Free Jimmy Carr

[pboyles]

Apart from some second hand jokes and that strange look what did he do wrong? Any tax laws broken? If so prove it, if not leave him alone.

 

[robster970]

Nothing.

But when did that stop the censorial British press from deciding that somebody was 'doing wrong'?

A few weeks ago on the Today programme, they tried having a go at Philip Green. The day after, they issued an apology to both him and his wife.

Obviously the lawyers got on the blower and the BBC backed down. Notice how that didn't make front page news :whistling

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Possibly underpaying tax under the dreadedly toothless IR35 legislation lol.Otherwise he's basically just elected to book his gains in a private company and pay CT rate on them until he decides to distribute - which he'll undoubtedly do through a shifty off-shore loan/pensions/trust deal to swerve income and repatriation.

In short, he's not doing anything that a lot of TV personalities do. I used to have a list of some of the more well-known ones that do it but I've no idea why he's been singled out.

Example http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/910439817

There'll be a limited co partner in there somewhere too for further messing around.

 

[counter_violent]

Apart from some second hand jokes and that strange look what did he do wrong? Any tax laws broken? If so prove it, if not leave him alone.

I guess tangling with the revenue will rule him out of the England job then.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

His brother runs a hedge fund, wait until the press get hold of that...imagine: evil siblings. They could be the new Kray twins.

 

[R.Charnock]

No thanks, I've had enough of him already.

 

[YouAreNotFree]

Is it any wonder when they try to sqeeze 50% out of you?

 

[YouAreNotFree]

Jimmy Carr: 'I've made a terrible error of judgement' - Telegraph

He's a fool, unless he believes it will adversely affect his career here.

 

[trendie]

Is it any wonder when they try to sqeeze 50% out of you?

Paying corptax of about 20% is more than enough.
any way of reducing that even further? :cheesy:
any good schemes?

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Apparently he's a Jersey trust so he''ll be paying in the region of 0 to 10% at a serious push

 

[robster970]

Jimmy Carr: 'I've made a terrible error of judgement' - Telegraph

He's a fool, unless he believes it will adversely affect his career here.

Unfortunately he has probably figured out that waging a one man crusade on this is likely to affect his audience size/ticket sales so a bit of damage limitation is the canny way to go about it.

Just goes to show how the press/media bully their own moral agenda into life rather than reporting what people are saying or doing.

 

[markmc27]

So is David Cameron going to repay his inheritance now

New Statesman - Cameron under fire for family's tax avoidance

 

[rsh01]

The majority of contractors in finance industry in london go through similar tax efficient schemes, DMS is one such outfit.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

Paying corptax of about 20% is more than enough.
any way of reducing that even further? :cheesy:
any good schemes?

Increasing expenditure/investment on plant and equipment and other operating necessities and amenities that benefit any chosen group of people within the business is a good way to pay no corporation tax on the amount involved.

 

[The Leopard]

Apart from some second hand jokes and that strange look what did he do wrong? Any tax laws broken? If so prove it, if not leave him alone.

Well, in fact there has been a principle in place for some years now that if there are a series of transactions or measures taken purely for the avoidance of tax then these will not be effective. This has been confirmed in numerous court cases. It doesn't matter whether all the steps are themselves legal, HMRC is able to look at the whole.

This particular scheme, if it is what the newspapers are reporting, would not be effective in my opinion. Frankly I was pretty amazed, I thought things like this had disappeared some time ago, and HMRC have successfully challenged and shut down things working on the same principle.

In this case you have a UK resident with UK earnings routing them through I imagine a company (ie, people don't hire or pay Jimmy Carr, they hire or pay Jimmy Carr Ltd) held in an offshore trust. The company then loans Jimmy Carr the individual the money.

If so, this is in clear violation - the sole purpose of these arrangements is to avoid tax. I'm not commenting on whether this is right or wrong.

If this is all it is - basically a loan-based scheme - it will almost certainly not be effective for tax purposes. It sounds like a very simple and actually quite old idea that has been around for a long time, and I thought that HMRC had effectively squashed them.

Either there's rather more to this than the papers have reported, or else I think some people are likely to get a large tax bill.

 

[Trader333]

I think his error in judgment is more to do with having a go at "Fat Cat Bankers" and then doing the very same thing. Also the issue is one of morality and not legality and iirc he pays around 1% in tax. If everyone in the uk adopted the same approach we would be in an infinitely worse situation than even Greece is in. In my view it is about being greedy and it will probably come back to haunt him as he will now become the target of all those anti -tax avoidance protesters which could make his life an utter misery.

 

[The Leopard]

Just dug up one of my old text books.

The key case was MacNiven Vs Westmoreland Investments (2001), which established that tax avoidance, even if legal, was not necessarily acceptable or effective for the purposes intended.

The principle that I referred to in the post above is an old one. A number of cases from the early 80s established that where a taxpayer enters into a preordained series of transactions that includes one or more steps that have no commercial purpose other than tax avoidance, those steps, and their tax consequences, can be ignored for tax purposes.

If you want to look into this further it's known as the Ramsay principle.

 

[The Leopard]

I think his error in judgment is more to do with having a go at "Fat Cat Bankers" and then doing the very same thing. Also the issue is one of morality and not legality and iirc he pays around 1% in tax. If everyone in the uk adopted the same approach we would be in an infinitely worse situation than Greece. In my view it is about being greedy and it will probably haunt him as he will now become the target of all those anti -tax avoidance protesters which could make his life an utter misery.

I agree with you but as I point out above I believe the issue is also one of legality - or more accurately, whether something illegal has occurred or not, the schemes used to shelter is earnings are not effective and he has therefore paid less tax than he should have done.

Of course, I could be wrong about the scheme, although I note that HMRC already has it under investigation. In such matters that's usually game over - either they shut it down, go to court and win, or go to court and lose, in which case they just get the law changed anyway.

 

[YouAreNotFree]

I think his error in judgment is more to do with having a go at "Fat Cat Bankers" and then doing the very same thing. Also the issue is one of morality and not legality and iirc he pays around 1% in tax. If everyone in the uk adopted the same approach we would be in an infinitely worse situation than even Greece is in. In my view it is about being greedy and it will probably come back to haunt him as he will now become the target of all those anti -tax avoidance protesters which could make his life an utter misery.

When the government begins taxing its citizenry at the same rate, and does not punish those who are more successful, then they can start talking about morality.

Not to mention all of those who recieve something for nothing.

The greediest SOB is the government. Whatever they steal from us is never enough.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

@ Leopard

It's legal because of what they do with they money. They don't repatriate any more as they use some sketchy loan thing where he'll owe the trust