|
Why are you arguing with Pissflaps? e: 52, the number of weeks in the year during which you ought not to argue with Pissflaps.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
And what does the prime minister say in response to being called out by 83-year-old Dennis Skinner? "It's very good to see the Labour Party in full voice cheering on Jurassic Park." Nice, nice, prime minister of my country makes a reply the same way a loving child does on the playground. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
New Welsh polling: http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-04-11/welsh-political-barometer-labour-retain-lead-while-plaid-cymru-move-up-ahead-of-assembly-election/ Labour still projected to lose their pseudomajority, UKIP still predicted to make big gains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Google doesn't offer data storage services. I see. they're not a specialist document or data archiving firm, no business would consider using google drive to be a secure or redundant way to store mission critical data, a third party back up or archival service would be used in addition to google.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
FinalGamer posted:And what does the prime minister say in response to being called out by 83-year-old Dennis Skinner? JURASSIC PARK!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:they're not a specialist document and data archiving, no business would consider using google drive to be a secure or redundant way to store mission critical data, a third party back up or archival service would be used in addition to google. That's nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
google are an advertising company, they sell adverts, that's their business, their users are their product
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'm certain they do. Just not on behalf of those submitting them. Not bothering to keep your own copies of important documents is loving stupid. What is the circumstance you think you'd need a copy of your tax return and would be unable to get a copy from HMRC?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:New Welsh polling: http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-04-11/welsh-political-barometer-labour-retain-lead-while-plaid-cymru-move-up-ahead-of-assembly-election/ Plaid Cymru on the up and up 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Plaid Cymru on the up and up Not really; they're within the margin of error of their 2011 result. It's UKIP that are on the up...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
So why exactly are they allowed to dp this childish nonsense and [posh booing noises]? Clesrly the Speaker can make them leave, he did it to Skinner over one word.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Dabir posted:So why exactly are they allowed to dp this childish nonsense and [posh booing noises]? Clesrly the Speaker can make them leave, he did it to Skinner over one word. Tradition probably
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
what if Corbin misplaced the trident codes
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Corbyn the kinda man who'd write the trident codes on a postit note and stick it to the launch console. loving shambles is what it is the man's a disgrace
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
XMNN posted:what if Corbin misplaced the trident codes £100 fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:google are an advertising company, they sell adverts, that's their business, their users are their product Buddy you just blew my mind. Fresh thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
XMNN posted:what if Corbin misplaced the trident codes fortunately we don't have "codes" or "buttons" or anything like that we have some handwritten letters and the steely resolve of Her Majesty's Royal Navy, and the Today Show on Radio 4 standing between us and nuclear oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Not really; they're within the margin of error of their 2011 result. It's UKIP that are on the up... True, but them replacing the Tories as second largest party is good poo poo if they can pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Not that I'm not enjoying watching Piggy squirm, but there's basically no evidence he's done any tax avoidance worth the name, albeit that's not what the papers are saying. He actually voluntarily paid extra tax from 2010-2015 by not claiming the 'prime ministerial expenses deduction' of £20k. You're misunderstanding me there - people will see that they're cutting taxes for landlords and the rich and then realise "Wait a moment, he is both of those things". Not that he's been cheating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Prince John posted:^^ Yes. (@Hieronymous Alloy) As for Cambot: there's no hard evidence, but given his insane evasiveness, it does seem like there are more revelations to come about him or others in his government. Not to mention that the 'not taking ministerial deduction' bit doesn't even pay for the rent he's been scalping off the state by renting out his home whilst living in downing street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:fortunately we don't have "codes" or "buttons" or anything like that
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:What possible incentive is there for the scheme runners to co-operate with this though? I mean, clearly they do, or it wouldn't be worth printing on the form, but... I'm just guessing here, but I think the reason is that if some shady poo poo comes to light they can at least nab the bastards for lying on their tax forms even if they might not be able to get other charges to stick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'm just guessing here, but I think the reason is that if some shady poo poo comes to light they can at least nab the bastards for lying on their tax forms even if they might not be able to get other charges to stick. Again, what incentive is there for the scheme runners to co-operate? If what they do is legal, it's legal without needing to declare that it's legal, isn't it? If it has to be registered with the HMRC in order to be a legal tax avoidance scheme, then how the gently caress some we were not aware of this poo poo previously? Not to mention that we clearly loving DON'T get people for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:What possible incentive is there for the scheme runners to co-operate with this though? I mean, clearly they do, or it wouldn't be worth printing on the form, but... It makes more sense if you don't look at it through the UKMT prism - rather than 'scheme runners', think 'reputable law-abiding company, with the same interest as every other company in staying legal'. Aside from the reputation damage from breaking the law (nobody sane would want their tax affairs managed by a company that is either incompetent or illegal), the practitioners are typically members of professional bodies, subject to codes of ethics and expulsion for breaking the law (and expulsions do happen which equals no career). If the law unambiguously sets out a requirement, I would be astonished if 99% of tax advisors didn't comply with it. The line gets blurred a lot, but deliberately not ticking that box and participating in the scheme is no different than understating income and is clearly criminal evasion. I'm sure there'll be the odd pokey tax boutique that breaks the law, and maybe there is a hidden floor on the top of some tower in London where a megacorp does it, but it's really not common practice. With all the press-led coverage of tax avoidance it's really easy to imagine that people are just breaking the law left right and centre when that's not really what happens. In practice, how it works is that a company would try to create a scheme that didn't have the 'hallmarks' to trigger the legislation in the first place, thus allowing them to leave the box blank with a clear conscience and not break the law. Alternatively, for a client that wants to be aggressive, they might ensure that the scheme is watertight 100% legal and can be defended in court so, even though they have to notify HMRC by ticking the box, it doesn't stop the client from benefiting from the scheme. It's more about giving HMRC a heads up than a declaration of "this scheme is dodgy" (although many are, of course). The hallmarks are so broad that the focus on the tax industry has pivoted away from exotic planning over the last decade though, so in many respects HMRC have been quite successful, while the attitude of boards is generally more concerned with perception and public exposure on tax than it used to be. Edit: vv Heh, maybe I should have just written that in two sentences. Brevity lessons required. Prince John fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Again, what incentive is there for the scheme runners to co-operate? If what they do is legal, it's legal without needing to declare that it's legal, isn't it? If it has to be registered with the HMRC in order to be a legal tax avoidance scheme, then how the gently caress some we were not aware of this poo poo previously? Well, the scheme itself might be legal, byt lying on your tax forms about participating in a scheme would be illegal regardless of the legality of said scheme. Therefore the schemers would have an incentive to declare legal schemes in order to avoid possible tax fraud charges. thespaceinvader posted:Not to mention that we clearly loving DON'T get people for that. I dunno if HMRC gets people for this or not. As I said, I'm merely speculating here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
This is what I'm not getting though, the way I'm seeing it there are a few options, assuming that registering your scheme with HMRC is not a requirement: 1: Run a legal scheme. Register it with HMRC. Your customers are therefore obliged to report their usage of it, and this raises flags with HMRC. 1a: Your customers report their usage of it, if they have any sense their hands are otherwise clean, and HMRC have not further grounds to act. The box was therefore a waste of time. 1b: Your customers fail to report their usage of it, despite it being legal to use it. ??? Not sure what happens here, or what grounds HMRC have for punishing people using an otherwise legal scheme, but presumably if they're dumb enough, HMRC get to slap them with a fine. And this assumes HMRC finds out that they're using it, which I'm betting they have no reliable way to, I'm assuming these schemes don't share their client databases routinely. 2: Run a legal scheme, but don't register it. There's no requirement to register it, and your customers are not obliged to report their usage of it. It may raise flags with HMRC in ways I'm not entirely clear about. 2a: your customers use the scheme without risk, because HMRC are no more likely to find out about it than a registered one, but if they do, HMRC can't punish them for failure to report it. 2b: there is no 2b. 3: Run an illegal scheme, hope neither you nor your customers get caught. I'm not seeing how 2 isn't the best option for everyone concerned (except HMRC)... The law clearly doesn't have the teeth you think though, given that we've only seen the tiniest part of the papers of the fourth biggest tax haven lawyer the world is aware of, and it's a loving goldmine of bullshit. I don't know how much of it was reported to the HMRC though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This is what I'm not getting though, the way I'm seeing it there are a few options, assuming that registering your scheme with HMRC is not a requirement: Just heading to dinner, but I'll do a mega quick reply. 1a) HMRC might get them if their implementation is crap (e.g. if they cut corners, or had bad advisors), so there may well be money for the taxpayer to be had. b) Criminal offences all round. Admittedly, there's always the chance that HMRC don't find out, but that's no different to any criminal enterprise. 2) I think this is where the misconception is - there is no such thing as a 'legal scheme' if it isn't registered (assuming it meets the hallmarks). The tax advisor is breaking the law by not complying with DOTAS and the taxpayer may be too, depending which form they're completing. quote:You are liable to a penalty if you fail to disclose a scheme to HMRC within 5 days of the scheme being made available or implemented. The initial penalty is up to £600 a day. If this is not considered to be sufficient deterrent you may have to pay a penalty of up to £1 million.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
You should really keep copies of your tax return if you file one. And bank statements and quarterly energy bills, payslips, phone contracts, leases. I don't submit a tax return but I keep all the rest of it in one of those folder boxes. I don't understand why everyone flipped out. Edit: I mean I do actually I just think it was silly
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Just heading to dinner, but I'll do a mega quick reply. So, does that mean that every scheme that any UK taxpayer is signed up to must be registered? How many of the Mossack Fonseca ones are/were?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Dodgy
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Looke posted:Dodgy
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Corbyn showing a full return is a nice bit of political savvy that was worth the flaps-tramuatising wait. Of course it's terrible for corbyn and shows he cannot lead and should step down in favour of Literally Anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:So, does that mean that every scheme that any UK taxpayer is signed up to must be registered? Correct, if it meets the hallmarks. It's really broadly written: quote:Under the rules, a tax arrangement may need to be disclosed even if HMRC is already aware of it or it is not considered to be avoidance. A tax arrangement should be disclosed where: I can't find a concise list of hallmarks to easily copy (the guidance is long and verbose), but it covers things like "does the scheme promoter require secrecy from HMRC or competitors", "is the size of the fee dependent on tax saving" etc. thespaceinvader posted:How many of the Mossack Fonseca ones are/were? I have no idea about this I'm afraid. It looks to me like they're just being complicit in illegal evasion though - they're not selling UK tax avoidance schemes, they're just letting people illegally stash their wealth offshore. I hope HMRC take everyone with undeclared income to the cleaners though. Prince John fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
did hameron give an actual explanation for why paters fund was registered in panama and then ireland he said something about trading in shares denominated in dollars, was there an actual legal reason they couldn't do that in the uk? hes obviously looking for a figleaf for the fact it was legally registered in low tax regimes when it was run from london but is there even a shred of truth to it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
XMNN posted:did hameron give an actual explanation for why paters fund was registered in panama and then ireland I'd be surprised if he ever does. At this point he's probably learned that giving pathetic half-answers to these questions is worse than giving no answers at all, and that he WILL get called on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
XMNN posted:did hameron give an actual explanation for why paters fund was registered in panama and then ireland The official reason given for why they were in Panama is so they could easily trade in US dollars as Panama Currency is matched with US currency. It's bollocks of course, because why be in Panama and not the US if that's the case? There's documents explaining all the effort they made to make sure the company was never considered to be in the UK for tax purposes as well as them seeking where the best Tax haven was before moving to Ireland, which last time I checked, does not use the US dollar. Fans fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
XMNN posted:did hameron give an actual explanation for why paters fund was registered in panama and then ireland I'm not an authority on investing, but it might well be better for (US) withholding tax. If, as a Brit, you want to invest in (say) a US stock market fund, then you'll end up suffering withholding tax (on top of any UK taxes, although a credit may be available). All funds I looked at for my ISA seemed to be based in Ireland, presumably for that reason. From a tax point of view, in many respects it's ideal to have your fund based in a no-tax country, because it allows a range of investors from around the world to invest and only have to worry about taxes in their own country. It's simpler, basically. All things being equal, there can be a higher commercial demand for a fund in a low tax regime. That's another thing that's getting less common though, as countries tighten their rules and deny treaty benefits to tax havens etc. Lord of the Llamas posted:Actually the proceeds of crime act disagrees with you. If an investigation can demonstrate that Blairmore's central management and control was in London (which the Panama papers suggest) then they were guilty of tax evasion; which is a crime. Just while I'm talking about tax, I haven't seen anything in the Panama Papers to suggest that the central management and control was in London - it sounds like they dotted the i's and crossed the t's to me. A majority of the directors were not British and no board meetings were held in Britain. HMRC will look to see if they cut corners (checking to see whether UK directors dialled in, instead of travelling abroad), check the length of board meetings to see if they're realistic and generally go over the paperwork, but it sounds like legally this was not a London managed and controlled fund, unless there's something I'm not aware of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
More to the point, it's not like you can't trade in dollars in the UK. Nor does it explain why it was necessary for a UK company to trade in dollars in the first place. E: I know, I know, it's not TECHNICALLY a UK company. But that's really not the point. We really seem to be quibbling over technicalities whilst completely ignoring the overall point that these companies are founded and managed to allow their clients/owners to avoid tax, which is morally wrong regardless of whether they take a holiday to Panama every year to go to a board meeting or skype in from Witney. (on which note, isn't it amusing that almost all of the tax havens are lovely caribbean and pacific islands where everyone speaks english and it's nice and sunny? You don't see tax havens in wartorn siberian shitholes.) thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
I just saw what Alan Duncan said in the commons, lol what a loving Tory bastard. Cameron must have been seething on the inside that his backbenchers are nowhere near as good at public politics as he is, the video of that speech was going on every newspapers website 30 seconds after he made it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Nor does it explain why it was necessary for a UK company to trade in dollars in the first place. oh come on, this should be fairly apparent. the company I work for is super small and our main clients are the us so we have UK dollar accounts, a US dollar account and an Incorporated company. Trading $ or Euro for a fund or regular company is nothing abnormal if you want to invest or trade in companies either in Europe or the US or funds that are sold in those currencies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 21:30
|
|