Should stealing from the taxpayer via unpaid taxes...
Discussion
...and bankruptcy be treated the same as benefit fraud?
The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
Edited by CzechItOut on Saturday 12th July 16:12
I guess it's an "it depends" on the circumstances.
In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
Murph7355 said:
I guess it's an "it depends" on the circumstances.
In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
I appreciate you will understand this already...In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
It's not the HMRC debt, it is the companies they've ripped off that take the brunt, sometimes to the point that the businesses have to close down because of their actions and other than getting a few pence in the pound from the liquidator, there is NOTHING you can do.
Legally OK, morally repugnant, especially when they are at the point where they know the business is going down the pan so there is no way invoices can be paid.
That is where the theft is.
MattsCar said:
I appreciate you will understand this already...
It's not the HMRC debt, it is the companies they've ripped off that take the brunt, sometimes to the point that the businesses have to close down because of their actions and other than getting a few pence in the pound from the liquidator, there is NOTHING you can do.
Legally OK, morally repugnant, especially when they are at the point where they know the business is going down the pan so there is no way invoices can be paid.
That is where the theft is.
Not aware of the specifics of the individuals mentioned and whether they actually nobbled companies or not? I was thinking they were more likely to have spunked the tax owed on large work payments and the cupboard was empty by the time their payments to HMRC became due.It's not the HMRC debt, it is the companies they've ripped off that take the brunt, sometimes to the point that the businesses have to close down because of their actions and other than getting a few pence in the pound from the liquidator, there is NOTHING you can do.
Legally OK, morally repugnant, especially when they are at the point where they know the business is going down the pan so there is no way invoices can be paid.
That is where the theft is.
But possibly, yes.
I went on a course for those starting a small enterprise. The main chap running it was personable and gave off an air of being successful, but the thought occurred to me was why was he running classes for a pittance.
He was, the blurb told us, very experienced, and that was true. He'd started a number of little companies, all of which had gone bankrupt; that's the businesses and not him. We were told of ways of obviating any financial 'difficulties'. The question put to him was, 'Well who paid for the items?' And it seemed the other businesses did. Their fault for supplying them, but as long as he tried his best to make a go of the company, he felt no remorse. He took a risk, and so did they. It was called business.
Many businesses go bankrupt, the proportion varying with the state of the economy. To be fair, the set up isn't fair. One chap on the course was running a coffee shop but struggled as the main competition paid lower taxes than his little company.
The best bit of the course was the accountant who explained what an SME could claim for. She gave insight into what triggered HMIC to target a specific company. She, like the main instructor, treated it as a competition in a way. Her advice struck me as dangerous though. I think the phrase she used was, 'They come, they seek, they destroy'.
Tax avoidance, when it came to the chap trying to sell coffee, I could support. It wasn't a level playing field. But getting goods from companies knowing you would sooner or later default seemed to be a step too far. It's not as if he only did it once, by error. It was his safety net.
He was, the blurb told us, very experienced, and that was true. He'd started a number of little companies, all of which had gone bankrupt; that's the businesses and not him. We were told of ways of obviating any financial 'difficulties'. The question put to him was, 'Well who paid for the items?' And it seemed the other businesses did. Their fault for supplying them, but as long as he tried his best to make a go of the company, he felt no remorse. He took a risk, and so did they. It was called business.
Many businesses go bankrupt, the proportion varying with the state of the economy. To be fair, the set up isn't fair. One chap on the course was running a coffee shop but struggled as the main competition paid lower taxes than his little company.
The best bit of the course was the accountant who explained what an SME could claim for. She gave insight into what triggered HMIC to target a specific company. She, like the main instructor, treated it as a competition in a way. Her advice struck me as dangerous though. I think the phrase she used was, 'They come, they seek, they destroy'.
Tax avoidance, when it came to the chap trying to sell coffee, I could support. It wasn't a level playing field. But getting goods from companies knowing you would sooner or later default seemed to be a step too far. It's not as if he only did it once, by error. It was his safety net.
CzechItOut said:
...and bankruptcy be treated the same as benefit fraud?
The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
Without being rude to the poster his post is misleading.The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
Edited by CzechItOut on Saturday 12th July 16:12
If I might surmise the situation based on the report I have no personal knowledge.
Wiggins was a director of a limited company Wiggins Rights Ltd. I assume the company owned his media rights. That company has filed for voluntary liquidation. It owns HMRC £300k. That could be employees PAYE not paid to HMRC or CT. Guessing it not CGT. No idea why the company became insolvent. Under some circumstances Wiggins could be made personally liable for the debt. Not sure how often HMRC do that. However, in this instance it would be pointless since Wiggins has declared himself bankrupt. The story reports the debt in that bankruptcy has increased as claims have been received. There in nothing in the story to indicate HMRC are a claimant in the bankruptcy.
Limited company status is really important for encourage entrepreneurs, the classic trope being when you go to America and meet someone successful in business its off the back of multiple failures. In the UK we are terrified of failure and the stigma of being part of something that has failed. If you’re intelligent enough to learn from failure you’ll eventually become successful, and success brings riches to the whole of society.
Actively dodging tax though, yes you’re the same as a benefit cheat, even if you really really really believe the system isn’t fair.
Actively dodging tax though, yes you’re the same as a benefit cheat, even if you really really really believe the system isn’t fair.
Tend to agree with what has already been said without much to add other than I've worked with many small companies and have seen the consequences of unpaid bills.
Limited liability status is essential to grease the wheels of the economy.
I've met with HMRC's finest investigators in a professional capacity and know the power they have. Our company was clean as a whistle, thankfully, but they can and do go after fraud or suspicions of it.
I think there is a capacity problem. HMRC is not well staffed enough to go after the big fish and will stamp down hard on easier wins.
As Murph says, at the end of the day, if the tax man says you owe X and you say you don't, you owe X.
I've no comment on high profile cases, don't know anything about them.
Would people like a properly funded HMRC with simper tax laws? I certainly would. Can't see any government willing to bite that bullet though. They'll continue to make things more complicated due to high profile cases rather than considering a rewrite. Accountants and lawyers win.
Limited liability status is essential to grease the wheels of the economy.
I've met with HMRC's finest investigators in a professional capacity and know the power they have. Our company was clean as a whistle, thankfully, but they can and do go after fraud or suspicions of it.
I think there is a capacity problem. HMRC is not well staffed enough to go after the big fish and will stamp down hard on easier wins.
As Murph says, at the end of the day, if the tax man says you owe X and you say you don't, you owe X.
I've no comment on high profile cases, don't know anything about them.
Would people like a properly funded HMRC with simper tax laws? I certainly would. Can't see any government willing to bite that bullet though. They'll continue to make things more complicated due to high profile cases rather than considering a rewrite. Accountants and lawyers win.
https://www.ft.com/content/67011aaa-4ecd-4462-8022...
There’s a fine example, paying millions in dividends to themselves whilst £250m in debt to HMRC. Now buggered off to India this is where all personal assets should be frozen and jail time should come in.
You can probably say with some confidence that there will be 100 others alike them in this country. That would more than cover the money this labour government were trying to recoup via overhaul the benefits system.
It’s actually what you’d expect a labour government to do rather than go after old people and the disabled. Baffling
There’s a fine example, paying millions in dividends to themselves whilst £250m in debt to HMRC. Now buggered off to India this is where all personal assets should be frozen and jail time should come in.
You can probably say with some confidence that there will be 100 others alike them in this country. That would more than cover the money this labour government were trying to recoup via overhaul the benefits system.
It’s actually what you’d expect a labour government to do rather than go after old people and the disabled. Baffling
Condi said:
Its well known that investing in hmrc resources produces a net benefit in terms of recovering more in unpaid taxes than the staff are paid, so quite why the government doesn't invest in these areas is a mystery.
I might be misremembering but it was 1:8 I think. Indeed, I wonder why.Are qualified and experienced inspectors not available to ramp up HMRC capacity?
Or maybe another way to ‘encourage’ more rigour in tax payments, is applying really, really punitive penalties to evaders. An example would be the Spanish approach, where it’s jail time for relatively minor offences.
Or maybe another way to ‘encourage’ more rigour in tax payments, is applying really, really punitive penalties to evaders. An example would be the Spanish approach, where it’s jail time for relatively minor offences.
Also in Germany. The Finanzamt/Steuerfahndung/Zoll/etc. will do some very nasty things over some minor stuff.
I saw people getting the consequences of (admittedly substantial) late tax payment more than once (fun stuff like frozen accounts, early morning raids at home and asset seizure), and the people who tried actual proper evasion found it ended very badly.
I saw people getting the consequences of (admittedly substantial) late tax payment more than once (fun stuff like frozen accounts, early morning raids at home and asset seizure), and the people who tried actual proper evasion found it ended very badly.
Mrr T said:
CzechItOut said:
...and bankruptcy be treated the same as benefit fraud?
The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
Without being rude to the poster his post is misleading.The latest is Sir Bradley Wiggins, who could afford an expensive nose candy habit funded in part by stealing over £300,000 from the taxpayer in unpaid taxes he wrapped up in his bankruptcy.
Should these people be treated the same as benefit fraudsters, as in the end they are benefitting at the expense of the taxpayer?
This couple received two years and 20 months respectively for benefit fraud of £270,000.
Other notable thieves are Ant Middleton who stole over £1 million and Kate Price who has stolen over £750,000.
Edited by CzechItOut on Saturday 12th July 16:12
If I might surmise the situation based on the report I have no personal knowledge.
Wiggins was a director of a limited company Wiggins Rights Ltd. I assume the company owned his media rights. That company has filed for voluntary liquidation. It owns HMRC £300k. That could be employees PAYE not paid to HMRC or CT. Guessing it not CGT. No idea why the company became insolvent. Under some circumstances Wiggins could be made personally liable for the debt. Not sure how often HMRC do that. However, in this instance it would be pointless since Wiggins has declared himself bankrupt. The story reports the debt in that bankruptcy has increased as claims have been received. There in nothing in the story to indicate HMRC are a claimant in the bankruptcy.
It also mentions "The accounts of his company Wiggins Rights Ltd, which gives a partial picture of his finances, show that he received £3.2 million in dividends between 2016 and 2018 and another £787,700 taken as a director s loan."
(Looking at CH, for the last reported accounts the company had one employee)
https://archive.is/Zu8Vz
Murph7355 said:
I guess it's an "it depends" on the circumstances.
In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
AM moved to Oz though didn't he so I'd say it will never get repaid.In the ones noted, possibly.
Though AIUI the debt to HMRC never goes away...so if they earn a ton from telling all and writing sob story books or making similar documentaries, they can still reclaim the debt (on top of new liabilities).
Whether they ever do fully or not is another matter/problem.
TX.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff