Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:55

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:43

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:35

For the sake of utter clarity my view on benefits is as follows:

Those that need / deserve benefits deserve everything they get and more.

NO THEY DONT THEY JUST DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

Those that are conning the system, of whom there are a huge amount, need to be identified and required to pay back every penny they have scrounged from the system and every one of these peenies should be given to those that deserve / require benefits.

For the sake of utter clarity I am not against benefits, I am against benefit cheats.

Thank you.

PULL THE OTHER ONE SONNY , THIS HAS BEEN THE MOTHER OF ALL LEATHERING

People disagreeing / not understanding / making assumptions about my views on life hardly constitues a leathering sonny, only in your warped mind, Sludge.

I am extremely supportive of a right and proper benefits system; I am utterly opposed to the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits.

Root and branch reform is required in order that those that need support get it and those that don't get there arsed kicked big time

Your statement that "the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits" is the problem, it is quite simply not true. On that basis it is understandable that people make assumptions about your views on life.

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:55

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:43

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:35

For the sake of utter clarity my view on benefits is as follows:

Those that need / deserve benefits deserve everything they get and more.

NO THEY DONT THEY JUST DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

Those that are conning the system, of whom there are a huge amount, need to be identified and required to pay back every penny they have scrounged from the system and every one of these peenies should be given to those that deserve / require benefits.

For the sake of utter clarity I am not against benefits, I am against benefit cheats.

Thank you.

PULL THE OTHER ONE SONNY , THIS HAS BEEN THE MOTHER OF ALL LEATHERING

People disagreeing / not understanding / making assumptions about my views on life hardly constitues a leathering sonny, only in your warped mind, Sludge.


you have had a right good old fashioned beating on this thread , about 3 posts in support of your silly nonsense , the rest battering you like a slug



I am extremely supportive of a right and proper benefits system; I am utterly opposed to the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits.


cobblers...the only thing you know about the benefits system is what you read in the mail you daft chimp ....less than 1 percent of claims are fraud

Root and branch reform is required in order that those that need support get it and those that don't get there arsed kicked big time

cobblers again , you know nowt , stick to the other site , its more your thinking

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:55

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:43

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:35

For the sake of utter clarity my view on benefits is as follows:

Those that need / deserve benefits deserve everything they get and more.

NO THEY DONT THEY JUST DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

Those that are conning the system, of whom there are a huge amount, need to be identified and required to pay back every penny they have scrounged from the system and every one of these peenies should be given to those that deserve / require benefits.

For the sake of utter clarity I am not against benefits, I am against benefit cheats.

Thank you.

PULL THE OTHER ONE SONNY , THIS HAS BEEN THE MOTHER OF ALL LEATHERING

People disagreeing / not understanding / making assumptions about my views on life hardly constitues a leathering sonny, only in your warped mind, Sludge.

I am extremely supportive of a right and proper benefits system; I am utterly opposed to the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits.

Root and branch reform is required in order that those that need support get it and those that don't get there arsed kicked big time

Your statement that "the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits" is the problem, it is quite simply not true. On that basis it is understandable that people make assumptions about your views on life.

A builders labourer who worked for me a few years ago had a brain haemorage & minor stroke a couple of years ago & had to quit manual work & went on incapacity benefit, he recently was examined & was asked could he clench his fist, when he showed them that he could they said that they were signing him off & although he can no longer do physical work he's capable of re-training behind a desk. He's 61 years of age! Another case of clueless toffs who know nothing about working life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849

Only 7% of people claiming sickness benefits were unable to do any sort of work, new figures have shown.

The department has released the results from 1.3 million tests over a period of more than two years which showed:

7% were incapable of any work
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance
36% dropped out of the application process
1% of applications were still in progress



Someone on here told me all benefit claims were legit.

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:59

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:55

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:43

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:35

For the sake of utter clarity my view on benefits is as follows:

Those that need / deserve benefits deserve everything they get and more.

NO THEY DONT THEY JUST DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

Those that are conning the system, of whom there are a huge amount, need to be identified and required to pay back every penny they have scrounged from the system and every one of these peenies should be given to those that deserve / require benefits.

For the sake of utter clarity I am not against benefits, I am against benefit cheats.

Thank you.

PULL THE OTHER ONE SONNY , THIS HAS BEEN THE MOTHER OF ALL LEATHERING

People disagreeing / not understanding / making assumptions about my views on life hardly constitues a leathering sonny, only in your warped mind, Sludge.


you have had a right good old fashioned beating on this thread , about 3 posts in support of your silly nonsense , the rest battering you like a slug



I am extremely supportive of a right and proper benefits system; I am utterly opposed to the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits.


cobblers...the only thing you know about the benefits system is what you read in the mail you daft chimp ....less than 1 percent of claims are fraud

Root and branch reform is required in order that those that need support get it and those that don't get there arsed kicked big time

cobblers again , you know nowt , stick to the other site , its more your thinking

Im sorry I forgot us British people are extremely hard working and will never do anything that would be against true British morals and values apart from having rampant teen pregnancy, extreme drug use, homelessness, poverty on a national level, violence, crime, theft.

Clearly anyone who has differing views to you must be a modern day nazi, if thats the case, HEIL CAMERON.

The law says that a couple aged over 18 require £105.95 per week to live on and for a single person over 18 it's £67.50.

If anyone believes those sums equate to a life of milk and honey for recipients then it becomes difficult to take them seriously.

The_Clunge_Explorer wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 20:06

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:59

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:55

SLUDGE FACTORY wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:43

Croesyblue wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 19:35

For the sake of utter clarity my view on benefits is as follows:

Those that need / deserve benefits deserve everything they get and more.

NO THEY DONT THEY JUST DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

Those that are conning the system, of whom there are a huge amount, need to be identified and required to pay back every penny they have scrounged from the system and every one of these peenies should be given to those that deserve / require benefits.

For the sake of utter clarity I am not against benefits, I am against benefit cheats.

Thank you.

PULL THE OTHER ONE SONNY , THIS HAS BEEN THE MOTHER OF ALL LEATHERING

People disagreeing / not understanding / making assumptions about my views on life hardly constitues a leathering sonny, only in your warped mind, Sludge.


you have had a right good old fashioned beating on this thread , about 3 posts in support of your silly nonsense , the rest battering you like a slug



I am extremely supportive of a right and proper benefits system; I am utterly opposed to the system that we currenly have where any chancer can choose to live a very decent life on benefits.


cobblers...the only thing you know about the benefits system is what you read in the mail you daft chimp ....less than 1 percent of claims are fraud

Root and branch reform is required in order that those that need support get it and those that don't get there arsed kicked big time

cobblers again , you know nowt , stick to the other site , its more your thinking

Im sorry I forgot us British people are extremely hard working and will never do anything that would be against true British morals and values apart from having rampant teen pregnancy, extreme drug use, homelessness, poverty on a national level, violence, crime, theft.

Clearly anyone who has differing views to you must be a modern day nazi, if thats the case, HEIL CAMERON.

you said it

good luck with the women but with a user name like that I would say you have no chance ...it kind of puts them off

All you need now is the jobs for them.

WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT IF PEOPLE CANT GET BENEFIT THERE WILL BE A HUGE INCREASE IN CASH IN HAND IN THE BLACK ECONOMY , ESPECIALLY IN BUILDING , CONSTRUCTION , FRUIT PICKING

TH ETAX MAN WONT SEE ANY OF IT

the answer to this is quite simple

invest more money in the over stretched fraud teams who can easily catch the lead swingers through cameras , bank details work etc...easy peasy to catch cleaners at work , builders on roofs who are " suffering " with bad backs

landlords are also involved in this renting out houses and making multiple sickness claims for those sometimes not even living there ...easy enough to clamp down on this

but that isnt enough for the wolves like creosy

The Tory creation of the non-working class.... Gotta love it.
Long live Maggie

Especially when folks like that feckless Philip Green is one of the biggest benefit cheats of them all, and he's the Business guru or something.

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

The law says that a couple aged over 18 require £105.95 per week to live on and for a single person over 18 it's £67.50.

If anyone believes those sums equate to a life of milk and honey for recipients then it becomes difficult to take them seriously.

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

in what way?

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

tax avoidance is perfectly legal

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:49

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

in what way?

Sounds like he sold his business to his wife to avoid paying tax to me.

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

tax avoidance is perfectly legal

Kept me in a job for a while...ahhh the British Virgin Isles, lovely place to start a business.

gabbsthenewt wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

tax avoidance is perfectly legal

Kept me in a job for a while...ahhh the British Virgin Isles, lovely place to start a business.

plenty better than that, cyprus for a start, 10% CT rate, easily accessible, not black listed. Or Republic of Ireland, CT rate 12.5%

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:51

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:49

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

in what way?

Sounds like he sold his business to his wife to avoid paying tax to me.

ok read it again, but this time place emphasis on the social security costs.

Monaco companies pay 50% in social security. Individuals pay 13%. This means IGs dividends would be taxed 50% before it is paid to her then 13% of the 50% would be levied upon her personally. This would give an effective rate of 56.5% tax.

PG would pay tax at 32.5% on dividends. that's a real smart way of avoiding tax, moving to another jurisdiction where you actually pay more.

there is a reason why PG bought the shares first rather than Irene Green, it has nothing to do with tax avoidance. The answer is out there on the internet. If PG really wanted to avoid paying tax at all, then surely IG would have just bought the shares first. Bear in mind we are talking about ownership for one day, not years, one single day, 24 hours. as I said, there is a reason why, and when you read it, you'll see that its quite straightforward

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:51

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:49

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

in what way?

Sounds like he sold his business to his wife to avoid paying tax to me.

ok read it again, but this time place emphasis on the social security costs.

Monaco companies pay 50% in social security. Individuals pay 13%. This means IGs dividends would be taxed 50% before it is paid to her then 13% of the 50% would be levied upon her personally. This would give an effective rate of 56.5% tax.

PG would pay tax at 32.5% on dividends. that's a real smart way of avoiding tax, moving to another jurisdiction where you actually pay more.

there is a reason why PG bought the shares first rather than Irene Green, it has nothing to do with tax avoidance. The answer is out there on the internet. If PG really wanted to avoid paying tax at all, then surely IG would have just bought the shares first. Bear in mind we are talking about ownership for one day, not years, one single day, 24 hours. as I said, there is a reason why, and when you read it, you'll see that its quite straightforward

http://twitpic.com/5wb6sv/full

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:59

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:51

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:49

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

in what way?

Sounds like he sold his business to his wife to avoid paying tax to me.

ok read it again, but this time place emphasis on the social security costs.

Monaco companies pay 50% in social security. Individuals pay 13%. This means IGs dividends would be taxed 50% before it is paid to her then 13% of the 50% would be levied upon her personally. This would give an effective rate of 56.5% tax.

PG would pay tax at 32.5% on dividends. that's a real smart way of avoiding tax, moving to another jurisdiction where you actually pay more.

there is a reason why PG bought the shares first rather than Irene Green, it has nothing to do with tax avoidance. The answer is out there on the internet. If PG really wanted to avoid paying tax at all, then surely IG would have just bought the shares first. Bear in mind we are talking about ownership for one day, not years, one single day, 24 hours. as I said, there is a reason why, and when you read it, you'll see that its quite straightforward

Why did he do it then?

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:05

gabbsthenewt wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

tax avoidance is perfectly legal

Kept me in a job for a while...ahhh the British Virgin Isles, lovely place to start a business.

plenty better than that, cyprus for a start, 10% CT rate, easily accessible, not black listed. Or Republic of Ireland, CT rate 12.5%

Back then it was just zero CT, just the cost of a scroll from their company registry and a 'secretary' fee annuity.

gabbsthenewt wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:07

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:05

gabbsthenewt wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

tax avoidance is perfectly legal

Kept me in a job for a while...ahhh the British Virgin Isles, lovely place to start a business.

plenty better than that, cyprus for a start, 10% CT rate, easily accessible, not black listed. Or Republic of Ireland, CT rate 12.5%

Back then it was just zero CT, just the cost of a scroll from their company registry and a 'secretary' fee annuity.

BVI is still 0%, its just a tax evasion jurisdiction. setting up in Cyprus or RoI where you can legitimately operate and manage a business from is tax efficiency. registering somewhere like BVI is done purely to avoid paying any tax and keeping it secret from HMRC.

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

Of course it is. The only people who accept that Phil Green is not the *real* owner of Arcadia, and that the reason for the farce is anything other than to avoid paying UK tax, are the IR and feed "the eel" back.

The eel may well also support the massive failings of private sector heroes Atos (French IT company with no history in medicine), and their massive inefficiencies demonstrated by the 39% success rate of all appeals against their "expert" assessments - at a cost of £30m to the taxpayer. In line for a productivity bonus I reckon!

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

Of course it is. The only people who accept that Phil Green is not the *real* owner of Arcadia, and that the reason for the farce is anything other than to avoid paying UK tax, are the IR and feed "the eel" back.

The eel may well also support the massive failings of private sector heroes Atos (French IT company with no history in medicine), and their massive inefficiencies demonstrated by the 39% success rate of all appeals against their "expert" assessments - at a cost of £30m to the taxpayer. In line for a productivity bonus I reckon!

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

TH63 wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:26

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

Of course it is. The only people who accept that Phil Green is not the *real* owner of Arcadia, and that the reason for the farce is anything other than to avoid paying UK tax, are the IR and feed "the eel" back.

The eel may well also support the massive failings of private sector heroes Atos (French IT company with no history in medicine), and their massive inefficiencies demonstrated by the 39% success rate of all appeals against their "expert" assessments - at a cost of £30m to the taxpayer. In line for a productivity bonus I reckon!

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

Indeed I have - and still feel a twinge of guilt about those days. As a former beneficiary of the practice (and a wealthy one too) I recognise it and condemn it - and far sooner than I will condemn the poorest in society.

TH63 wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:26

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

I, along with a few others no doubt, am all ears

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:38

TH63 wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:26

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:53

Ray Mears wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:36

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:31

avarice wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 21:26

Doesn't he benefit from tax avoidance?

tax avoidance is perfectly legal, benefits cheating is criminal.

regardless, Philip Green does not avoid tax. Philip Green bought the Arcadia group and sold it the next day to his wife for the same amount of money that he bought it for. he did not give it to his wife, she bought it. in effect, it was fresh money coming into the UK from a Monaco bank account. Money that would not have entered the UK economy if his wife had not bought the shares.

Philip Green owned Arcadia for one day. His wife has owned it ever since. She is a resident of Monaco, it is proper and correct that she pays her taxes (as she does) in Monaco where she is resident.

I have no idea why people believe Philip Green avoids UK tax - he pays tax on all his UK earnings, including any dividends he earns. His wife is actually much wealthier than he is and already owns much more of a business empire. people ignore this.

I never realised it sounded that dodgy to be honest!

It really does sound like tax avoidance to me.

Of course it is. The only people who accept that Phil Green is not the *real* owner of Arcadia, and that the reason for the farce is anything other than to avoid paying UK tax, are the IR and feed "the eel" back.

The eel may well also support the massive failings of private sector heroes Atos (French IT company with no history in medicine), and their massive inefficiencies demonstrated by the 39% success rate of all appeals against their "expert" assessments - at a cost of £30m to the taxpayer. In line for a productivity bonus I reckon!

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

Indeed I have - and still feel a twinge of guilt about those days. As a former beneficiary of the practice (and a wealthy one too) I recognise it and condemn it - and far sooner than I will condemn the poorest in society.

are you aware that you can make a voluntary disclosure to HMRC going back 20 years. in fact, such disclosures often carry only 10% penalties and interest. serious question, do you feel guilty enough to come clean and cleanse your soul?

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:37

TH63 wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:26

Ah, the self confessed tax dodger himself returns

Seriously, DTM you've admitted you've done this previously the only difference here is there are a lot more zeros involved.

I, along with a few others no doubt, am all ears

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

If I seriously thought it would go some way towards curbing the promotion of such practices by your very own profession, I believe I would.
As it is, you little blighters will continue to contrive techniques that thwart the IR wherever possible - and you'll not be short of customers

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:45

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

were you forced to follow the advice regarding IR35? did they put a gun to your head? was it your signature on the tax return? were you unable to say 'no, i want to stay sole trader and pay more than I have to?'

my profession advises clients of all the available options, it is the clients choice what option they choose, not the profession. There are plenty of clients who prefer to pay more tax, some, like yourself, prefer to use the law to pay less tax.

trying to pass the buck because an accountant pointed out you could minimise your tax by structuring your affairs differently does not absolve you from the fact that it was you who chose that path to follow.

let he without sin cast the first stone....

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:50

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:45

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

were you forced to follow the advice regarding IR35? did they put a gun to your head? was it your signature on the tax return? were you unable to say 'no, i want to stay sole trader and pay more than I have to?'

my profession advises clients of all the available options, it is the clients choice what option they choose, not the profession. There are plenty of clients who prefer to pay more tax, some, like yourself, prefer to use the law to pay less tax.

trying to pass the buck because an accountant pointed out you could minimise your tax by structuring your affairs differently does not absolve you from the fact that it was you who chose that path to follow.

let he without sin cast the first stone....

Well I have never heard voluntary confession desribed as "passing the buck" before. Nor have I even remotely claimed absolution - far from it, in fact.

But I *have* often commented on your slippery distortion of other people's words, so I won't fake surprise

DTM

are you aware of institute guidance to accountants regarding IR35? Are you aware of what we advise clients in the current climate regarding IR35?

I don't go near contractors full ****ing stop. they can sort out their own affairs as far as I am concerned. They are employees, they should be taxed as employees.

is that clear enough for you.

you'll find just like the ambulance chasers in the law profession, us accountants have firms 'specialising' in IR35. The fact is they specialise in bugger all, the law is crystal. By using limco and ignoring IR35 as these specialist firms advise means you are evading taxation.

most practices I know don't go near IR35 or contractors. just because you personally wanted to evade tax and used a firm that hide your real employment status, don't assume others are party to that nefarious game. I will operate within the law like most accountants, we do not operate outside of the law.

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:51

If I seriously thought it would go some way towards curbing the promotion of such practices by your very own profession, I believe I would.
As it is, you little blighters will continue to contrive techniques that thwart the IR wherever possible - and you'll not be short of customers

what has offering clients advice got to do with your moral obligation? Only you have that particular obligation. It seems as if you are using others behaviour to justify your own perfidy.

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:50

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:45

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

were you forced to follow the advice regarding IR35? did they put a gun to your head? was it your signature on the tax return? were you unable to say 'no, i want to stay sole trader and pay more than I have to?'

my profession advises clients of all the available options, it is the clients choice what option they choose, not the profession. There are plenty of clients who prefer to pay more tax, some, like yourself, prefer to use the law to pay less tax.

trying to pass the buck because an accountant pointed out you could minimise your tax by structuring your affairs differently does not absolve you from the fact that it was you who chose that path to follow.

let he without sin cast the first stone....

Well I have never heard voluntary confession desribed as "passing the buck" before. Nor have I even remotely claimed absolution - far from it, in fact.

But I *have* often commented on your slippery distortion of other people's words, so I won't fake surprise

If you see self-justification in my posts on this subject, then I must acknowledge that I have failed in my attempt to communicate.
Sorry about that.

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:59

Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:50

Dr Tim Muff wrote on Wed, 27 July 2011 22:45

I doubt that very much - always room for your mouth eh?

It was a practice that I and my colleagues would have been utterly unaware of had it not been for your noble profession.

Creative little buggers, accountants.

were you forced to follow the advice regarding IR35? did they put a gun to your head? was it your signature on the tax return? were you unable to say 'no, i want to stay sole trader and pay more than I have to?'

my profession advises clients of all the available options, it is the clients choice what option they choose, not the profession. There are plenty of clients who prefer to pay more tax, some, like yourself, prefer to use the law to pay less tax.

trying to pass the buck because an accountant pointed out you could minimise your tax by structuring your affairs differently does not absolve you from the fact that it was you who chose that path to follow.

let he without sin cast the first stone....

Well I have never heard voluntary confession desribed as "passing the buck" before. Nor have I even remotely claimed absolution - far from it, in fact.

But I *have* often commented on your slippery distortion of other people's words, so I won't fake surprise

You were a director or?