Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

kingstongraham

sungod wrote:

the problem isn't entities exploiting tax laws to minimize tax

the problem is the tax laws

those who benefit from the situation really don't care about the noise and outrage, perhaps a few clumsy ones will get nailed, panem et circenses, the party will continue

the chances of the uk government addressing the fundamental issues are negligible, and with brexit looming will fall even further, if anything i'd expect things to get worse

What are the fundamental issues that they aren't addressing?

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

Yes, but I also prefer to own my bike myself.

That's one of the things I don't get about the "loans from overseas trusts you don't control that never get called in" method of tax avoidance. There are risks of either a) not getting your money back or b) getting stuck for the tax anyway because it's blatantly set up solely for the purposes of tax avoidance.

Are the users generally not made aware of this, or just willing to take the risk because there's quite a few quid in it for them?

do i need to spell out the overseas trusts, settlement of funds and discretionary powers of trustees a pro pro the settlor and beneficiaries requests in simple terms?

somehow i have a feeling i will need to.

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

unless you got the voucher and gave it to your wife for her new as she was a cyclist/bought the bike on her behalf.

or friend/family member and bought the bike on her behalf.

but no one would ever do that ......

really?? who could be bothered for a few hundred quid?

loads of people. to some a few hundred quid is a lot of money. be content that it seems you aren't one of them.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I genuinely think LH's flying arrangements are less fishy than expecting tradesmen to give a cash in hand discount.

More positively, if we want people to be more community-minded, we would be better off harnessing their self interest than just hoping that they are better people.

Agreed.

Though re tradesmen, arguably is the trademens that are the problem, not the people paying them in cash, but anyway.

Matthewfalle

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

Yes, but I also prefer to own my bike myself.

That's one of the things I don't get about the "loans from overseas trusts you don't control that never get called in" method of tax avoidance. There are risks of either a) not getting your money back or b) getting stuck for the tax anyway because it's blatantly set up solely for the purposes of tax avoidance.

Are the users generally not made aware of this, or just willing to take the risk because there's quite a few quid in it for them?

do i need to spell out the overseas trusts, settlement of funds and discretionary powers of trustees a pro pro the settlor and beneficiaries requests in simple terms?

somehow i have a feeling i will need to.

sorry - i've just read grahame's post again and don't know if he's taking the pisss.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

Well, you did say he worked in a sandwich shop

but he does. he said so.

i've always thought he was an estate agent.

Recruitment, I believe.

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

unless you got the voucher and gave it to your wife for her new as she was a cyclist/bought the bike on her behalf.

or friend/family member and bought the bike on her behalf.

but no one would ever do that ......

really?? who could be bothered for a few hundred quid?

loads of people. to some a few hundred quid is a lot of money. be content that it seems you aren't one of them.

if you had that little money would you be spending £1k on a bike for your wife?

Matthewfalle

some people would. i know m/bikers who would.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I genuinely think LH's flying arrangements are less fishy than expecting tradesmen to give a cash in hand discount.

More positively, if we want people to be more community-minded, we would be better off harnessing their self interest than just hoping that they are better people.

Agreed.

Though re tradesmen, arguably is the trademens that are the problem, not the people paying them in cash, but anyway.

Yes, the tradesman takes the hit, but the customer knows damn well why there is a discount for paying cash. In my book asking someone to lie for your benefit trumps doing the dirty work yourself.

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

Well, you did say he worked in a sandwich shop

but he does. he said so.

i've always thought he was an estate agent.

Recruitment, I believe.

seriously?

then why would he lie and tell us he worked in Pret? or does he work in recruitment for Pret?

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

Yes, but I also prefer to own my bike myself.

That's one of the things I don't get about the "loans from overseas trusts you don't control that never get called in" method of tax avoidance. There are risks of either a) not getting your money back or b) getting stuck for the tax anyway because it's blatantly set up solely for the purposes of tax avoidance.

Are the users generally not made aware of this, or just willing to take the risk because there's quite a few quid in it for them?

do i need to spell out the overseas trusts, settlement of funds and discretionary powers of trustees a pro pro the settlor and beneficiaries requests in simple terms?

somehow i have a feeling i will need to.

No, but I take it you see there being no additional risk involved in using one of these schemes over having the money paid into the bank account of a UK company that you own. Or any risk of having to pay the tax anyway as it is blatantly just a tax avoidance scheme and has no business purpose.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

Given the lifestyle he has I imagine you could claim almost any flight as "for business".

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

Well, you did say he worked in a sandwich shop

but he does. he said so.

i've always thought he was an estate agent.

Recruitment, I believe.

have just double checked - deffo sandwich man. maybe aspring for recruitment?

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

TAG Aviation is a genuine aviation services business. It's owned by the same group who own 25% of the McLaren Group.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

could not get past more than 5 mins of Panorama but they pointed out various social media pics of him using it for personal stuff. Also on his VAT declaration he only put 85% business use.

I think LH will catch the immediate flak but the long-term damage will be to Appleby and IoM

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

TAG Aviation is a genuine aviation services business. It's owned by the same group who own 25% of the McLaren Group.

A genuine business operating a lease and leaseback business with no questions asked?

Matthewfalle

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

TAG is massive. Utterly massive and do everything from servicing, leasing, chartering, crewing, etc.

Everyone either uses or seriously considers using TAG. Nothing at all to do with LH.

Matthewfalle

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

TAG Aviation is a genuine aviation services business. It's owned by the same group who own 25% of the McLaren Group.

A genuine business operating a lease and leaseback business with no questions asked?

Yes. It's pretty standard.

SAme thing as used for buildings. Been used for hundreds f years for bricks n mortar.

orraloon

Leave little Lewis alone. Have a pop at Big Ears instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901175

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.

Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.

Pross

Just heard that on the news. A 10 minute report by the Panorama guy about a tenuous link between Charles's estate investing in an environmental company and then talking publicly about carbon trading. At the end of 10 minutes a two second statement that there's no suggestions laws have been broken or tax avoided.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.

Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.

"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.

TheBigBean

Matthewfalle wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

Thanks for the summary. I was looking for those details earlier.

Presumably, Stealth (IOM) Limited, Stealth Aviation Limited and BRV Limited are all owned by Lewis Hamilton? Whereas TAG Aviation UK Ltd is an aviation laundromat that takes its cut? It's interesting that whenever he wants a charter, the only plane available is his own, and that he always seems to fly on business.

TAG Aviation is a genuine aviation services business. It's owned by the same group who own 25% of the McLaren Group.

A genuine business operating a lease and leaseback business with no questions asked?

Yes. It's pretty standard.

SAme thing as used for buildings. Been used for hundreds f years for bricks n mortar.

It's unusual on near identical terms. I would expect it to trigger some sort of AML investigation in the company. Don't confuse it with a sale and leaseback or similar through a long lease

Matthewfalle

TAG are massive and absolutely legit. I trust them having used them in the past.

TheBigBean

Matthewfalle wrote:

TAG are massive and absolutely legit. I trust them having used them in the past.

I can believe that, but that doesn't mean this particular transaction makes them look rosy.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.

Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.

And on a personal level if VAT had stayed at 5% most of us would ask the plumber for an invoice

tangled_metal

Back to the cycle to work scheme. Even if you take out the full £1000 you save £70 if on basic tax rate. 7% only!

Now you add in the fact most retailers charge full SRP on bikes (I think they can't give you the discounts offered for their cash sales). So shopping around I'm fairly certain you can get more than 7%discount on a bike. Often more if you buy last years model. Then you can get interest free deals too to allow you to manage the costs.

Now the scheme offers more for higher tax rate earners. A situation where someone of low pay who might need the bike to actually get to work and might struggle to buy a bike outright saves little. Those who can afford the bike outright saves a lot more. IMHO it just seemed a little wrong headed somehow. Especially if you add in the likely case that most bikes are not bought for predominantly cycling to work.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.

Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.

"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.

Rick point is that people and businesses should just pay whatever is asked and anything else is just 'cheap mitigation'. So, question to you and Rick:

At what level of income tax would you say 'that's enough'? Just pick one of the following percentages that is closest to what you think is on the limit :
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.

Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.

"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.

Rick point is that people and businesses should just pay whatever is asked and anything else is just 'cheap mitigation'. So, question to you and Rick:

At what level of income tax would you say 'that's enough'? Just pick one of the following percentages that is closest to what you think is on the limit :
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.

Naive question with no context, people would vote for 0% !!!
tax evasion/avoidance has been going on for centuries, even Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's


People are greedy, if they can cut Vat owed, they ll fiddle their income tax too, what ever the rate of either, as illustrated very well by LH, as if he needs to cut the amount of VAT paid.