Cyclone Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 For reasons similar to those of Mr Carr- it's not "let off" tax liability but instead it avoids the liability No, vodafone was very much let off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I do believe that some people do pay tax. and some people avoid it too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I hate to break to I wasn't party to that decision, so you'll have to ask someone else. So what's the point in contributing to this thread unless you are either Jimmy Carr or work for the Inland Revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 So what's the point in contributing to this thread unless you are either Jimmy Carr or work for the Inland Revenue? I thought we all worked for the inland revenue.. certainly feels like I do.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 So what's the point in contributing to this thread unless you are either Jimmy Carr or work for the Inland Revenue? Why ask me? I think that the decision to let Vodaphone off was wrong as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No it’s an argument to keep your taxes as low as possible until the public sector and government spend it wisely. Have a word with Osborne. He's been raising taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 For reasons similar to those of Mr Carr- it's not "let off" tax liability but instead it avoids the liability No. Vodafone's head of tax, a Mr John Connors, made a deal with Dave Hartnett of HMRC to pay £6 billion less than they owed. Co-incidently (I would imagine) until 2007, John Conners was a senior official at HMRC, where he worked with Mr Hartnett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 For reasons similar to those of Mr Carr- it's not "let off" tax liability but instead it avoids the liability Vodafone tried to avoid its liabilities. That it didn't meet them in the end was not because of a valid avoidance scheme but because of the fiasco at HMRC. Carr may not have avoided his tax after all. The closing down of an avoidance scheme can be accompanied by a back dated tax demand. HMRC is looking to litigate K2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Why ask me? I think that the decision to let Vodaphone off was wrong as well. There's very little chance of asking someone with the answer here, so I'd guess it was actually a rhetorical question, seeing as, unbelievably, no one on this thread had mentioned vodafone previously. As a rhetorical question, I thought it complemented the answer you gave pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Be honest - Carr is only doing what every one of us would do if we had the opportunity. We all want to pay as little tax as possible - anyone who says different is a liar. I'm sure it's a point that's been raised already but life's too short to sift through 18 pages of posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.