Discussion:
Paradise Papers
Add Reply
Yellow
2017-11-06 19:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...

I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.

Some people's greed is just staggering.

The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
Nightjar
2017-11-06 20:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-11-06 22:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.

Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out.

So do not judge everyone else by your own shitty standards.
Nightjar
2017-11-07 09:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit.
Indeed, the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run
the business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have
a statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out....
Easy enough to claim if you are not in that situation.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-11-07 14:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit.
This is simply using the tax laws as intended. As are ISAs. They are
there to be used as as vehicle to encourage people to save.

But I guess what you are trying to say is that people with ISAs are
doing the same as the mega rich using loopholes. Clue -> it isn't.
Post by Nightjar
Indeed, the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run
the business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have
a statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
You may argue that means using the law in a way that was unintended is
fair game. I do not. And neither does the public at large, nor does the
government in many cases.

But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out....
Easy enough to claim if you are not in that situation.
Clearly, having as much personal wealth as you can possibly hold on to
is important to you but that is not something I can relate to.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-07 14:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit.
This is simply using the tax laws as intended. As are ISAs. They are
there to be used as as vehicle to encourage people to save.
But I guess what you are trying to say is that people with ISAs are
doing the same as the mega rich using loopholes. Clue -> it isn't.
Post by Nightjar
Indeed, the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run
the business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have
a statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
You may argue that means using the law in a way that was unintended is
fair game. I do not. And neither does the public at large, nor does the
government in many cases.
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out....
Easy enough to claim if you are not in that situation.
Clearly, having as much personal wealth as you can possibly hold on to
is important to you but that is not something I can relate to.
Yellow
2017-11-07 15:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:36:56 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't,
I am as sure as I am that the sky is blue that he operates through a
company as a vehicle to reduce his tax bills.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be mad
not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
And if he is using legislation in the way it is intended, there should
be neither a problem nor a backlash.
pamela
2017-11-07 15:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:36:56 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He
may choose to use a company to minimise his personal tax
bills but that is a freely entered into decision.
He isn't,
I am as sure as I am that the sky is blue that he operates
through a company as a vehicle to reduce his tax bills.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably
two).
And if he is using legislation in the way it is intended, there
should be neither a problem nor a backlash.
People use legislation the way it is framed. Intentions are a more
subjective thing.
tim...
2017-11-07 16:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit.
This is simply using the tax laws as intended. As are ISAs. They are
there to be used as as vehicle to encourage people to save.
But I guess what you are trying to say is that people with ISAs are
doing the same as the mega rich using loopholes. Clue -> it isn't.
Post by Nightjar
Indeed, the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run
the business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have
a statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
You may argue that means using the law in a way that was unintended is
fair game. I do not. And neither does the public at large, nor does the
government in many cases.
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
but is that what he does?

does he declare all the income that he gets for leasing it out to the tax
man?

does he pay for its use when he decides to use it personally

if the answer to these two question aren't YES then he has set up the
business on false pretenses

tim
Yellow
2017-11-07 18:33:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
but is that what he does?
does he declare all the income that he gets for leasing it out to the tax
man?
does he pay for its use when he decides to use it personally
if the answer to these two question aren't YES then he has set up the
business on false pretenses
I watched Panorama earlier and it was darn complicated but it went
through 2 or 3 of his companies before it got to him actually using it.
But on top of that, it should only be VAT free if it was only used for
business, but it isn't so he has been given a refund he was not entitled
to even via the loopholes that he is using.

This seems to be a common theme, that even the use of loopholes is not
enough when the mega rich are squirrelling away money to avoid paying
tax on it.
tim...
2017-11-07 20:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
but is that what he does?
does he declare all the income that he gets for leasing it out to the tax
man?
does he pay for its use when he decides to use it personally
if the answer to these two question aren't YES then he has set up the
business on false pretenses
I watched Panorama earlier and it was darn complicated but it went
through 2 or 3 of his companies before it got to him actually using it.
But on top of that, it should only be VAT free if it was only used for
business, but it isn't so he has been given a refund he was not entitled
to even via the loopholes that he is using.
This seems to be a common theme, that even the use of loopholes is not
enough when the mega rich are squirrelling away money to avoid paying
tax on it.
I have to say that I don't get this idea of his owning a 13 million pound
plane as a play thing. It doesn't seem to make commercial sense.

It isn't going to be an appreciating asset. It probably depreciates 50-70%
in the first 1 -2 years

probably costs a shed load to insure

and a shed load to fly. If you aren't actually flying it yourself, I doubt
very much that you can hire in a pilot on an occasional per flight basis so
will have to employ a pilot on a retained basis.

and all because you want to use it a dozen times a year

it has to be so much cheaper, and no less luxurious, to hire the use of the
luxury jet for the dates that are required.

I can only think that the reason for owing it can only be "look at me I can
afford to throw away 10 million pounds for no good reason"

tim
Nightjar
2017-11-08 10:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07-Nov-17 8:30 PM, tim... wrote:
...
Post by tim...
I have to say that I don't get this idea of his owning a 13 million
pound plane as a play thing.  It doesn't seem to make commercial sense.
It isn't going to be an appreciating asset.  It probably depreciates
50-70% in the first 1 -2 years
Commercial aircraft don't depreciate like cars. They use a straight line
depreciation over the expected life, usually 20 years for an passenger
aircraft, to a residual value of between zero and 10%.
Post by tim...
probably costs a shed load to insure
The very good safety record of aircraft means that, relatively, they
don't cost that much to insure. You can also split the insurance, with
one insurer taking the first half of the cover and another taking the
next half. That will cost a lot less than one insurer covering the whole
value.
Post by tim...
and a shed load to fly.
Oh yes.
Post by tim...
If you aren't actually flying it yourself, I
doubt very much that you can hire in a pilot on an occasional per flight
basis so will have to employ a pilot on a retained basis.
There are a lot of pilots out there wanting to build hours, with a view
to getting a job with an airline. Many will be working as flying
instructors and be only too willing to hire themselves out on an
occasional basis, especially on a commercial aircraft. However, if it is
being leased out, it will probably be on short term leases, in which
case it would need to have two retained pilots. Of course, most of their
cost should be covered by the leasing fees.
Post by tim...
and all because you want to use it a dozen times a year
it has to be so much cheaper, and no less luxurious, to hire the use of
the luxury jet for the dates that are required....
If the leasing business is successful, it could cost him nothing to use
the aircraft when he needs it.

In any case, he doesn't live in the UK, so why are people worried about
whether he is paying tax?
--
--

Colin Bignell
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 11:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
but is that what he does?
does he declare all the income that he gets for leasing it out to the tax
man?
does he pay for its use when he decides to use it personally
if the answer to these two question aren't YES then he has set up the
business on false pretenses
I watched Panorama earlier and it was darn complicated but it went
through 2 or 3 of his companies before it got to him actually using it.
But on top of that, it should only be VAT free if it was only used for
business, but it isn't so he has been given a refund he was not entitled
to even via the loopholes that he is using.
This seems to be a common theme, that even the use of loopholes is not
enough when the mega rich are squirrelling away money to avoid paying
tax on it.
I have to say that I don't get this idea of his owning a 13 million pound
plane as a play thing. It doesn't seem to make commercial sense.
It isn't going to be an appreciating asset. It probably depreciates 50-70%
in the first 1 -2 years
probably costs a shed load to insure
and a shed load to fly. If you aren't actually flying it yourself, I doubt
very much that you can hire in a pilot on an occasional per flight basis so
will have to employ a pilot on a retained basis.
and all because you want to use it a dozen times a year
At least 25 times (see earlier post).
Post by tim...
it has to be so much cheaper, and no less luxurious, to hire the use of the
luxury jet for the dates that are required.
Maybe - Northern Executive Aviation will rent you planes on exactly that basis.
Post by tim...
I can only think that the reason for owing it can only be "look at me I can
afford to throw away 10 million pounds for no good reason"
but if you are going to be doing a lot of business flying and you have a lot of spare cash, then why not buy the plane, have priority to use it when needed and lease it out the rest of the time?
Post by tim...
tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 12:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit.
This is simply using the tax laws as intended. As are ISAs. They are
there to be used as as vehicle to encourage people to save.
But I guess what you are trying to say is that people with ISAs are
doing the same as the mega rich using loopholes. Clue -> it isn't.
Post by Nightjar
Indeed, the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run
the business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have
a statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
You may argue that means using the law in a way that was unintended is
fair game. I do not. And neither does the public at large, nor does the
government in many cases.
But anyway, Lewis Hamiltion for example is not a company. He may choose
to use a company to minimise his personal tax bills but that is a freely
entered into decision.
He isn't, but if he is buying a jet for a leasing business, he would be
mad not to set up a limited company to own and run it (probably two).
but is that what he does?
does he declare all the income that he gets for leasing it out to the tax
man?
Hirers are going to want VAT receipts. The company will have to file accounts.
Post by tim...
does he pay for its use when he decides to use it personally
Dunno, he may get a lower rate as a frequent flyer.

Amusingly if he flies in it for nothing and the firm makes a loss, he can offset that against his earnings for driving, although as he is now resident in Monaco (formerly Switzerland) their rules and taxes may be different.
Post by tim...
if the answer to these two question aren't YES then he has set up the
business on false pretenses
tim
tim...
2017-11-07 15:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
If you have a workplace or private pension scheme, it is almost certain
that, indirectly, you are investing in offshore accounts. It is not a
loophole to invest your money where it makes the greatest profit. Indeed,
the directors of a limited company have a statutory duty to run the
business to the benefit of the shareholders and that means they have a
statutory duty to minimise the tax the company pays.
that's as maybe

but everyone knows that the majority of the money in these "secret" offshore
accounts is money that has been deliberately hidden from the tax man.

Only a small amount is going to be legitimately declared investments

tim
pamela
2017-11-07 10:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use
it anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has
become a hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk
of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop
consuming these people's products but I guess most of us are
not prepared to do that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your
financial advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your
tax bill, you would ignore the advice and keep on paying as
much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I
would not use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased
to contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because
if I was a public figure, relying on the public for me being as
rich as fuck, I would not want to piss them off when I was found
out.
So do not judge everyone else by your own shitty standards.
The very rich people I know are some of the meanest people you can
meet. They would never, in a million years, contribute voluntarily
to something like the NHS.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-07 14:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out.
So do not judge everyone else by your own shitty standards.
Yellow
2017-11-07 15:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:35:19 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
When I was self employed I just claimed legitimate expenses - travel,
stuff I bought for the job, and the rent of a room etc. I never had to
deal with IR35 or the like because I always worked directly for my
customer and further was genuinely self-employed, not just using that as
a vehicle.

The only think I did not like was when we had to start paying tax up
front based on last years income because my income varied wildly, year
on year, so I always paid either far too much or far too little and that
was difficult to manage.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 12:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:35:19 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
When I was self employed I just claimed legitimate expenses - travel,
stuff I bought for the job, and the rent of a room etc. I never had to
deal with IR35 or the like because I always worked directly for my
customer and further was genuinely self-employed, not just using that as
a vehicle.
IR, now HMRC, strongly resisted IT contractors being self employed as their engagements were typically months or even years. OTOH employers did not want to take them on permanently for short term (months of a couple of years) projects. The contractors often worked away from home, so travel and subsistence to their "normal place of work" would not be allowable. So the self incorporation method was devised. Even then IR created false precedents (Elderkin v. Hindmarsh) and tried very hard to disallow genuine business expenses.

In my case much of this was deflected because I had a real office and made my company a plc. Working abroad helped too - IR was very keen NOT to say that an assignment abroad represented a normal place of work because then you would not be liable for tax in the UK!

I am semi retired now and have given up the office and the plc., but under IR35 aservice company's office costs and even statutory audit would not be allowable! Just 5% of turnover. OTOH I suspect the method to defeat it is to own your own agency.
Post by Yellow
The only think I did not like was when we had to start paying tax up
front based on last years income because my income varied wildly, year
on year, so I always paid either far too much or far too little and that
was difficult to manage.
Yellow
2017-11-08 20:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:11:41 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 06:35:19 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
When I was self employed I just claimed legitimate expenses - travel,
stuff I bought for the job, and the rent of a room etc. I never had to
deal with IR35 or the like because I always worked directly for my
customer and further was genuinely self-employed, not just using that as
a vehicle.
IR, now HMRC, strongly resisted IT contractors being self employed as their engagements were typically months or even years. OTOH employers did not want to take them on permanently for short term (months of a couple of years) projects. The contractors often worked away from home, so travel and subsistence to their "normal place of work" would not be allowable. So the self incorporation method was devised. Even then IR created false precedents (Elderkin v. Hindmarsh)
and tried very hard to disallow genuine business expenses.

It still would not have affected me as I have never worked in IT but in
any case, what you are describing is really employment, if on a fixed
length contract, rather than self-employment so I can see the tax man's
point of view.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In my case much of this was deflected because I had a real office and made my company a plc. Working abroad helped too - IR was very keen NOT to say that an assignment abroad represented a normal place of work because then you would not be liable for tax in the UK!
I am semi retired now and have given up the office and the plc., but under IR35 aservice company's office costs and even statutory audit would not be allowable! Just 5% of turnover. OTOH I suspect the method to defeat it is to own your own agency.
I did not work on my customers premises until the final phases, so
needed somewhere to work, which is often not the case with with IT
Contractors who go in to the office every day along with the employed
staff. So that is a clear difference between being self employed and an
employee in all but name.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
The only think I did not like was when we had to start paying tax up
front based on last years income because my income varied wildly, year
on year, so I always paid either far too much or far too little and that
was difficult to manage.
Nick
2017-11-08 12:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
People started to use their own companies to avoid NI after Thatcher had
boosted NI as a way of secretly raising tax on the averagely paid,
rather than doing it openly with income tax.

When IR35 was introduced many people went offshore to avoid IR35 risks.

The problem is that when taxation becomes high people will spend a lot
of time and effort avoiding it. This is particularly problematic if
taxation is used for wealth redistribution.

It always surprises me how little, especially in how little depth, this
issue of the problem of collecting taxes is discussed.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out.
So do not judge everyone else by your own shitty standards.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 12:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your financial
advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your tax bill, you would
ignore the advice and keep on paying as much tax as possible?
I would set genuine work related expenses against tax but I would not
use convoluted schemes that make use of loop holes.
That is one of the big issues of why people became self employed and HMRC brought in the unfair IR35.
People started to use their own companies to avoid NI after Thatcher had
boosted NI as a way of secretly raising tax on the averagely paid,
rather than doing it openly with income tax.
When IR35 was introduced many people went offshore to avoid IR35 risks.
The problem is that when taxation becomes high people will spend a lot
of time and effort avoiding it. This is particularly problematic if
taxation is used for wealth redistribution.
A very simple way of expressing this is that when tax reaches 50% you might as well spend an hour with your accountant working out how to avoid it than another hour working and pay it.

Even at 40% I took the view that if I fell out of contract in January to March, there was no point looking for another contract until April, although you could always bill for March on 1st April and pay yourself after 5th April - this legitimate avoidance is called forestalling. It is most noticeable when there are tax changes - if the government announces a tax increase in advance then people will pay / buy things before it comes in, or for a decrease wait until it does. The most recent example was the 3% stamp duty surcharge for buy to let - huge rush of completions before it started.
Post by Nick
It always surprises me how little, especially in how little depth, this
issue of the problem of collecting taxes is discussed.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
Two reasons. If I am as rich as fuck I would be only to pleased to
contribute to the NHS and (to a much lesser extend) because if I was a
public figure, relying on the public for me being as rich as fuck, I
would not want to piss them off when I was found out.
So do not judge everyone else by your own shitty standards.
pamela
2017-11-07 15:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become
a hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop
consuming these people's products but I guess most of us are
not prepared to do that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your
financial advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your
tax bill, you would ignore the advice and keep on paying as much
tax as possible?
I once worked for an American multinational in the UK which seemed
to make as much money from clever accounting as it did from
selling its goods here.

It was disheartening for folks working in its mainstream business
to learn that the accounting department, with zero product
understanding or industry knowledge, could push resources around
on paper and magically "create" lots more money.
JNugent
2017-11-09 12:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become
a hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop
consuming these people's products but I guess most of us are
not prepared to do that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your
financial advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your
tax bill, you would ignore the advice and keep on paying as much
tax as possible?
I once worked for an American multinational in the UK which seemed
to make as much money from clever accounting as it did from
selling its goods here.
It was disheartening for folks working in its mainstream business
to learn that the accounting department, with zero product
understanding or industry knowledge, could push resources around
on paper and magically "create" lots more money.
Even though that made your jobs more secure?
pamela
2017-11-09 13:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use
it anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has
become a hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk
of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop
consuming these people's products but I guess most of us are
not prepared to do that.
So, if you had a few million quid a year income and your
financial advisors told you how, quite legally, to reduce your
tax bill, you would ignore the advice and keep on paying as
much tax as possible?
I once worked for an American multinational in the UK which
seemed to make as much money from clever accounting as it did
from selling its goods here.
It was disheartening for folks working in its mainstream
business to learn that the accounting department, with zero
product understanding or industry knowledge, could push
resources around on paper and magically "create" lots more
money.
Even though that made your jobs more secure?
The company was market leader and made huge profits from its
products. As if that wasn't enough, it then set up all sorts of
complicated international holdings.

That could make us on the technical side feel almost as if we
weren't contributing enough, even though we were the backbone of
the whole enterprise and generating the very profits which those
accountants depended on.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-06 22:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport), but has to travel to work in faraway places: -

Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 26 March
Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 9 April
Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April
Russian Grand Prix Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April
Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May
Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May
Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June
Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June
Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July
British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July
Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July
Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August
Italian Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3 September
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore 17 September
Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October
Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October
United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas 22 October
Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City 29 October
Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo 12 November
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November

obviously he can walk to work for the Monaco one.

plus testing [in Spain IIRC], visits to UK (team) and Germany (engine maker)

So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.

Sound business sense to me.
Yellow
2017-11-06 23:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport), but has to travel to work in faraway places: -
Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 26 March
Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 9 April
Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April
Russian Grand Prix Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April
Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May
Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May
Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June
Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June
Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July
British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July
Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July
Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August
Italian Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3 September
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore 17 September
Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October
Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October
United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas 22 October
Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City 29 October
Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo 12 November
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November
obviously he can walk to work for the Monaco one.
plus testing [in Spain IIRC], visits to UK (team) and Germany (engine maker)
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
Sound business sense to me.
Out of interest, what do you think of people claiming benefits instead
of working?
Fredxxx
2017-11-07 01:04:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport), but has to travel to work in faraway places: -
Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 26 March
Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 9 April
Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April
Russian Grand Prix Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April
Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May
Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May
Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June
Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June
Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July
British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July
Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July
Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August
Italian Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3 September
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore 17 September
Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October
Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October
United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas 22 October
Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City 29 October
Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo 12 November
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November
obviously he can walk to work for the Monaco one.
plus testing [in Spain IIRC], visits to UK (team) and Germany (engine maker)
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
Sound business sense to me.
Out of interest, what do you think of people claiming benefits instead
of working?
If work doesn't pay, why work?

Most here don't and they call their benefit a "state pension".
harry
2017-11-07 08:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport), but has to travel to work in faraway places: -
Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 26 March
Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 9 April
Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April
Russian Grand Prix Russia Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April
Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May
Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May
Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June
Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June
Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July
British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July
Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July
Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August
Italian Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3 September
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore 17 September
Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October
Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October
United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas 22 October
Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City 29 October
Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo 12 November
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November
obviously he can walk to work for the Monaco one.
plus testing [in Spain IIRC], visits to UK (team) and Germany (engine maker)
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
Sound business sense to me.
Out of interest, what do you think of people claiming benefits instead
of working?
If work doesn't pay, why work?
Most here don't and they call their benefit a "state pension".
It's not a benefit.
It's something they paid into all their working lives.
Unlike certain chavs.
Jethro_uk
2017-11-07 09:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to
do that.
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport),
but has to travel to work in faraway places: -
Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit,
Melbourne 26 March Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai
International
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Circuit, Shanghai 9 April Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain
International Circuit, Sakhir 16 April Russian Grand Prix
Russia
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Sochi Autodrom, Sochi 30 April Spanish Grand Prix Spain
Circuit de
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona 14 May Monaco Grand Prix
Monaco
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo 28 May Canadian Grand Prix
Canada
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal 11 June Azerbaijan Grand
Prix
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 25 June Austrian Grand
Prix
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 9 July British Grand Prix
United
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Kingdom Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone 16 July Hungarian Grand
Prix Hungary Hungaroring, Budapest 30 July Belgian Grand Prix
Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot 27 August Italian
Grand Prix Italy Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza 3
September
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit,
Singapore
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
17 September Malaysian Grand Prix Malaysia Sepang International
Circuit, Kuala Lumpur 1 October Japanese Grand Prix Japan
Suzuka
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
International Racing Course, Suzuka 8 October United States
Grand
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Prix United States Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas
22 October
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Mexican Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez,
Mexico City
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
29 October Brazilian Grand Prix Brazil Autódromo José Carlos Pace,
São Paulo 12 November Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab
Emirates Yas
Post by harry
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi 26 November
obviously he can walk to work for the Monaco one.
plus testing [in Spain IIRC], visits to UK (team) and Germany (engine maker)
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out
when he was not using it.
Sound business sense to me.
Out of interest, what do you think of people claiming benefits
instead of working?
If work doesn't pay, why work?
Most here don't and they call their benefit a "state pension".
It's not a benefit.
It's something they paid into all their working lives. Unlike certain
chavs.
How about retired chavs ?
Ian Jackson
2017-11-07 08:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The latest one is Lewis Hamilton. He lives in Monaco (no airport),
He almost certainly borrows the one at Nice (only 5 minutes away by
private helicopter).
--
Ian
Judith
2017-11-07 17:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
How many times did he lease it out to others then - and from where did you get
the information?
Yellow
2017-11-07 18:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<snip>
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
How many times did he lease it out to others then - and from where did you get
the information?
He is however leasing it to himself, to dodge paying tax.
tim...
2017-11-07 20:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Judith
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<snip>
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when
he was not using it.
How many times did he lease it out to others then - and from where did you get
the information?
He is however leasing it to himself, to dodge paying tax.
That'll be dodging paying the 0% Monaco tax rate then.
Yellow
2017-11-08 00:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by Judith
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<snip>
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when
he was not using it.
How many times did he lease it out to others then - and from where did you get
the information?
He is however leasing it to himself, to dodge paying tax.
That'll be dodging paying the 0% Monaco tax rate then.
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
Tim Woodall
2017-11-08 07:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.

He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)

In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.

But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 12:16:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
Yellow
2017-11-08 21:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his labour
that would have been VAT free.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 14:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his labour
that would have been VAT free.
Yes I said that!
Yellow
2017-11-09 16:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:25:24 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his labour
that would have been VAT free.
Yes I said that!
Oh yeh. :-)
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-09 17:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:25:24 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his labour
that would have been VAT free.
Yes I said that!
Oh yeh. :-)
Where it says "(and paid VAT) on that" bracket slightly out of position.
Yellow
2017-11-09 18:20:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:59:11 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:25:24 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his labour
that would have been VAT free.
Yes I said that!
Oh yeh. :-)
Where it says "(and paid VAT) on that" bracket slightly out of position.
Yes - I know - that is why I replied with a rather sheepish "oh yeh".
pamela
2017-11-10 21:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yellow
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:16:40 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
........
It depends on the size of the builder. When I got a new
boiler fitted, I bought the boiler, tank, new bathroom suite
etc. (and paid VAT) on that, however the installer remained
below the VAT threshold and could issue a completely
legitimate invoice for his work without VAT saving me
hundreds of pounds.
He (you) still needed to pay VAT in the parts. It was just his
labour that would have been VAT free.
Yes I said that!
Gosh, I thought it was just my posts which Yellow completely
misunderstands but it happens to you too!

R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-08 12:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
Ah, but where will he use it? Most Gran Prix are held in countries that don't have VAT, or he can stop off en route somewhere that doesn't to refuel (e.g. Dubai). Only flights within the EU would be VATable.

If he is sensible then part of his deal with Mercedes will be that they pay for his flights to work. As they are a VATable business, they won't care if they pay because it is reclaimable, or if an intra EU payment simply account for it in the VAT return.
Post by Tim Woodall
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
What "evasion". All we have at the moment is a perfectly sensible business arrangement re a business jet.

Just because one sensibly arranges one''s business so as not to pay unnecessary tax is not dodgy.
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
Jethro_uk
2017-11-08 10:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
With the non-understanding from people who couldn't run a bath that
sometimes there's an advantage in charging a bit less legitimately, in
order to have the flexibility of cash in hand (paying suppliers, petty
cash) rather than having to pay a bank for the privilege.

The fact that about 80% of the chattering classes don't get this suggests
that the UK is pretty shit at knowing anything about how business works.
Ian Jackson
2017-11-08 15:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
With the non-understanding from people who couldn't run a bath that
sometimes there's an advantage in charging a bit less legitimately, in
order to have the flexibility of cash in hand (paying suppliers, petty
cash) rather than having to pay a bank for the privilege.
The fact that about 80% of the chattering classes don't get this suggests
that the UK is pretty shit at knowing anything about how business works.
Hence the failure to suspect that the Brexit referendum could ever
result in a vote to leave.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-11-08 20:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:19:37 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <news001
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Apparently he has dodged paying the VAT on the price of the jet.
ISTM that it's unlikely he realised he was dodging VAT on his private
use (assuming that he was) but that he thought his advisors had done
everything legally.
Whether he knew was his decision, and it is no excuse if he didn't and,
as a non-stupid individual, he would have needed to instruct his
'people' on the form of tax avoidance - aggressive using loopholes, or
not - he wanted them to work on his behalf.

Every form, every paper, will have been signed by Lewis Hamilton.
Post by Tim Woodall
He will have to repay the VAT with interest (despite no doubt handsomely
paying his advisers)
In the future I believe that there's an additional offense of
facilitating tax evasion which will catch the advisor - so hopefully
these dodgy deals will become less common.
There certainly needs to be something, consequences, over and above
paying the owed tax with interest.
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
That is tax evasion and is already illegal.
Tim Woodall
2017-11-09 07:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
That is tax evasion and is already illegal.
It's illegal for the builder to take payment in cash and not declare it
- but there was no penalty for the person paying the builder.

20% off for cash - and you get an invoice from the builder - OK, it's a
discount for cash

20% off for cash plus no invoice - and the builder is likely evading VAT
(and possibly income tax)

It does bug me to know, when I refuse a blatant attempt by a builder to
evade VAT which I refuse, that they will be using the VAT I'm paying to
claim back VAT on materials for other jobs that were nothing to do with
me (I assume)
JNugent
2017-11-09 12:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Yellow
Post by Tim Woodall
But I look forward to the squeals of indignation when someone gets fined
5000 for paying their builder in cash for '20% off and no invoice'
That is tax evasion and is already illegal.
It's illegal for the builder to take payment in cash and not declare it
- but there was no penalty for the person paying the builder.
20% off for cash - and you get an invoice from the builder - OK, it's a
discount for cash
20% off for cash plus no invoice - and the builder is likely evading VAT
(and possibly income tax)
It does bug me to know, when I refuse a blatant attempt by a builder to
evade VAT which I refuse, that they will be using the VAT I'm paying to
claim back VAT on materials for other jobs that were nothing to do with
me (I assume)
The builder isn't trying to evade VAT (he doesn't have to pay it - he
only collects it and passes it on).

He's offering to help you to evade it.
JNugent
2017-11-08 23:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Judith
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:49:23 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<snip>
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So he decided to buy a plane, keep it in the IoM and lease it out when he was not using it.
How many times did he lease it out to others then - and from where did you get
the information?
It's gratifying to see that you have changed sides and now support the
right of millionaires to avoid taxes.
tim...
2017-11-07 14:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
I already don't watch Mrs. Brown's Boys (cos it's crap)

so I would have difficultly boycotting it any further

tim
Yellow
2017-11-07 14:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
I already don't watch Mrs. Brown's Boys (cos it's crap)
Not my cup of tea either, but lots of people enjoy it.
Post by tim...
so I would have difficultly boycotting it any further
I am sure, if something pisses you off enough, there are other people or
products that you can boycott instead. :-)
pullgees
2017-11-07 16:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
I am not sure "enjoy" is quite the right word but I will use it
anyway...
I am enjoying these revelations and finding out who has become a
hypocritical shit as soon as they got hold of a hunk of cash.
Some people's greed is just staggering.
The best way forward would be for us, the public, to stop consuming
these people's products but I guess most of us are not prepared to do
that.
I doubt if any of the Corbynista millennials will stop buying apple products either.
Loading...