspects of new legislation have sharp teeth and are starting to bite and there will be some high profile casualties with the tax demands currently going out. By this I mean if you are party to a vehicles to minimise your tax, EBT's, investments, tax losses then the payable tax is still due and in full and if the scheme is proved lawful then the tax is repaid back. That could be years and with the upfront fees these schemes attract?

Think not just footballers or celebutards but also doctors, dentists, business owners and the self employed. A ticking time bomb for many..

VTech

Slowmart wrote:

Since the revenue have more powers than plod and the noise towards actively raiding bank accounts of the individuals in question is a massive step change in approach and aggressiveness.

Further the "retrospective" aspects of new legislation have sharp teeth and are starting to bite and there will be some high profile casualties with the tax demands currently going out. By this I mean if you are party to a vehicles to minimise your tax, EBT's, investments, tax losses then the payable tax is still due and in full and if the scheme is proved lawful then the tax is repaid back. That could be years and with the upfront fees these schemes attract?

Think not just footballers or celebutards but also doctors, dentists, business owners and the self employed. A ticking time bomb for many..

I have to agree fully.
I honestly think that you should pay tax where you work and live and at the standard rate.

I have said before however that in order to get more revenue they would be better having a pyramid scheme where you pay less the more you earn after a certain point because this would stop a lot of the need for people looking for avoidance.

homers_double

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'll deconstruct your other points in more detail tonight

There are just too many to list...

Stevo_666

VTech wrote:

No, now your twisting again.

I am saying companies can legally avoid tax which is different from schemes were people cross the line and actually break the law with what is seen as evasion.
As you are fully aware, it is not so black and white as people think, loopholes are found and HMRC try and close them, its always been a cat and mouse game with tax.

Tax evasion could be me selling from the UK and actively not paying tax, this would be a mixture of illegal/evasion/fraud, whatever.

On the other hand I could do as I mentioned above and there is nothing HMRC can do about it, nor the police, nor the government AT THE MINUTE This is morally wrong but not illegal and not evasion in the eyes of the law.

Likewise companies make huge profits in the UK and write off losses here so as to avoid paying tax here which again isn't illegal but morally wrong.
Also our government DO work deals with corporate in exchange for jobs so please Steve, tell me where I am wrong ?

I think you'll find that you are trying to change the original point becuase I've called you out. I clearly set out the point you made and its different from what you say the point is now.

You cannot do as you say above and get away with it (only if HMRC do not find out). I'll explain separately.

Companies writing off losses is not morally wrong, it is in UK tax law. Tax losses incurred in a period that cannot be used in the period can be carried forward to use against taxable profit in future years. Not planning or immoral, it's automatic. Now if the losses are legit, fine, if not then no...

What sort of deals are you talking about? Give me a specific example or two.

Pross

So let me get this straight. A person whose job it is to save as much tax as possible for his company by legal means is being told there's dead simple things he hasn't been using that would mean they could pay nothing?

Stevo, you owe VTech big time. I should think there's a massive bonus and promotion coming your way when you go into work tomorrow and start implementing these new found methods. You'll be the hero and save your company millions!

Stevo_666

See my comments/questions in blue below. Give some straight answers in stead of trying to confuse matters and divert from the issues.

VTech wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm back

VTech wrote:

I will say again, I can sell a product from the UK, sell it to a client in the UDSA or the Middle East, bank it in Dubai and pay nothing to the UK government and there is nothing they can do.

Let's keep that to remind ourselves of what you said. And here's what I said:
"1. If you are UK resident tax payer (person or company) who sells good to the Middle East, where you put the proceeds is of no relevance to the taxability of that transaction - you are taxable on the profit."

VTech wrote:

I will explain more but I did not actually want to post this because I don't agree with it but to keep the usual few who try everything they can to argue with what I say at bay, here goes.

I have an agreement with a mail forwarder in Dubai.
I "ship" that forwarder product with zero sale to store.
I broker in the UK because that is where I live.
I forward that order to my forwarder in Dubai.
He/she ships to the reseller.
Money gets paid into account in Dubai.

NO TAX TO PAY UK GOVERNMENT.

- If you own that product (by 'you' I mean you or your company) and you are a UK resident then at some point you are selling that product to the reseller. It doesn't matter where the ownership of the product passes, you are taxable on the profit. FAIL.
Only if you follow the full taxation system, as you are aware, only someone trying to avoid paying tax would try and avoid paying tax so with that in mind what I said is correct, no fail You have not explained that clearly at all. How do you avoid paying tax on the profit? Non-declaration?
- If you are saying that you don't own the product and you are only a broker, then you're not actually selling the product, are you. Someone else is selling and that someone else will make the profit. If you get a brokerage commission then because you are UK resident, you pay UK tax on the brokerage commission. FAIL.
someone actively trying to avoid paying tax could simply work at minimum salary and avoid tax or at least pay a minimal amount and take a very low income, this would work faultlessly and of course dismiss your daft fail comment once more. Again, not clearly explained. So who is selling the product? Who makes the profit? ATQ.
- If you are saying that you sell the product to a third party in Dubai for a big undervalue or nothing then you've given away your profit on the sale and you make nothing or a loss. FAIL
No, Of course, in reference to someone actually actively trying to avoid paying tax they will use whatever excuse to avoid and you can give ownership and pay an intermediate to avoid paying tax as the sale won't actually go through your UK system simply because you are brokering rather than actually selling. This is of course morally wrong but its not illegal. So who actually owns the goods in the UK and to whom does ownership pass? If you are not selling that is not doing what you originally said you could do. As mentioned, even if you do your brokering in the UK, it is a taxable activity for UK tax purposes so not putting it through your UK system is tax fraud.
- If you are saying that you sell your product to a connected party (company you own) for a big undervalue of nothing then you are flouting the UK transfer pricing rules that say all transactions between connected parties must be done at arms length (market rates). Crude tax avoidance at best and easily detected by HMRC. FAIL.
No, I can legally supply goods to anywhere in the world at a value I see fit as the owner of a company, the other section of the chain can legally sell at a profit, this is business101 my friend, its how companies stay afloat, we call it profit. You call sell at whatever price you like between connected parties from a pure legal point of view. But UK tax law allows HMRC to tax the transaction as if it had occurred at market value. So to answer you point above, there is something that the government can and will do about this. Are you sure that your company is paying all the tax that it 'should'? Or is this purely hypothetical?

VTech wrote:

Another way is:
I "work" for a company in Dubai (example) and I sell from my home location because my job allows me to work from home.
I get paid a salary from my job in Dubai.
Customers pay into the Dubai account.

NO TAX TO PAY UK GOVERNMENT ON STOCK SALES.

- If you are an employee of a Dubai company but work in the UK then you pay UK tax on your earnings from that company. FAIL.
As I mentioned above, for someone actively trying to avoid tax they would simply work at minimum salary or low salary to avoid or pay tiny amounts of tax, no fail sir
- If you actually live and work in Dubai and own the Dubai company then you are not UK tax resident so of course you don't pay tax as there is no tax in Dubai. But that's a different fact pattern from your original assertion that you can sell tax free to the Middle East if you are UK based. NOT RELEVANT.
- If you live in the UK and own the company in Dubai, then the Dubai company will pay no tax because there is no tax in Dubai as mentioned above. However as I'm sure you're aware, the UK has anti-tax haven rules that allow HMRC to send a tax bill to the UK shareholder of the Dubai company for the UK tax it would have paid if it was UK tax resident. There are certain exemptions if the company has proper substance (office, staff, etc) and is actually managed in Dubai. However all too often these turn out to be brass plaque companies - are you happy that yours passes these tests? So either NOT RELEVANT or FAIL.
How do you work this out as a fail ? you seem to be willing to make assumptions with no proof or even line of decent argument. I can only go on the info you gave me, which was poorly written and light on detail - briefing fail. Try setting out the full facts clearly and I'll tell you where you may be going wrong.

Let's not forgot that company law in Dubai states that a local Dubai 'sponsor' must own at least 51% of the company, but of course you would know that already...
[/b]This is not always the case depending on "who" is part owner, I have 3 businesses in Dubai and am minority in all 3 but that isn't to say I could be the major shareholder.[/b] Side agreements giving you rights to more than the legal max shareholding for foreigners is against Dubai law. Fairly common, but still not legal. What arrangements do you have - be clear. Saying that you are a minority but could be the major shareholder is hardly very infomative is it.

VTech wrote:

I was also asked to provide proof of big companies paying little or no tax, I used Peugeot as an example as they had worked a deal with the UK government to be subsidised in order to create new jobs.
We also had Rover which according to some reports was funded by the UK government to the tune of £3,000,000/day.

Starbucks
Experian
RSA Insurance http://rsaar13.g3dhosting.com/system/files/ar13/rsa_annual_report_2013_financial_statements.pdf Corporate tax charge in accounts £140m
G4S http://www.g4s.com/~/media/3A387C7DC35049C6950D738F6AEBDB88.ashx Tax charge in accounts £70m.
Vodaphone
Rolls Royce
TUI Travel http://www.tuitravelplc.com/system/files/uploads/financialdocs/TUI_Travel_PLC_ARA_2014_single_interactive.pdf Tax charge in accounts £93m.
Tate & Lyle
Smiths Group
Intertec
British American Tobacco

I await the usual silly replies

Let's take a random sample of the companies above shall we. 0/3. Not very good examples are they I will only deal with corporate tax, but if your statment is right then we also have to assume that these companies pay no income tax or NI when the do their payroll runs, and pay no VAT on any of their sales. Not very likely, wouldn't you agree? Now look again at my link on total tax contribution and reconsider your statement above.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287216/Revealed-One-UKs-companies-pay-tax.html

Based on the above I'm puzzled. For a man of your immense wealth I can't understand why the **** you can't afford a decent tax advisor

You seem to have actually "failed" at every point.
You seem to have misunderstood the entire point of my post, when I mentioned companies finding ways round paying tax, that in itself should have made you realise that they were not simply falling onto the path of not paying the correct tax but actively trying to pay little or no tax, ACTIVELY being the prime word. With that in mind they will do whatever is necessary to avoid the amount due and for you to suggest that this isn't the case is daft
As mentioned, not your original point which I posted up for clarity so won't do again. Stop trying to wriggle off the hook.
I will await your reply.

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

So let me get this straight. A person whose job it is to save as much tax as possible for his company by legal means is being told there's dead simple things he hasn't been using that would mean they could pay nothing?

Stevo, you owe VTech big time. I should think there's a massive bonus and promotion coming your way when you go into work tomorrow and start implementing these new found methods. You'll be the hero and save your company millions!

As mentioned, I'm all ears for the next big idea Especially as we are moving into Dubai ourselves, although not for tax reasons!

Unfortunately the ideas put forward are pretty vague, but from what I can see it is a mixture of clumsy tax avoidance and possibly tax fraud (see above). Some might get away with it, but anyone dealing cross border - especally with tax havens - is likely to get some scrutiny at some point as HMRC is pretty hot on tax havens and intra-group pricing these days. Although I'm sure it's all hypothetical

slowmart

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... axman.html

headlines if you can't be bothered to read the story

Revenue and Customs pay out £400k last year to informers

Mostly these are ex wives, ex business partners and ex employees

250 tips a day are being received.

And the most illuminating is the apparent shortfall in revenue of £34 billion which can only mean increased aggressive activity in chasing down those that choose to evade their obligations.

pblakeney

I think that some people ought to start using words like hypothetically and allegedly.

VTech

The problem is, Stevo666 is completely understanding my point yet choses to argue as a means of inciting an argument.
Everything I have said is both true and gets done on the daily, not just in the UK but I would guess the world over.

He, as are 99.9999999999% of people who are even remotely interested in this line of debate, fully aware that companies use loopholes to avoid tax, they should also be aware that it is a cat and mouse game, accountants and companies find loopholes and HMRC close them down, its a never ending circle, and before you argue the toss, have we seen any charges against the comedians and pop stars or did those avoidance schemes not happen ?
They were not illegal as such, but the loophole I believe is now closed ? and some have simply had to pay the rightful tax whilst others have not had to pay.

Also, to answer your dispute, you have changed your responses to do your best to discredit me which fails on two levels.
1) Your making yourself look silly.
2) I don't care if I look silly.

Example:
This is how HMRC would like it done.I own a product entitlement, lets call it a set of headphones.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Import duty is paid on importation.
Items come into stock in the UK.
Items sold through the UK.
Tax charged on EU sales (unless buyer is in EU and has VAT number so no tax charged)
Tax not charged on other global sales.
Company makes profit.
Tax paid to HMRC.
Staff paid wages.
End of year accounts posted.

This is how someone trying to legally get away with tax CAN do it without risk of being stopped.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Instead we ship it to Dubai.
Import duty is not paid to HMRC.
Items sold through the UK.
Items despatched from Dubai office to clients globally.
Charge made from UK to Dubai office for minimal salary of seller in UK.
Dubai office pay fee.
Accounts filed for minimum wage of UK seller.
No tax paid to HMRC.

This is legal, morally wrong imo but legal.
Its is being done, it is being done in my industry which is why I made the point and I think it is wrong but instead of viewing this as an issue, you prefer to argue with me and avoid the reality of it being an issue which I guess is what the UK is all about, its an odd mindset many brits have.

Anyway, thats small scale, there are others like Peugeot who get massive subsidies to open engine plants in the UK, I am not privy to their full accounts but this has been talked about in the media many times in the past.
I also listed several companies above and also gave the link about how they legally avoid tax.

I will await your complete dismissal of my points with eagerness.

pdstsp

Jesus VTEch you really are a dickhead sometimes.

In your second scenario if the goods belong to the UK company then it must account for the purchase and sale of them, wherever that happens. If they don't then they are not keeping accurate books and are open to investigation and penalties from HMRC. If its felt to be criminal then charges can be brought.
If, on the other hand, the compnay accounts for the purchase and sale, but transfers them at nil profit, nil loss to its Dubai subsidiary for it to sell on at a profit then the transfer pricing rules can be invoked as Stevo saids earlier.

If companies do either of the above they are not exploiting loopholes, they are acting dishonestly within the tax regime of the UK.

Your constant arguing is making you look silly but then again you don't care.

pdstsp

And thats the first time I've lost my rag on here in 7 years.

VTech

pdstsp wrote:

Jesus VTEch you really are a dickhead sometimes.

In your second scenario if the goods belong to the UK company then it must account for the purchase and sale of them, wherever that happens. If they don't then they are not keeping accurate books and are open to investigation and penalties from HMRC. If its felt to be criminal then charges can be brought.
If, on the other hand, the compnay accounts for the purchase and sale, but transfers them at nil profit, nil loss to its Dubai subsidiary for it to sell on at a profit then the transfer pricing rules can be invoked as Stevo saids earlier.

If companies do either of the above they are not exploiting loopholes, they are acting dishonestly within the tax regime of the UK.

Your constant arguing is making you look silly but then again you don't care.

As you say, someone calling me a dickhead isn't going to offend and I feel sad that I have been the first person in years to make you lose your rag :?

I do hope that with all of that anger you will be able to read my posts and understand the point without simply looking at the argument by stevo
You have to understand that I am trying my very best to make anyone interested, fully aware that to be someone who tries not not pay the standard VAT, you must be someone looking to not pay it, this is not your average guy/company who just pay what they owe and go on with life. This is companies using the system to escape paying wether thats flying close to the wind, using other options to have offices located in other parts of the world or any one of a million and one methods used.

My point above is very accurate, it is very true and to me quite easy to understand.
I am sorry you are having such difficulty.

homers_double

I did a cash job once...

mamba80

I don't understand your argument, Vtech, its patently obvious that someone looking to avoid paying tax can, no doubt find ways and means to avoid doing so, either through so called "loopholes" or through dishonest means.

Stevo is pointing out that these methods can or will be investigated by HMRC (you may argue about the penalties but that is another matter) - I thought jimmy Car and Gary Barlow didn't break any laws? they were "guilty" (if there is such a thing) of avoidance NOT evasion.

tangled_metal

So what I want to know about all this HSBC stuff is whether Milliband will make his comments in a public place without Commons protection about that former Tory assistant treasurer Lord bloke? Also if he does man up and repeat it where there can be consequences is there likely to be evidence to back up his claim other than a list of people banking there?

Also, is there any evidence that the people on the list are all guilty of evasion or is it just a few?

VTech

mamba80 wrote:

I don't understand your argument, Vtech, its patently obvious that someone looking to avoid paying tax can, no doubt find ways and means to avoid doing so, either through so called "loopholes" or through dishonest means.

Stevo is pointing out that these methods can or will be investigated by HMRC (you may argue about the penalties but that is another matter) - I thought jimmy Car and Gary Barlow didn't break any laws? they were "guilty" (if there is such a thing) of avoidance NOT evasion.

Tomato tomato.
Not paying what you are expected is (to me) wrong. You should pay your % set out by law. Avoidance/evasion it doesn't matter, both are wrong.

The various dozens of companies that sit at the top of the financial profits tree in the UK that pay massively less than what should be due are breaking no laws, I accept that but the fact is it is wrong, if you or I have to pay, why shouldn't they ?

I won a decent contract in 2011 that set me up for life, I was fortunate in winning that contract and the first thing I was given by both accountancy firms was advice on paying between 8-12% rather than the full amount due. I am just an average guy and this was the advice given. I am well aware that the very same advice is sought by big companies who should be paying into the pot but would prefer not too.

pdstsp

VTech wrote:

pdstsp wrote:

Jesus VTEch you really are a dickhead sometimes.

In your second scenario if the goods belong to the UK company then it must account for the purchase and sale of them, wherever that happens. If they don't then they are not keeping accurate books and are open to investigation and penalties from HMRC. If its felt to be criminal then charges can be brought.
If, on the other hand, the compnay accounts for the purchase and sale, but transfers them at nil profit, nil loss to its Dubai subsidiary for it to sell on at a profit then the transfer pricing rules can be invoked as Stevo saids earlier.

If companies do either of the above they are not exploiting loopholes, they are acting dishonestly within the tax regime of the UK.

Your constant arguing is making you look silly but then again you don't care.

As you say, someone calling me a dickhead isn't going to offend and I feel sad that I have been the first person in years to make you lose your rag :?

I do hope that with all of that anger you will be able to read my posts and understand the point without simply looking at the argument by stevo
You have to understand that I am trying my very best to make anyone interested, fully aware that to be someone who tries not not pay the standard VAT, you must be someone looking to not pay it, this is not your average guy/company who just pay what they owe and go on with life. This is companies using the system to escape paying wether thats flying close to the wind, using other options to have offices located in other parts of the world or any one of a million and one methods used.

My point above is very accurate, it is very true and to me quite easy to understand.
I am sorry you are having such difficulty.

I'm not angry just frustrated - you constantly change the arguments you are making and will never acknowledge anyone with better understanding of the subject. Like Stevo I am also a tax professional. I know what I'm talking about. I suspect you don't.
Anyway I'm out of here.

VTech

pdstsp wrote:

VTech wrote:

pdstsp wrote:

Jesus VTEch you really are a dickhead sometimes.

In your second scenario if the goods belong to the UK company then it must account for the purchase and sale of them, wherever that happens. If they don't then they are not keeping accurate books and are open to investigation and penalties from HMRC. If its felt to be criminal then charges can be brought.
If, on the other hand, the compnay accounts for the purchase and sale, but transfers them at nil profit, nil loss to its Dubai subsidiary for it to sell on at a profit then the transfer pricing rules can be invoked as Stevo saids earlier.

If companies do either of the above they are not exploiting loopholes, they are acting dishonestly within the tax regime of the UK.

Your constant arguing is making you look silly but then again you don't care.

As you say, someone calling me a dickhead isn't going to offend and I feel sad that I have been the first person in years to make you lose your rag :?

I do hope that with all of that anger you will be able to read my posts and understand the point without simply looking at the argument by stevo
You have to understand that I am trying my very best to make anyone interested, fully aware that to be someone who tries not not pay the standard VAT, you must be someone looking to not pay it, this is not your average guy/company who just pay what they owe and go on with life. This is companies using the system to escape paying wether thats flying close to the wind, using other options to have offices located in other parts of the world or any one of a million and one methods used.

My point above is very accurate, it is very true and to me quite easy to understand.
I am sorry you are having such difficulty.

I'm not angry just frustrated - you constantly change the arguments you are making and will never acknowledge anyone with better understanding of the subject. Like Stevo I am also a tax professional. I know what I'm talking about. I suspect you don't.
Anyway I'm out of here.

Your reply is barmy because at no point did I profess to be a professional, my only real knowledge of HMRC is the fact I pay them quite a large amount every year.
My initial post was quite simple, here it is again for those that didn't bother to read it.

"Isn't it odd how the public are really getting behind this, reading with horror as they drink their starbucks coffee and drive to work in their shiny new Peugeot's

Please understand, almost all business in the £70,000,000+ bracket is paying less tax than they should and they are doing it with the governments blessings.
Also, holding an offshore account isn't illegal, it becomes illegal when you spend untaxed income."

My comment was not in line with starting any kind of argument, it was a point that was proven valid with another link I posted. It is quite factual that companies use methods to pay less tax than they should. At no point have I gone off that line of debate, I have even taken my valuable time during listening to music, working on the new car and playing a few frames of snooker in the underground games room to make these points. I would of thought people would be thankful rather than hateful

pblakeney

A brief summary as I see it.

Stevo is explaining how things should work.

Vtech is explaining how some things actually work.

Two sides of the same coin.

The question should be, what is going to be done about it?

Very little I suspect except political tittle tattle but for clarities sake can we please observe the following rule as politicians and news reporters seem to fail.
Avoidance = Legal but possibly morally wrong. People have different morals and will never agree. Change the laws or live with it.
Evasion - Illegal and totally wrong.

Stevo_666

VTech wrote:

Example:
This is how HMRC would like it done.I own a product entitlement, lets call it a set of headphones.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Import duty is paid on importation.
Items come into stock in the UK.
Items sold through the UK.
Tax charged on EU sales (unless buyer is in EU and has VAT number so no tax charged)
Tax not charged on other global sales.
Company makes profit.
Tax paid to HMRC.
Staff paid wages.
End of year accounts posted.

This is how someone trying to legally get away with tax CAN do it without risk of being stopped.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Instead we ship it to Dubai.
Import duty is not paid to HMRC.
Items sold through the UK. Slight problem here - if the item is 'sold through the UK' then the transaction is taxable in the UK. I've said this before. So if you are claiming that you are not due any tax on this, you are wrong. If this is due to underpricing as I mentioned above when describing transfer pricing - this is at best tax avoidance. If it is due to non-declaration of the transaction/income in the UK, this is tax evasion.
Items despatched from Dubai office to clients globally.
Charge made from UK to Dubai office for minimal salary of seller in UK.
Dubai office pay fee.
Accounts filed for minimum wage of UK seller.
No tax paid to HMRC.

This is legal, morally wrong imo but legal.
Its is being done, it is being done in my industry which is why I made the point and I think it is wrong but instead of viewing this as an issue, you prefer to argue with me and avoid the reality of it being an issue which I guess is what the UK is all about, its an odd mindset many brits have.

Anyway, thats small scale, there are others like Peugeot who get massive subsidies to open engine plants in the UK, I am not privy to their full accounts but this has been talked about in the media many times in the past.
I also listed several companies above and also gave the link about how they legally avoid tax.

I will await your complete dismissal of my points with eagerness.

I am not having a go at you personally, I am having a go at your ideas and points made - which as other have mentioned, constantly change when you are called out.

Like pdstp, I am a tax professional and have been at it long enough to see this sort of thing many times over. I'm more than comfortable about my views above and judging by the posts of other on here (including at least one other who know his stuff on tax), it looks like people know who has put forward the more convincing argument here

Just because it is done in your industry doesn't mean it is right. But look on the bright side - you have just got some free advice from me on how to avoid a whole potential world of pain with HMRC if that is what you are actually doing

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

A brief summary as I see it.

Stevo is explaining how things should work.

Vtech is explaining how some things actually work.

Two sides of the same coin.

The question should be, what is going to be done about it?

Very little I suspect except political tittle tattle but for clarities sake can we please observe the following rule as politicians and news reporters seem to fail.
Avoidance = Legal but possibly morally wrong. People have different morals and will never agree. Change the laws or live with it.
Evasion - Illegal and totally wrong.

Point well made, although the original point by VTech was 'I can do it this way and nobody can touch me'. In reality you can do a lot of things if you simply disregard the law, but it doesn't mean it'll never catch up with you.

There are numerous legitimate ways to mitigate tax costs. I'll leave it VTech as to which path he wants to take, it's his risk.

VTech

Stevo 666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Example:
This is how HMRC would like it done.I own a product entitlement, lets call it a set of headphones.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Import duty is paid on importation.
Items come into stock in the UK.
Items sold through the UK.
Tax charged on EU sales (unless buyer is in EU and has VAT number so no tax charged)
Tax not charged on other global sales.
Company makes profit.
Tax paid to HMRC.
Staff paid wages.
End of year accounts posted.

This is how someone trying to legally get away with tax CAN do it without risk of being stopped.

That product is made in china.
That product usually ships to the UK.
Instead we ship it to Dubai.
Import duty is not paid to HMRC.
Items sold through the UK. Slight problem here - if the item is 'sold through the UK' then the transaction is taxable in the UK. I've said this before. So if you are claiming that you are not due any tax on this, you are wrong. If this is due to underpricing as I mentioned above when describing transfer pricing - this is at best tax avoidance. If it is due to non-declaration of the transaction/income in the UK, this is tax evasion.
No, because I could legally work as a broker and sell the item under brokerage in the UK for the company in Dubai and HMRC could not do anything about that. I have heard of someone in the UK doing exactly this and the Dubai company pay them a fee per sale and the person is taxed on that income and not the total sale amount even though this particular guy is actually the guy behind the product.
Items despatched from Dubai office to clients globally.
Charge made from UK to Dubai office for minimal salary of seller in UK.
Dubai office pay fee.
Accounts filed for minimum wage of UK seller.
No tax paid to HMRC.

This is legal, morally wrong imo but legal.
Its is being done, it is being done in my industry which is why I made the point and I think it is wrong but instead of viewing this as an issue, you prefer to argue with me and avoid the reality of it being an issue which I guess is what the UK is all about, its an odd mindset many brits have.

Anyway, thats small scale, there are others like Peugeot who get massive subsidies to open engine plants in the UK, I am not privy to their full accounts but this has been talked about in the media many times in the past.
I also listed several companies above and also gave the link about how they legally avoid tax.

I will await your complete dismissal of my points with eagerness.

I am not having a go at you personally, I am having a go at your ideas and points made - which as other have mentioned, constantly change when you are called out.

Like pdstp, I am a tax professional and have been at it long enough to see this sort of thing many times over. I'm more than comfortable about my views above and judging by the posts of other on here (including at least one other who know his stuff on tax), it looks like people know who has put forward the more convincing argument here

Just because it is done in your industry doesn't mean it is right. But look on the bright side - you have just got some free advice from me on how to avoid a whole potential world of pain with HMRC if that is what you are actually doing

All my accounts are online, I have nothing to hide and welcome anyone checking on my finances, as I have previously said, I pay everything owed and have never used an avoidance scheme even though it could have saved me a few shillings in the past.

Manc33

If you want to avoid paying tax just put all your assets in a "trust" like the Duke of Westminster. Then your name appears on nothing, but you own everything. Not bad... if you're born into it.

mrushton

Also useful is having an English father but being born abroad so you can inherit 'non-dom' status and poss. not pay tax anywhere