The hysterical over-reactions in this thread are hilarious (mind you it is the Showbiz forum so I shouldn't really be surprised) Anybody would think he had strangled a child or something.
I guarantee that some of the posters in this thread would be swayed by some of the avoidance measures if they were in his shoes, once they were told how much money they could potentially save.
What a ridiculous and offensive strawman.
He was saving tons of money, because he was making an even more indecent amount of money. To make out he was a used-car salesman, and go through all that rigmarole just to stop paying tax from money earned from the state anyway, is morally wrong, in many peoples opinion. Not in yours, fair enough, but saying anyone giving him opprobrium is equating him to a Child murderer is pathetic.
He was saving tons of money, because he was making an even more indecent amount of money. To make out he was a used-car salesman, and go through all that rigmarole just to stop paying tax from money earned from the state anyway, is morally wrong, in many peoples opinion. Not in yours, fair enough, but saying anyone giving him opprobrium is equating him to a Child murderer is pathetic.
Not as pathetic as some of the more colourful comments from posters here, and it is those being equated, not him. What difference does it make where somebody earns their money from? That's equally a ridiculous strawman.
Not as pathetic as some of the more colourful comments from posters here, and it is those being equated, not him. What difference does it make where somebody earns their money from? That's equally a ridiculous strawman.
Nope no-one has said anything approaching as ridiculous a statement as that. Saying someone should be prosecuted for wrong-doing isn't really calling someone a child-murderer. Unless I've missed some posts here. Please point me to some saying he's as bad as vile murderers. Only one over-reaction and that's from you. he's admitted to wrong-doing others go to jail for avoiding Tax, no reason why some should call for similar.
Quite frankly, I would want him prosecuted either way, so how he earnt his money is more an addendum than a Complete shift from what we're talking about. Like going on about Strangling children for instance.
Nope no-one has said anything approaching as ridiculous a statement as that. Saying someone should be prosecuted for wrong-doing isn't really calling someone a child-murderer. Unless I've missed some posts here. Please point me to some saying he's as bad as vile murderers. Only one over-reaction and that's from you. he's admitted to wrong-doing others go to jail for avoiding Tax, no reason why some should call for similar.
Quite frankly, I would want him prosecuted either way, so how he earnt his money is more an addendum than a Complete shift from what we're talking about. Like going on about Strangling children for instance.
Well, you've made a fair old meal out of that one throwaway statement, so I'll leave it with you.
The hysterical over-reactions in this thread are hilarious (mind you it is the Showbiz forum so I shouldn't really be surprised) Anybody would think he had strangled a child or something.
I guarantee that some of the posters in this thread would be swayed by some of the avoidance measures if they were in his shoes, once they were told how much money they could potentially save.
Really? Saying that a rich person who steals from the state should be punished the same way as a poor person who steals from the state means we've got him confused with a child murderer?
I know The Mail hates people on benefits, but even they don't think they are as bad as child murderers.
If people really did think that fiddling tax was as bad as child murder, do you think many of us would do it, if we thought we could get away with it?
It is possible that some people on this thread are equally dishonest. I'm sure there are many DS posters who would happily steal a million pounds if they thought they could get away with it. They'd still be criminals.
The £400,000 he tried to evade paying could have been paid a nurse for 15 years.
The Sunday Times reported as far back as 2009 about Moyles tax affairs, yet it took him 5 years to take 'responsibility'. Despite having a regular job he worked 'freelance' and could claim expenses, he also set up a company saving him further tax. But that wasn't enough for this benefits cheat he described himself as 'car salesman' to claw back another £400,000.
In 2012, it emerged that he had used the same offshore tax scheme as comedian Jimmy Carr (who was condemned as a hypocrite when publicly exposed) and was paying as little as 1 per cent tax.
I think its time people realised that there is one law for the rich and famous and another for the rest of us.
Instead of getting angry at stories like this (Moyles isn't the only one - Carr, Barlow, Robinson and thousands of others are at some sort of avoidance scam) just smile and shrug it off.
It has always been like this and it always will be. Life isn't fair. Get on with it.
I think what he did contrasts badly with the likes of what Jimmy Carr had been doing.
I can see that if my tax advisers said i should be paid through an off shore company and it was perfectly legal i would probably do that. but if they told me i had to pretend to be a second hand car sales man i would not.
I think what he did contrasts badly with the likes of what Jimmy Carr had been doing.
I can see that if my tax advisers said i should be paid through an off shore company and it was perfectly legal i would probably do that. but if they told me i had to pretend to be a second hand car sales man i would not.
You'd draw the line at wearing a sheepskin coat and trilby then?:D:D
I would take that article with a pinch of salt if I were you – the overall tone is verging more towards a character assassination being based on assumptions and rumours rather than a totally factual article. I can identify at least one thing that wouldn't make sense if you look at the wider time scale.
I think what he did contrasts badly with the likes of what Jimmy Carr had been doing.
Moyles was also involved in the exact same scheme Carr got all the grief for. As well as this.
The former is exploiting a loophole. The latter one is outright fraud, and the very definition of tax evation. Given it involved probably a third of a million to the tax man he attempted to evade, I'm at a complete loss why he isnt facing a custodial sentence.
£20k of benefit fraud gets (rightly) a year or two in prison. he should face at least the same, because it is the exact same crime (defrauding the tax payer, just at different ends of the fiscal stream)
Moyles was also involved in the exact same scheme Carr got all the grief for. As well as this.
The former is exploiting a loophole. The latter one is outright fraud, and the very definition of tax evation. Given it involved probably a third of a million to the tax man he attempted to evade, I'm at a complete loss why he isnt facing a custodial sentence.
£20k of benefit fraud gets (rightly) a year or two in prison. he should face at least the same, because it is the exact same crime (defrauding the tax payer, just at different ends of the fiscal stream)
In the ruling it does state that he declared the avoidance to HMRC on his previous returns. They tested the scheme and found it did not work as it was believed to, so he is liable to repayments, penalties and interest. It won't be classed as criminal fraud.
Moyles was also involved in the exact same scheme Carr got all the grief for. As well as this.
The former is exploiting a loophole. The latter one is outright fraud, and the very definition of tax evation. Given it involved probably a third of a million to the tax man he attempted to evade, I'm at a complete loss why he isnt facing a custodial sentence.
£20k of benefit fraud gets (rightly) a year or two in prison. he should face at least the same, because it is the exact same crime (defrauding the tax payer, just at different ends of the fiscal stream)
i agree.
my understanding is that the scheme was ruled unlawful. but the implication of this is a bit like putting in an expenses claim and having it rejected. it doesn't mean that the claim was fraudulent or criminal.
it does not however, mean that it wasn't. and saying you're a second hand car salesman when you are not is pretty clear cut to me. and he should have a trial and if found guilty go to prison.
I think what he did contrasts badly with the likes of what Jimmy Carr had been doing.
I can see that if my tax advisers said i should be paid through an off shore company and it was perfectly legal i would probably do that. but if they told me i had to pretend to be a second hand car sales man i would not.
This is how I feel, Moyles (and others who make false declarations like this on official forms) should face prosecution for fraud. This is not the same as tax avoidance which is legal (although morally wrong in my book).
I might be just being a bit thick, but I don't understand why Moyles (and any others that did the same) isn't facing serious charges. I totally get tax avoidance schemes such as offshore investment type things, setting up a company and drawing a wage etc but surely declaring yourself on an official tax form as something you blatantly are not and never have been must be illegal?
That isn't avoidance, it's blatant fraud and dishonesty. I am really puzzled. I accept many of us might avoid paying where we could but not like this!!
I was about to post exactly the same thing. How can lying to HMRC be a "loophole"?
Comments
Meanwhile, food bank usage in this country is growing apace, and god forbid a person receiving housing benefit has a 'spare room'.
Yep. The 'distance' between the rich and the poor is growing wider by the week.
What a ridiculous and offensive strawman.
He was saving tons of money, because he was making an even more indecent amount of money. To make out he was a used-car salesman, and go through all that rigmarole just to stop paying tax from money earned from the state anyway, is morally wrong, in many peoples opinion. Not in yours, fair enough, but saying anyone giving him opprobrium is equating him to a Child murderer is pathetic.
Not as pathetic as some of the more colourful comments from posters here, and it is those being equated, not him. What difference does it make where somebody earns their money from? That's equally a ridiculous strawman.
Nope no-one has said anything approaching as ridiculous a statement as that. Saying someone should be prosecuted for wrong-doing isn't really calling someone a child-murderer. Unless I've missed some posts here. Please point me to some saying he's as bad as vile murderers. Only one over-reaction and that's from you. he's admitted to wrong-doing others go to jail for avoiding Tax, no reason why some should call for similar.
Quite frankly, I would want him prosecuted either way, so how he earnt his money is more an addendum than a Complete shift from what we're talking about. Like going on about Strangling children for instance.
Well, you've made a fair old meal out of that one throwaway statement, so I'll leave it with you.
Really? Saying that a rich person who steals from the state should be punished the same way as a poor person who steals from the state means we've got him confused with a child murderer?
I know The Mail hates people on benefits, but even they don't think they are as bad as child murderers.
If people really did think that fiddling tax was as bad as child murder, do you think many of us would do it, if we thought we could get away with it?
It is possible that some people on this thread are equally dishonest. I'm sure there are many DS posters who would happily steal a million pounds if they thought they could get away with it. They'd still be criminals.
The Sunday Times reported as far back as 2009 about Moyles tax affairs, yet it took him 5 years to take 'responsibility'. Despite having a regular job he worked 'freelance' and could claim expenses, he also set up a company saving him further tax. But that wasn't enough for this benefits cheat he described himself as 'car salesman' to claw back another £400,000.
And who could forget...
Maybe someone on benefits should send him a massive FU out of respect.
This pretty much sums him up .... From today's DM
Tax avoiding, narcissistic, egocentric cretin.
Instead of getting angry at stories like this (Moyles isn't the only one - Carr, Barlow, Robinson and thousands of others are at some sort of avoidance scam) just smile and shrug it off.
It has always been like this and it always will be. Life isn't fair. Get on with it.
Instead there is a wait for an opportunity at a General Election.
Not that there is always an opportunity at a General Election... But if there is the people will take it.
I can see that if my tax advisers said i should be paid through an off shore company and it was perfectly legal i would probably do that. but if they told me i had to pretend to be a second hand car sales man i would not.
You'd draw the line at wearing a sheepskin coat and trilby then?:D:D
I would take that article with a pinch of salt if I were you – the overall tone is verging more towards a character assassination being based on assumptions and rumours rather than a totally factual article. I can identify at least one thing that wouldn't make sense if you look at the wider time scale.
Moyles was also involved in the exact same scheme Carr got all the grief for. As well as this.
The former is exploiting a loophole. The latter one is outright fraud, and the very definition of tax evation. Given it involved probably a third of a million to the tax man he attempted to evade, I'm at a complete loss why he isnt facing a custodial sentence.
£20k of benefit fraud gets (rightly) a year or two in prison. he should face at least the same, because it is the exact same crime (defrauding the tax payer, just at different ends of the fiscal stream)
In the ruling it does state that he declared the avoidance to HMRC on his previous returns. They tested the scheme and found it did not work as it was believed to, so he is liable to repayments, penalties and interest. It won't be classed as criminal fraud.
i agree.
my understanding is that the scheme was ruled unlawful. but the implication of this is a bit like putting in an expenses claim and having it rejected. it doesn't mean that the claim was fraudulent or criminal.
it does not however, mean that it wasn't. and saying you're a second hand car salesman when you are not is pretty clear cut to me. and he should have a trial and if found guilty go to prison.
This is how I feel, Moyles (and others who make false declarations like this on official forms) should face prosecution for fraud. This is not the same as tax avoidance which is legal (although morally wrong in my book).
No problem if it means I can gain another £100,000 or more cheers
I was about to post exactly the same thing. How can lying to HMRC be a "loophole"?