Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[the_bloke]

no I wouldn't want to pay less tax that answered for you

 

Yes, you've confirmed that if you had a legal way of paying less tax, you wouldn't do so. You hero. I assume you apply the same money saving principles to everything else regarding the state, to maximise the amount of money you can give back to the country.

 

Wait, wasn't it you who had such an issue with paying the bedroom tax?

[El Cid]

But it's my money, I can do with it what I like or I should be able to. Its wrong to take it back, like it was never yours in the first place.

 

Its for parliament to decide what is in the best interests of the population, tax too high and people dont like it, tax too low and society does not develop to its full potential.

We generally tax on a percentage of income, but the highest earners end up being taxed at a lower rate than the middle earners.

You want to put your money in Panama, then go live there too.

[nightrider]

No it wouldn't. That's a ludicrous state of affairs. If I were to work in the UK for a French company, as I have before, does that really mean that the French company then ahs to pay UK corporation tax? Because that appears to be what you are saying.

 

 

I did not say "work for", I said where the management is based. I will quote again from the Guardian:

 

""After reviewing the files, Richard Brooks, a Private Eye journalist and former HMRC tax inspector, said: “If HMRC had seen the papers they would have had some very serious questions. The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control.

 

“This means where the key business decisions are taken. The evidence here suggests in this period they weren’t taken outside the UK, in which case it is hard to see how the company was not managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK at the time.” ""

 

Are you saying this former HMRC tax inspector is wrong?

[truman]

I did not say "work for", I said where the management is based. I will quote again from the Guardian:

 

""After reviewing the files, Richard Brooks, a Private Eye journalist and former HMRC tax inspector, said: “If HMRC had seen the papers they would have had some very serious questions. The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control.

 

“This means where the key business decisions are taken. The evidence here suggests in this period they weren’t taken outside the UK, in which case it is hard to see how the company was not managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK at the time.” ""

 

Are you saying this former HMRC tax inspector is wrong?

 

Genuine question here..if,for example,Google's central management was in the USA then you would expect it to pay tax there and not here?

[banjodeano]

I've got shares in several overseas trusts. They are legal, I think. I don't ask questions I trust that they are. I pay my taxes on the benefit like Cameron did. I am not responsible for running the trust. I am not liable if it breaks the law.

I can't remember the details of every company or trust I've bought shares in.

I'm sure the pm can't either and he has a bit more than an sme to run.

 

So you dont know if you are breaking the law or not?

ignorance of the law is not an excuse...

[unbeliever]

So you dont know if you are breaking the law or not?

ignorance of the law is not an excuse...

 

Sure it is.

People are expected to know the basics, but the fine detail of the law is so insanely complex that in practise ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse.

[Berberis]

Sure it is.

People are expected to know the basics, but the fine detail of the law is so insanely complex that in practise ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse.

 

Ignorance of the aw is not a defense in UK law. Not knowing a subsection of a particular law, may warrant clemency from the judge, but you wouldn't be found innocent, but rather you would receive a lesser punishment.

[unbeliever]

Ignorance of the aw is not a defense in UK law. Not knowing a subsection of a particular law, may warrant clemency from the judge, but you wouldn't be found innocent, but rather you would receive a lesser punishment.

 

Isn't that rather inconsistent with the fact that the law has become so complicated that even lawyers only know the detail within their own specialty?

[Berberis]

Isn't that rather inconsistent with the fact that the law has become so complicated that even lawyers only know the detail within their own specialty?

 

I suspect it depends on what you mean. The essence of a law, or subsection/tiny caveat. The latter would be considered but if you used this defence to try and talk your way out of a speeding ticket, you are not going to get very far with this defence.

[unbeliever]

I suspect it depends on what you mean. The essence of a law, or subsection/tiny caveat. The latter would be considered but if you used this defence to try and talk your way out of a speeding ticket, you are not going to get very far with this defence.

 

I understand that.

Which is why I referred to an expectation for us to know the basics in my previous post.