Tax Avoidance 101: Investing in British film

[Guest]

A furious piece by Marina Hyde on why so many dodgy British films have been made in the recent past - and it's all down to tax avoidance!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/tax-avoidance-secret-bad-british-film

Just don't ask me (or Marina) to explain the details (ahinton will be along in moment, I'm sure )

Apols ahinton - cheap shot!

[Paul Sherratt]

Thanks amateur. The piece is no doubt full of inaccuracies but was a jolly good read with coffee.

[scottycelt]

Well, we can't have poor Marina becoming furious, now,can we ... ?

Interesting, though, Ams ... I suspect there are many different ways of avoiding (or paying less) tax, it's just that a person/company needs to have quite a bit of money to begin with and have access to the proper legal advice.

I have to confess at cringing at Cameron's comments about Jimmy Carr. If any sort of method of paying less tax is legal it is a bit rich (sorry!) to then accuse someone taking advantage of that as being 'immoral'. Is purchasing the full legal amount of tax-free spirits at an airport or hopping across to Calais for similar items also 'immoral'?

Carr can certainly be accused of 'hypocrisy' ... let's face it we all can to a greater or lesser degree ... and one cannot help but wonder if Cameron himself has always paid his full whack of tax throughout his life?

In any case, isn't Cameron the Prime Minister? ... what about having a word with Nick and then introducing legislation to finally outlaw all of these ridiculous schemes?

Now there's an idea!

[Lateralthinking1]

Is purchasing the full legal amount of tax-free spirits at an airport or hopping across to Calais for similar items also 'immoral'?

No because in the house of tax policy built by the Government, that is leaving by the front door. It isn't drilling through a floor in the middle of night and finding an underground basement all the way to Jersey.

There is very little connection between morality and the law. Ask the Suffragettes or those who fled from the Nazis. Some of us are simply asking people to be moral, ie stop killing people by saving tax.

I agree that politicians aren't in a position to lecture here and need to sort out the laws. Some of us mean what we say by the latter. Some say it hoping that it can't be done or won't be done and knowing it sounds good.

The Chinese are recouping huge amounts with new laws on tax avoidance. In 2011, they scrapped the death penalty for tax evasion. A pity. I think they were right with their policy in 2010 although I oppose the death penalty for all other matters.

[amateur51]

The Chinese are recouping huge amounts with new laws on tax avoidance. In 2011, they scrapped the death penalty for tax evasion. A pity. I think they were right with their policy in 2010 although I oppose the death penalty for all other matters.

I was just about to type a supportive note Lats, when I realised that the rich would channel the scheme through your account or mine for a modest fee, only to see us hang by mistake

[amateur51]

Well, we can't have poor Marina becoming furious, now,can we ... ?

I think you'll find she's the genuine voice of the good people of Auchtermuchty de nos jours, scotty

[scottycelt]

No because in the house of tax policy built by the Government, that is leaving by the front door. It isn't drilling through a floor in the middle of night and finding an underground basement all the way to Jersey.

There is very little connection between morality and the law. Ask the Suffragettes or those who fled from the Nazis. Some of us are simply asking people to be moral, ie stop killing people by saving tax.

I agree that politicians aren't in a position to lecture here and need to sort out the laws. Some of us mean what we say by the latter. Some say it hoping that it can't be done or won't be done and knowing it sounds good.

The Chinese are recouping huge amounts with new laws on tax avoidance. In 2011, they scrapped the death penalty for tax evasion. A pity. I think they were right with their policy in 2010 although I oppose the death penalty for all other matters.

Well, yes, I'm aware that the law doesn't have to be particularly 'moral', Lat ...

On the other hand, paying the least possible tax legally doesn't strike me as being particularly 'immoral' either. It cannot be compared to the undoubtedly immoral and illegal fiddling of expenses by some of our MPs?

I'm not supporting these tax schemes, of course they should be made illegal, and Cameron, instead of pontificating about other people's 'morality', has the real power to do something about them!

[Lateralthinking1]

I was just about to type a supportive note Lats, when I realised that the rich would channel the scheme through your account or mine for a modest fee, only to see us hang by mistake

See it, ams, as poetic licence. The kind that matches that being used in arguments defending tax avoidance but with none of the devastating consequences. And to demonstrate the level of seriousness involved.

We really need to start asking the question in infant schools - "if someone has a secret £8m and is entertaining and another has nothing and is being entertained, is the worth of the entertainer equal simply to the level of demand or would his true value be linked to awareness of the amount the entertainer has and any consequential falling off of demand"?

The question would obviously be asked with reference to tax paid at 1% and the number of deaths that equated to. Let's have the income placed on the screen during every programme and in the corner scenes from the NHS at its most fraught.

The 'non show business' part of both business and show business is currently being run on severing cause and effect. There is a pacific ocean between (a) good luck to him - everybody would do it and (b) isn't it terrible how people can barely pay for X,Y and Z. Often existing in the same minds, that is another definition of media, a vacuous space where nothing ironically connects.

Governments create that vacuum knowing that it will spread as quickly as grape hyacinth. Eventually, people convince themselves it looks pretty wonderful.

As Michael White pointed out this week, Elizabeth Warren is right. S-O-C-I-A-L-C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T equals Social Contract.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The defence of this libertarian is (a) she is a socialist or an extreme liberal and (b) hundreds of years ago, private enterprise built the roads and the railways, most needed subsidies and most went bankrupt. On the second point, yes, precisely. He has just defeated his own non argument - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glvkL...eature=related

[Lateralthinking1]

On the other hand, paying the least possible tax legally doesn't strike me as being particularly 'immoral' either. It cannot be compared to the undoubtedly immoral and illegal fiddling of expenses by some of our MPs?

I have said before on this forum scottycelt that the fiddling of expenses was the one issue that sent any faith I had in MPs crashing. Far more so than even the economic bungling. It was the combination of the two that was lethal to democracy.

For what it is worth - nothing financial obviously - I keep the Telegraph's detailed publication to hand and remind anyone who has a modicum of interest what individual MPs did or didn't do. This is particularly the case when they are on a high horse. Most, of course, did not break the law but that technical distinction wasn't accepted, rightly, by the public so why the difference here? Personal interests! To this day, I tolerate Ed Miliband purely on the basis that he was one of the few so-called saints.

For the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Lily Allen. What is happening is far worse than benefit cheating, not that I support the latter in any way, and yet it is only benefit cheating that is against the law.

The almost universal hits being made at Cameron this week are only an either/or for those who want to hit a cross court volley. It is all the same game. I could deal with those who have a fundamental and coherent opposition to perceived state interference across the board. But Dennis Thatcher was bailed out by the tax payer. Ever since, it has been cherry picking all the way.

[scottycelt]

I have said before on this forum scottycelt that the fiddling of expenses was the one issue that sent any faith I had in MPs crashing. Far more so than even the economic bungling. It was the combination of the two that was lethal to democracy.

For what it is worth - nothing financial obviously - I keep the Telegraph's detailed publication to hand and remind anyone who has a modicum of interest what individual MPs did or didn't do. This is particularly the case when they are on a high horse. Most, of course, did not break the law but that technical distinction wasn't accepted, rightly, by the public so why the difference here? Personal interests! To this day, I tolerate Ed Miliband purely on the basis that he was one of the few so-called saints.

For the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Lily Allen. What is happening is far worse than benefit cheating, not that I support the latter in any way, and yet it is only benefit cheating that is against the law.

The almost universal hits being made at Cameron this week are only an either/or for those who want to hit a cross court volley. It is all the same game. I could deal with those who have a fundamental and coherent opposition to perceived state interference across the board. But Dennis Thatcher was bailed out by the tax payer. Ever since, it has been cherry picking all the way.

I think you'll find that those MPs who fiddled their expenses, and were caught, did break the law which is why some went to prison! I really don't know what you mean by 'a cross court volley' in this instance. I had to google 'Lily Allen' to find out who she was and what she said. I'm sure Ms Allen is whiter-than-white when it comes to her own finances and is an example to the rest of us, but benefit cheats steal .. legal tax-reducing schemes, however much we may disapprove of them, are not stealing.

I repeat ... it's not people like Carr that should be hounded, but Cameron for having the power to do something about his sudden and politically-convenient 'moral' concern about the rich 'dodging their tax responsibilities'.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think you'll find that those MPs who fiddled their expenses, and were caught, did break the law which is why some went to prison!

Yes indeed. Was it four out of 600? I think there were 50 saints.

I really don't know what you mean by 'a cross court volley' in this instance........it's not people like Carr that should be hounded, but Cameron for having the power to do something about his sudden and politically-convenient 'moral' concern about the rich 'dodging their tax responsibilities'.

Carr was the "exposed by the media" opponent. Others said that Cameron was the real opponent and sitting at the net. They were - and are - trying to turn the court at right angles. Both are equally opponents in my book.

The private sector argues that it is capable of self-regulation and hence doesn't need excessive regulating. We used to see in my line of work how explosives were placed in packaging that went far beyond the legal requirements because it was in the industry's own interests to do so. We need to get to the same state of affairs in light entertainment. That won't happen as long as the general public find downright perverse examples of victimhood and plead on their behalves.

I had to google 'Lily Allen'

I wouldn't be paid to own one of her records. However, I'm pleased to see that she has inherited some of her father's maverick malevolence. It is more often than not well placed and dodgy types wouldn't want to bump into him on a dark night (or her).

steal

....awful, genuinely, but given the amounts involved, they are mostly not involved in indirect premeditated murder. There is no poetic licence in the last sentence. People are dying because of insufficient money for our support services.

[scottycelt]

Yes indeed. Was it four out of 600? I think there were 50 saints.



Carr was the "exposed by the media" opponent. Others said that Cameron was the real opponent and sitting at the net. They were - and are - trying to turn the court at right angles. Both are equally opponents in my book.

The private sector argues that it is capable of self-regulation and hence doesn't need excessive regulating. We used to see in my line of work how explosives were placed in packaging that went far beyond the legal requirements because it was in the industry's own interests to do so. We need to get to the same state of affairs in light entertainment. That won't happen as long as the general public find downright perverse examples of victimhood and plead on their behalves.



I wouldn't be paid to own one of her records. However, I'm pleased to see that she has inherited some of her father's maverick malevolence. It is more often than not well placed and dodgy types wouldn't want to bump into him on a dark night (or her).



....awful, genuinely, but given the amounts involved, they are mostly not involved in indirect premeditated murder. There is no poetic licence in the last sentence. People are dying because of insufficient money for our support services.

So now these perfectly legal 'tax-avoidance' schemes are akin to 'indirect premeditated murder' ..?

Best leave it at that, I think, Lat ...

[Lateralthinking1]

So now these perfectly legal 'tax-avoidance' schemes are akin to 'indirect premeditated murder' ..?

Yes absolutely. There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind.

Tax avoiders who vehemently oppose tax evasion need to ask themselves whether their vehemence on the awfulness of evasion is:

(a) purely about other people breaking the law, just like dropping a sweet wrapper on the pavement or

(b) also about the human importance of protecting hospitals, schools, the disabled, the elderly, the poor etc.

If there is any element of (b) at all, then the rigid and exclusive defence of avoidance on strictly legal grounds is tripe.

(I pledge here that if I win £5m on the lottery, I will immediately hand over voluntarily £3m to the Government with no strings attached. They may well use some of the money for all kinds of terrible things but, on balance, it would also help the severely disadvantaged through the prism of democracy, so far as we have it. And it would be devoid of selfishness and ego. Incidentally, I have no handed down religion although I have my own version of a faith. In some ways, it is basic common sense.)

[Vile Consort]

I would be very surprised if the K2 scheme that Carr was using is found to be legal. It involved lying about the nature of the payment being made - i.e. saying it was a loan when clearly it was nothing of the kind.

[french frank]

If any sort of method of paying less tax is legal it is a bit rich (sorry!) to then accuse someone taking advantage of that as being 'immoral'.

But morality and legality aren't the same thing: there's no general law against telling lies or deceiving people, for instance. However, in this case it probably has more to do with stupidity than immorality: he really didn't realise it was a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.