Simple way to clamp down on tax evasion

[Justin Smith]

You asked how they can manage it, that's how [asking the customer to buy the materials].

 

But they make less money. They`ve only got to make 20 to 25% less money to be the position where they might as well pay the tax on the job in the first place.......

 

 

 

So why have you failed to explain how a paper receipt is of any use for tax enforcement purposes?

 

I disagree, the idea that something so vague as "aggressive tax avoidance" could result in any civil or criminal proceedings without the activity specifically being made against the law is a bad one.

Tax avoidance is legal in the way that walking down the street is legal, or breathing is legal. Everything in the UK is legal unless the law says that it is not.

 

An invoice is proof of work done and charged for. Any trader giving one out and then not putting the income through his books is taking a big risk. That said, I agree with the implication of a few posts in here that the risk would be bigger (for the dishonest trader) if there were more tax inspectors.

 

Most people know full well the difference between aggressive tax avoidance and some one putting their entitlement into an ISA. The latter is an example of behaviour the government wants to encourage by giving tax breaks, whereas aggressive tax avoidance is a scheme deliberately constructed to avoid large amounts of tax regardless of it`s in the spirit of the tax laws.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 13:37 ----------

 

Here cometh the Finance Police:

 

http://www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/italian-secrets-for-hiding-receipts-and-dodging-the-taxman/c2s4550/

 

They should employ them over here and save me some tax dollars and/or give us a better funded NHS.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Justin Smith

[Eddie_shef]

There has always been TWO prices for a job. one price for putting it " through the books" ,and another price for paying cash .

 

small, self employed tradesmen always do some cash in hand jobs. Its how they survive and make a living.

 

The customer also benefits by saving 20% . Everyones a winner ..

 

I think that's the whole point... hardly anyone is a winner. In fact the only winners are a very small number of people (the trader and the customer) and even then for a very short time. Everyone loses. Even/especially people not connected with the trade.

[Cyclone]

But they make less money. They`ve only got to make 20 to 25% less money to be the position where they might as well pay the tax on the job in the first place.......

 

 

 

 

 

An invoice is proof of work done and charged for. Any trader giving one out and then not putting the income through his books is taking a big risk. That said, I agree with the implication of a few posts in here that the risk would be bigger (for the dishonest trader) if there were more tax inspectors.

 

Most people know full well the difference between aggressive tax avoidance and some one putting their entitlement into an ISA. The latter is an example of behaviour the government wants to encourage by giving tax breaks, whereas aggressive tax avoidance is a scheme deliberately constructed to avoid large amounts of tax regardless of it`s in the spirit of the tax laws.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 13:37 ----------

 

 

They should employ them over here and save me some tax dollars and/or give us a better funded NHS.

 

There is zero chance of a tax inspector somehow tracking down the undeclared customers of a tradesman. Your idea simply doesn't work.

 

The tradesman can give out paper receipts until the cows come home, in no way does that make him put them down in his records, and it doesn't provide any means for a tax inspector to somehow find those customers.

 

Requiring all payments to be electronic would achieve this in a much more realistic way.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 09:35 ----------

 

Most people know full well the difference between aggressive tax avoidance and some one putting their entitlement into an ISA. The latter is an example of behaviour the government wants to encourage by giving tax breaks, whereas aggressive tax avoidance is a scheme deliberately constructed to avoid large amounts of tax regardless of it`s in the spirit of the tax laws.

 

Simply not true. ATA is a phrase with no definition, in fact a phrase where no definition is even possible.

Sure, some behaviours are clearly done to avoid tax, but then so is using an ISA. How do you somehow draw a line on what is "aggressively" using a legal means of avoiding tax and what is just normal tax avoidance? It makes no sense.

[Justin Smith]

Simply not true. ATA is a phrase with no definition, in fact a phrase where no definition is even possible.

Sure, some behaviours are clearly done to avoid tax, but then so is using an ISA. How do you somehow draw a line on what is "aggressively" using a legal means of avoiding tax and what is just normal tax avoidance? It makes no sense.

 

I`ve just given you a definition :

 

Most people know full well the difference between aggressive tax avoidance and some one putting their entitlement into an ISA. The latter is an example of behaviour the government wants to encourage by giving tax breaks, whereas aggressive tax avoidance is a scheme deliberately constructed to avoid large amounts of tax regardless of it`s in the spirit of the tax laws.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 10:21 ----------

 

There is zero chance of a tax inspector somehow tracking down the undeclared customers of a tradesman [even if that tradesman has issued invoices].

 

Tell you what, we`ll just agree to disagree shall we.......

[truman]

 

Have customers buy materials so the business is not seeing that money as turnover.

 

In theory that's OK but it can get a bit complicated if there's a problem and the tradesman starts to blame the materials...

[Cyclone]

Yep, as a customer I'm always a bit wary of anything that requires me to order things separately. If there are issues with the delivery, or the quality, or some damage discovered some time later, or indeed some damage caused whilst installing it leaves the customer in a tricky position.

If on the other hand the tradesman is doing the whole thing, supply + fit, then any problem is there problem.

That said, if it were a bag of sand or other bulk materials I'd be less concerned.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 14:45 ----------

 

 

Tell you what, we`ll just agree to disagree shall we.......

 

I don't know because you've refused to explain how it could work...

 

In reality I think you've realised it couldn't work, but now you don't want to say so.

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 14:48 ----------

 

I`ve just given you a definition :

 

Most people know full well the difference between aggressive tax avoidance and some one putting their entitlement into an ISA. The latter is an example of behaviour the government wants to encourage by giving tax breaks, whereas aggressive tax avoidance is a scheme deliberately constructed to avoid large amounts of tax regardless of it`s in the spirit of the tax laws.

 

Your definition requires the interpretation of the "spirit", which is why it's completely useless. The law deals with the words and the letter. If you don't capture the spirit in exactly what it says, then you've done a bad job of wording the law.

You make reference to "large" as if that's somehow a measure, it's meaningless flim flam, and 'scheme' as if companies can invent their own tax regulations. There are no schemes, there is no 'large or small' and there is no spirit. There is the law, we must all comply with it, if the government doesn't like it, well, it makes it up, so change it, and how about they try getting it right in the first place...

[Justin Smith]

Originally Posted by Cyclone :

 

Have customers buy materials so the business is not seeing that money as turnover.

 

In theory that's OK but it can get a bit complicated if there's a problem and the tradesman starts to blame the materials...

 

Very good point. We only sell aerial stuff now, but when we did install we were quite happy to fit customers aerials partly because, as you say, you`ve got a get out if there`s any problem.

As a point to Cyclone, who doesn`t seem to accept my point that most tradesmen don`t want to let the customer buy the materials (because they lose the profit on them) we get this frequently when we sell stuff to customers who get an installer to fit them. Some installers point blank refuse to fit stuff they haven`t supplied, and it most certainly isn`t a quality issue because our stuff is very high quality, it`s because they want to make more on the job. Incidentally it`s not uncommon for the installers to actually lie that our stuff isn`t suitable, just so they can sell the customer an aerial or whatever, in fact we actually mention this on our site ! :

 

www.aerialsandtv.com/prices.html#Installers_Trying_To_Sell_Their_Stuff

 

---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 16:10 ----------

 

Your definition requires the interpretation of the "spirit", which is why it's completely useless. The law deals with the words and the letter. If you don't capture the spirit in exactly what it says, then you've done a bad job of wording the law.

You make reference to "large" as if that's somehow a measure, it's meaningless flim flam, and 'scheme' as if companies can invent their own tax regulations. There are no schemes, there is no 'large or small' and there is no spirit. There is the law, we must all comply with it, if the government doesn't like it, well, it makes it up, so change it, and how about they try getting it right in the first place.. .

 

Sorry, I thought that (the scheme not being in the spirit of the tax laws) was the whole basis of the successful case against that hypocritical tax evading scumbag, namely Gary Barlow.

 

I don't know because you've refused to explain how it could work...

In reality I think you've realised it couldn't work, but now you don't want to say so.

 

No I don`t want to argue with someone who just wants to argue for the sake of it. I have already explained how the HMRC tax inspectors can use an invoice (which isn`t subsequently put through the books) to prove tax evasion. I accept they have to have the manpower to do so, but that is a separate argument.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Justin Smith

[Bob Arctor]

You asked how they can manage it, that's how.

 

So why have you failed to explain how a paper receipt is of any use for tax enforcement purposes?

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 07:31 ----------

 

I disagree, the idea that something so vague as "aggressive tax avoidance" could result in any civil or criminal proceedings without the activity specifically being made against the law is a bad one.

Tax avoidance is legal in the way that walking down the street is legal, or breathing is legal. Everything in the UK is legal unless the law says that it is not.

 

The issue being discussed wasn't whether you had any ethical problems with it, it was whether a Taxbo would be an effective way of preventing tax avoidance / evasion, and I think it's clear that it could work.

[Penistone999]

The issue being discussed wasn't whether you had any ethical problems with it, it was whether a Taxbo would be an effective way of preventing tax avoidance / evasion, and I think it's clear that it could work.

 

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal

[Guest sibon]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal

 

Buying knock off fags is tax evasion.

 

That is illegal and makes those who do it into criminals.

 

Criminals should be dealt with robustly by the law, don't you think Penny?