Free Jimmy Carr

The Leopard said:
Looks like he's decided to do the mea culpa:

I've made a terrible error of judgment': Comic Jimmy Carr apologises and pulls out of off-shore 'tax avoidance' scheme | Mail Online
Click to expand...


I was offered this option when I was contracting by another friend who did take it up. I declined on integrity grounds preferring to pay more tax (and I'm sincere about this).

Crux of it was that they pay you in loans and then write the loans off as bad debt. That's the scam effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if they offset their losses against capital gains else where either.

It is fraud and I'm surprised - or surprised not, it exists.

Some call it creative legal accounting. That's just b0ll0cks spellt incorrectly imho... ;)
 
Dear old Jimmy should be busy rehearsing put-downs for all those hecklers he's going to get at his shows.

8 out of 10 Fat Cats.

PS: I agree with Atilla. Nothing wrong with avoiding tax, but don't take the p1ss. 20% is fine. 1% isn't. Ultimately, we're paying for social cohesion.
 
Atilla said:
I was offered this option when I was contracting by another friend who did take it up. I declined on integrity grounds preferring to pay more tax (and I'm sincere about this).

Crux of it was that they pay you in loans and then write the loans off as bad debt. That's the scam effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if they offset their losses against capital gains else where either.

It is fraud and I'm surprised - or surprised not, it exists.

Some call it creative legal accounting. That's just b0ll0cks spellt incorrectly imho... ;)
Click to expand...

nah they're the old ones. They shut those down when Beckham was still at Man U ;)
 
trendie said:
Dear old Jimmy should be busy rehearsing put-downs for all those hecklers he's going to get at his shows.

8 out of 10 Fat Cats.

PS: I agree with Atilla. Nothing wrong with avoiding tax, but don't take the p1ss. 20% is fine. 1% isn't. Ultimately, we're paying for social cohesion.
Click to expand...

pretty much where I am at. I am happy paying 20% but no more otherwise I am off. Tax is largely optional if you are HNW and it depends on how aggressive you want to be with it. I believe every citizen has a sense of duty and Carr took the pi55 with it. He could have paid 10 to 20% there was no need to screw it down to the floor. FFS.
 
Just thinking aloud, but might it be possible that debts to the trust could be an effective way of reducing any IHT liability?

Trust lends you money, you don't pay it back, so you've got a debt on death which reduces your estate. Depending on the type of trust (and I don't know how it works in Jersey or if they're different in any way to ones on the mainland) if you could make your beneficiaries beneficiaries of the trust, your estate pays back the loan to the trust, which then distributes those assets to your beneficiaries.
 
The Leopard said:
Just thinking aloud, but might it be possible that debts to the trust could be an effective way of reducing any IHT liability?

Trust lends you money, you don't pay it back, so you've got a debt on death which reduces your estate. Depending on the type of trust (and I don't know how it works in Jersey or if they're different in any way to ones on the mainland) if you could make your beneficiaries beneficiaries of the trust, your estate pays back the loan to the trust, which then distributes those assets to your beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

leopardo

IHT is entirely optional, planning ahead via a decent IHT specialist is all it takes. easiest way is to give everything away and survive for 7 years. easy. the difficulties come when you want to retain control over your assets then you need to get inventive.
 
ChocolateDigestive said:
pretty much where I am at. I am happy paying 20% but no more otherwise I am off. Tax is largely optional if you are HNW and it depends on how aggressive you want to be with it. I believe every citizen has a sense of duty and Carr took the pi55 with it. He could have paid 10 to 20% there was no need to screw it down to the floor. FFS.
Click to expand...

CD, good post, but in many ways I can't really agree with this viewpoint. Seems a bit like sitting on the fence. If you're going to avoid tax, then avoid it as best you can. Do everything in your life optimally if possible. If your concern is for society and you believe in doing your fair share tax-wise, then pay what everyone else pays, or pay more. Aiming for some sort of middle ground 20% that you deem to be a correct amount (because you are the arbiter of what should be paid in tax?) is just pretending to yourself you're moral and doing your bit, while attempting to pay less than others. You're avoiding or you're not. I kinda agree with you, 20% seems very reasonable, but I can't really justify it. Who is to say that is a fair amount? Because you and I feel that 20% reasonable? What about if Jimmy Carr pays 1% of his 3 million earnings, and I pay 20% of my 100k earnings. He's still contributing more than me. It's very difficult to slam him morally if he's contributing to society more than I am (or very easy depending on your stance).

I don't think Carr has done anything immoral, I don't think you CD, or anyone else protecting themselves and paying less tax where legally available has done anything wrong either. The laws are set, and not by us, and we work within them. What is wrong is that morally bankrupt politicians (or even newspapers) talk about the morals of this issue to score political points, while pocketing cash on the side. They should be ashamed. And if it is a real concern, they should fix these laws, and this wouldn't be an issue. Then again, when I see that they write off 10 billion+ in taxes from various companies, I don't think the Jimmy Carr types are much of an issue to them.
 
trendie said:
Dear old Jimmy should be busy rehearsing put-downs for all those hecklers he's going to get at his shows.

8 out of 10 Fat Cats.

PS: I agree with Atilla. Nothing wrong with avoiding tax, but don't take the p1ss. 20% is fine. 1% isn't. Ultimately, we're paying for social cohesion.
Click to expand...

Why is 20% fine? Who says? What if I pay 40% and you pay 20%. That fair?
 
Shakone said:
CD, good post, but in many ways I can't really agree with this viewpoint. Seems a bit like sitting on the fence. If you're going to avoid tax, then avoid it as best you can. Do everything in your life optimally if possible. If your concern is for society and you believe in doing your fair share tax-wise, then pay what everyone else pays, or pay more. Aiming for some sort of middle ground 20% that you deem to be a correct amount (because you are the arbiter of what should be paid in tax?) is just pretending to yourself you're moral and doing your bit, while attempting to pay less than others. You're avoiding or you're not. I kinda agree with you, 20% seems very reasonable, but I can't really justify it. Who is to say that is a fair amount? Because you and I feel that 20% reasonable? What about if Jimmy Carr pays 1% of his 3 million earnings, and I pay 20% of my 100k earnings. He's still contributing more than me. It's very difficult to slam him morally if he's contributing to society more than I am (or very easy depending on your stance).

I don't think Carr has done anything immoral, I don't think you CD, or anyone else protecting themselves and paying less tax where legally available has done anything wrong either. The laws are set, and not by us, and we work within them. What is wrong is that morally bankrupt politicians (or even newspapers) talk about the morals of this issue to score political points, while pocketing cash on the side. They should be ashamed. And if it is a real concern, they should fix these laws, and this wouldn't be an issue. Then again, when I see that they write off 10 billion+ in taxes from various companies, I don't think the Jimmy Carr types are much of an issue to them.
Click to expand...


Fair points but key approach for me is on ethics of taxation. If peopel earning equal amounts income pay equal rate of tax then people earning unequal amounts should pay unequal levels of taxation.

The debate lies in the approach, which boils down to weather one opts for;
a. Regressive - pay less % T as Y income rises
b. Flat rate - pay same % T irrespective of Y
c. Aggressive - pay higher % T on higher Y
What ever option is chosen it should be applied to all people equally. That's fair.


Re: Carr - he wasn't taking out a loan or debt he was earning income. Thus, to receive it as debt/loan whatever is effictively fraud in my book and shouldn't be allowed. It's pure abuse of system.
 
IHT

Giving away you assets has massive capital gains implications. You can get gift relief but the piper has to be paid one day when the assets are sold.

Paying into trusts attracts loads of tax. It used to be tax effective for IHT purposes but they closed it down. Offshore doesn't work either as IHT captures worldwide assets for UK dociles :)
 
Atilla said:
Fair points but key approach for me is on ethics of taxation. If peopel earning equal amounts income pay equal rate of tax then people earning unequal amounts should pay unequal levels of taxation.

The debate lies in the approach, which boils down to weather one opts for;
a. Regressive - pay less % T as Y income rises
b. Flat rate - pay same % T irrespective of Y
c. Aggressive - pay higher % T on higher Y
What ever option is chosen it should be applied to all people equally. That's fair.


Re: Carr - he wasn't taking out a loan or debt he was earning income. Thus, to receive it as debt/loan whatever is effictively fraud in my book and shouldn't be allowed. It's pure abuse of system.
Click to expand...


I agree, everyone should be paying equally according to the rules, but I don't think it's ever been the case in practice. And this doesn't seem fair. But lots of things don't seem fair. And when things are unfair, and you didn't make the rules, then you look after yourself first and foremost, because nobody else will.

I also agree it seems like fraud. But then I think recklessly printing money, which reduces the value of the money we have is fraud against the population. The credit crunch involved quite a lot of 'legal' fraud imo too, and the list could go on. This does not defend Jimmy Carr ethically, but I just don't like the hypocrisy, and see a man being hung out to dry for staying in the rules that some idiot elsewhere devised.
 
scose-no-doubt said:
IHT

Giving away you assets has massive capital gains implications. You can get gift relief but the piper has to be paid one day when the assets are sold.

Paying into trusts attracts loads of tax. It used to be tax effective for IHT purposes but they closed it down. Offshore doesn't work either as IHT captures worldwide assets for UK dociles :)
Click to expand...

Well, it can do, depending. Domicile is tricky as first there is no definition and second one can now be deemed domicile even if domiciled elsewhere, for example if one has been resident 17 out of the last 20 years. There is also now deemed resident, presumably to put an end to fairly simple dodges involving offshore investments like bonds and becoming non-resident for short periods of time.

You can get entry, exit and periodic charges in discretionary trusts of course, depending on the amounts paid in. My point though wasn't about trusts as such but rather the value in creating a debt on the estate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oiltanker
Trading with Moscow Rules
Replies
8
Views
2K
montmorencyt2w
M
T
Trading from Euroland
Replies
2
Views
2K
Hittfeld
H
A
Selling a strategy & Ethics
Replies
5
Views
2K
DaveJB
D
A
US Taxes on Forex profits
Replies
8
Views
6K
Depth Trade
Depth Trade
C
Commentary on our country
Replies
1
Views
2K
SOCRATES
SOCRATES
Top