Options
Osborne talks tough on tax evasion
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/12/george-osborne-plans-to-strengthen-criminal-law-on-tax-dodging
He plans to introduce tough new laws to curb it.
It is scary that they reckon that £35 billion is lost each year and £5 billion of that to wealthy individuals.
I hope the countries follow through on this.
He plans to introduce tough new laws to curb it.
It is scary that they reckon that £35 billion is lost each year and £5 billion of that to wealthy individuals.
I hope the countries follow through on this.
0
Comments
The poor are screwing us for £30bn a year!
It's an admirable aim and progress has already been made with some tax havens. Let's hope it's more than hot air and warm words.
there has been a bit of a shift with avoidance schemes.
they are basically trying to close them. things like jimmy carr's K2 scheme, chris moyles' working wheels. avoidance schemes now have to be registered under Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes rules.
this kind of aggressive tax avoidance is no longer being seen as very good, how very clever of you. we are not talking about simply claiming your allowances.
This is surprising as the Guardian group knows quite a lot about tax avoidance. It has plenty of subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and paid £0 tax on profits of £300m.
There will be less of a distinction with the dropping of a need to prove intent. Under the proof of intent people could claim they were intending to avoid, not evade. Now they can be as innovative as they like and they will still have to cough up unless they fancy a lengthy spell in the most secure form of accommodation. Have just been listening to a feature on the radio about wealthy Victorian benefactors. Does anyone know of a website which lists the charitable causes supported by habitual tax avoiders in 2014 or are they all just pathological skinflints without a conscience?
also a bird in the hand gathers no moss.
Jol?
He's done sod all for 4 years, are we getting close to an election?
Of course they do and there's the hypocrisy of left of centre sympathisers. Actors, media types and most of those sanctimonious types really mean that tax avoidance shouldn't be available to anyone but themselves.
Corporate businesses using tax avoidance mechanisms are not breaking the law.
Who wants to pay more tax? When governments demand more tax they should be able to demonstrate how it's spent, but unfortunately, in a country with 65 million people, that's very difficult.
This is quite surprising coming from a right of centre government and it's beginning to feel like we're living under a Communist regime.
Maybe this is EU interference.
To prosecute at present, tax officials must prove a person holding income offshore has intended to evade tax.
But under a new criminal standard officials would only have to show money was taxable and undeclared.
Chancellor George Osborne said the changes would mean there was "no safe haven" for those evading tax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26998208
But it's not just about tax revenue. When a British company like Costa Coffee which pays UK tax has to compete with a foreign multinational like Starbucks which does not pay tax, surely you can see something has to be done to level the playing field?
The government be it left or right should be supporting UK businesses.
that's not true. he has done a lot to reduce evasion and avoidance.
certainly a lot more than the last government who seemed to take the view that they didn't really need the money.
Dunno, but he has done more in 4 years than the previous shower did in 13
what i can't get my head around is that people want starbucks, amazon, google, etc to pay their tax here in a countries in which they operate. yet at the same time they want vodafone, BP, shell etc. to pay their tax in the country in which they are head quartered.
pick one.
Why "pick one"? If I have two jobs I pay income tax on both incomes.
The UK economy is like a theme park, you have to pay to gain entry.
If a particular company also enjoys the facilities in another theme park, that's nice and all. But it doesn't mean they can have free entry to the UK.
And VAT is an example of this in action.
Tax systems have not kept up with a changing world economy, deliberately so I would say. It favours (yet again) the rich and powerful.
You are the clasic example of that person who creates tortuous argument to defend the selfish actions of a rich elite. You could easily work for Fox News in the US.
Do you think such rich people are special and more God-like? I wonder at your motivation.
Such people do their tax avoidance because if it's later declared to be actually tax evasion all that happens is they pay back the money.
But if they were also risking certain prison.... I very much doubt any individual would take the risk.
did you reply to the right person?
your response does not seem related to my post.
when vodafone makes a profit in spain it should pay tax on that there or here or both?
when amazon makes a profit in the uk i should pay tax here or in the USA?
Hardly a lot. In the "Swiss deal" alone his prediction was way out -
Chancellor George Osborne predicted a tax deal struck between the British and Swiss governments in 2011 would recover about £3bn in previously unpaid taxes in 2013.
Figures showed about £800m was collected last year, about a quarter of the forecasted amount
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26998208
Must do better.
If you make 100 million in Spain you pay the tax in Spain.
If you make 100 million in the UK you pay the tax in the UK.
If you want to pay all your taxes in somewhere like Luxembourg then you only operate in Luxembourg (population 500,000, so good luck with that multinationals).
Talk is cheap.
I'd agree, though even tax avoidance that turns out to be evasion once it's reviewed, isn't all the same. Some would very obviously be tax evasion after the tax man had his say, and in those cases, it should be treated on a par with evasion for the responsible person. For that to stick, you'd need it to apply to someone with financial acumen, so it might have to be the accountant, unless they can demonstrate that they definitely didn't recommend it. If so, then the person who ignored their advice takes the full force of the law.
That's £800m more than Labour managed before him.
Are you saying he should not be bothering to clamp down at all unless it can be guaranteed that the exact amount of money involved can be determined beforehand. Seems a very odd position to hold.