HMRC targets Etsy, eBay and Gumtree sellers

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I was referring (obviously I thought but hey ho) to large corporate scale tax avoidance that article appears to imply it's targeted small scale / time avoiders I've only quickly scanned the article however so happy to be corrected

It is impossible to prosecute anyone (including large corporations) for tax avoidance, large scale or otherwise.Once prosecutions become possible then we are talking about evasion and the figures I gave show that HMRC have prosecuted record numbers of people during the last parliament

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, considering some of the posts, HMRC could recoup a fortune with a "talking bolleaux" tax*.

HMRC are going after people who run businesses but don't declare this as income, not Joe Public with occasional sales....

(*I would probably be on the Higher Rate....)

Probably

---------- Post added at 06:34 ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

So if l decide to sell some of my prized DVD collection l am fine then Hugh?.

Not that prized then...

---------- Post added at 06:36 ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I'm a damn site sure than they are not as large as the massive corporations who are avoiding paying their fair share as well as non doms etc.

Shame they don't make as much effort going after them, after all how many successful prosecutions were there in the last parliamentary term ?

The answer by the way, is 1

Why can't we go after both? Is targeting one group going to be at the expense of another.

---------- Post added at 06:39 ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

It is impossible to prosecute anyone (including large corporations) for tax avoidance, large scale or otherwise.Once prosecutions become possible then we are talking about evasion and the figures I gave show that HMRC have prosecuted record numbers of people during the last parliament

How about we stop giving corporations these cushy little deals that mean they actually pay less than they should've if they'd paid the taxes due, hit them hard imo if they're found to be trying it on aggressively

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Probably

---------- Post added at 06:34 ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 ----------



Not that prized then...

---------- Post added at 06:36 ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 ----------



Why can't we go after both? Is targeting one group going to be at the expense of another.

---------- Post added at 06:39 ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 ----------



How about we stop giving corporations these cushy little deals that mean they actually pay less than they should've if they'd paid the taxes due, hit them hard imo if they're found to be trying it on aggressively

If there are the resources to go after both sets then yes I agree completely but if there was a choice to be made I would rather see the large corporations chased first

[tweetiepooh]

I guess you also need to take into the account of "prosecution" compared to the amount recovered.

But our laws, by the nature of our legal system, will always be complex. It would be nice to simply say you pay n% of earnings and that's it but there are exceptions with exceptions and folk will always try to pay less by using loop holes and exceptions so these have to be defined very precisely.

Well, governments will insist on using tax as a means of incentivising or disincentivising certain behaviours. If they would simply collect a proportion of wealth generated in order to fund essential state services, life would be much easier. But they don't, and a lot of HMRC's time is spent deliberating whether someone is behaving as the system encourages them to, or if they are hiding their tax liability and should therefore be pursued.

As usual where the Internets are concerned, a lot of people seem to think they are entitled to something for nothing, whereas money earned by an online business is just as taxable as money earned by a high street shop.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

How about we stop giving corporations these cushy little deals that mean they actually pay less than they should've if they'd paid the taxes due, hit them hard imo if they're found to be trying it on aggressively

I am a big fan of a single rate of tax for everyone ,including corporations .It would be easier to manage and grey areas would be wiped out at a stroke ,but as Chris says below ,governments tend to use tax rates for a variety of reasons.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

I am a big fan of a single rate of tax for everyone ,including corporations .It would be easier to manage and grey areas would be wiped out at a stroke ,but as Chris says below ,governments tend to use tax rates for a variety of reasons.

There is no grey area, certainly not from where I was typing, from what little I've seen it seems to me that HMRC concludes a company is taking the mick, court cases drag on for years, normally being found in HMRC's favour only to then have the cushy little deals kick in, these companies run rings round us and end up paying less than they would've if they'd been paying what was due in the first place, the bare minimum we should expect is that they pay back everything they owe with interest.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

As usual where the Internets are concerned, a lot of people seem to think they are entitled to something for nothing, whereas money earned by an online business is just as taxable as money earned by a high street shop.

With considerably fewer overheads, they didn't know when they were well of, after decimating the high street they are getting far less than they deserve.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There is no grey area, .

Of course there is ,tax law is absolutely awash with grey areas, that's how these tax avoidance schemes come about in the first place,they utilise grey areas to avoid paying tax ,HMRC have to spend an awful lot of time and money trying to decide if a company is taking the mick or acting within the law .Companies have an obligation to minimise there tax liability as long as it's done within the law ,the problem is that sometimes the law is as clear as mud

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Of course there is ,tax law is absolutely awash with grey areas, that's how these tax avoidance schemes come about in the first place,they utilise grey areas to avoid paying tax ,HMRC have to spend an awful lot of time and money trying to decide if a company is taking the mick or acting within the law .Companies have an obligation to minimise there tax liability as long as it's done within the law ,the problem is that sometimes the law is as clear as mud

As stated that's not the issue, the issue is even in the most aggressive cases it's in their interest to try it on because the tax man is so wet he'll do a deal with them after court has found in our favour that equates to the company not even paying back the amount that should have been due in the first place. Let alone without interest being added for the years it dragged on.

[Osem]

Very true Marty. Exploiting 'grey areas' is a large part of what being a lawyer or an accountant is all about. These rules are not simple or unequivocal so there's always plenty of room for 'interpretation' and only the courts can decide whether something's actually illegal or not. Even when they do rule there are often lengthy appeals and new judgements all of which goes to show just how difficult it is.

Can't George Osbourne just take them out for lunch and sort it that way worked so well with big corporation's.