Schemes come, schemes go, as governments legislate to close perceived loopholes. Any accountant worth his salt should be alert to the most tax efficient vehicles for his client.

Anyway, it all leaves me wondering which is more immoral: legally minimising your tax liability or the criminal way government continuously spunks vast amounts of money on sh*t.

I'm earning less now than I was a few years ago under an umbrella company but now I get Bupa. How fcuking ironic.

In an ideal world the conscientious lefties would pay more tax, going towards the NHS, looking after the bone idle and anyone else who fancied a handout. The rest can pay less and make their own provisions for heathcare and contributing to deserving causes, but then no one would voluntarily subscribe to the former arrangement. We're all capitalists except in hindsight.

[Link]

Both gamekeeper and poacher...

Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale?
On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending.

Cunds

Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

The pic I posted was from Private Eye!

[Link]
Boots have avoided paying about £1.21 billion in tax since 2007 according to this article ...

Edited by nickgusset (07 Feb 2015 9.32am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Not being funny but major companies go to the big 4 to try to arrange their affairs to minimize tax. You don't go to an accountant and say "please give me a bespoke way in which to pay more tax" or even "my fair share of tax".

If countries (like Luxembourg) market themselves as efficient jurisdictions to structure organisations for tax purposes and big multinationals make use of those structures within the legal framework, I find it odd that those big multinationals (and their advisors) can be so harshly criticised.

The UK is no better, I advise on deals which are structured so people can get ER relief (and now ESS too) - they make millions on exit and pay far less (in terms of rate) tax than me. Would I be upset if the Government withdrew ESS and ER relief and had these guys paying income tax on these gains instead - no I wouldn't - but the point is the Government put these things in place to make the UK attractive. Income tax is the UKs biggest source of revenue (corporation tax is tiny in comparison), yet in London the people earning the most will be paying very little income tax and will mainly be paying CGT - no surprise the rich are getting richer.

To me targeting that group of individuals/investors would be significantly fairer than jumping up and down about corporation tax (most of which is avoided through fairly uncontrived structures which the GAAR wouldn't catch).

If you are working or middle class you generally have no choice but to pay a fair rate of tax (PAYE targets most and even the consultancy route doesn't save a lot). Hedge Fund managers and partners in the funds, Private Equity deal guys and a vast number of investors in the city making millions a year - they often pay just 10% (subject to a lifetime cap of £10,000,000 - I mean after you've paid 10% on 10m it is fair you start paying more... right compared to someone earning just 30k and paying a higher rate?). To me that is unfair and I don't believe trickle-down (where we attract rich people, give them tax breaks on the basis they pay a lot (not in rate but in amount) and having rich people helps everyone else).

Edited by jpegnall (09 Feb 2015 10.07am)