Would it be a good idea to practice tax evasion?

arabianights

Legendary member
Messages
6,721
Likes
1,380
Right, so far as I can understand even for wilful, blatant tax evasion the most that can be charged for evading tax (as a penalty) is 100% of the tax due, i.e. if £160 000 was due then £320 000 + interest would be due.

So in theory, as a form of regulatory arbitrage, if I can return more than 100% per annum I should evade tax, right? In fact I don't even need to return that, as if I can assume I can get away with it for a couple of years before being noticed I will have done even better.

On another note, how is tax any different to mafia protection money, except civil servants don't wear as sharp suits?
 
But any profit would be taxable so you'd owe more the next year.

(i guess you're talking more than the ISA allowance!)
 
tax and the mafia, interesting concept reminds me about Al Capone who was responsible for loads of deaths and numerous racketering charges ....but what did he go to jail for? tax evasion ...but on a lighter note swiss bank accounts are always popular with criminal minded folk ;) they even protect your money from other criminal minded folk with retina scans if its a large amount :eek: :LOL:
 
Last edited:
so far as I can understand even for wilful, blatant tax evasion the most that can be charged for evading tax (as a penalty) is 100% of the tax due

You have omitted to add:

"plus jail sentence"

In which time you would not be able to earn anything and would still be liable for any tax owed plus interest. This would probably bankrupt you and then you would find it almost impossible to start again.


Paul
 
Christ, the system really does work to keep you in chains doesn't it?

LOL, on an unrelated note, this question reminds me of a professor that began the class
with the question, 'Has anyone here ever stolen electricity'? I don't recall anyone confessing.
Or for that matter what his intent was, maybe he was looking for creative ways to lower
his utility bills?
 
Last edited:
Right, so far as I can understand even for wilful, blatant tax evasion the most that can be charged for evading tax (as a penalty) is 100% of the tax due, i.e. if £160 000 was due then £320 000 + interest would be due.

So in theory, as a form of regulatory arbitrage, if I can return more than 100% per annum I should evade tax, right? In fact I don't even need to return that, as if I can assume I can get away with it for a couple of years before being noticed I will have done even better.

On another note, how is tax any different to mafia protection money, except civil servants don't wear as sharp suits?

Of course they have to prove that you "wilfully" evaded tax to prosecute... I asked the same question to my accountant after doing some consultancy work... he reckoned that nearly always that you only have to Pay up what you owe and thats the end of it...

There are many people not declaring stuff on buy to let properties etc etc... they will just carry on not paying until they are caught... then they pay what the owe.. having had the Gross amount for as many years as possible.

This is why PAYE is such a scam, it is not open to interpretation !! or argument.. you just get milked at source...

:devilish:
 
LOL, on an unrelated note, this question reminds me of a professor that began the class
with the question, 'Has anyone here ever stolen electricity'? I don't recall anyone confessing.
Or for that matter what his intent was, maybe he was looking for creative ways to lower
his utility bills?

i steal electricity and gas :)
 
So in theory, as a form of regulatory arbitrage, if I can return more than 100% per annum I should evade tax, right? In fact I don't even need to return that, as if I can assume I can get away with it for a couple of years before being noticed I will have done even better.

In theory paying tax will only limit future returns if your use of margin is maxed out.

If you take out 18% to pay CGT you can still carry on trading like it was still there if you have enough margin headroom.
 
Hi

Last year i cocked up my tax return and managed to put down that I earned about 7000 less than I actually did.

At christmas I got a letter off them asked to confirm my earnings and saying that i was getting investigated for tax evasion. They recon I owe about £3200 in taxes plus 200 in interest plus a fine I have to give them the money by end of febuary. Ive be threated with charges of fraud and/or tax evasion depending on there enquires.

I would rather owe money to the mafia than HMRC I think the mafia would be less threatening
 
I was speaking to a tramp the other day who reckons his mate is high up in the Liverpool tax office (and likes a bit of "puff"). If half of what he was saying was true then HMRC ****ing ARE the mafia.
 
August 1, 2006, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Issues Report On Offshore Tax Haven
“Offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions are used to hold trillions of dollars in assets that are out of reach from taxation. I'm particularly troubled by an industry of tax professionals, lawyers, trust specialists, bankers, and brokers, that permit, facilitate, promote, and exploit loopholes in the tax code."
You make the call. :cool:
 
some people are so THICK they still dont get it. :rolleyes:

penalties for evading tax, or for commiting any other ilegal activities are based on a basic principle:


a > b

where:

a = fine or penalty

b = expected payoff of breaking the law if not caught


so, the issue is not how much you make....but the probability of being caught :rolleyes:
 
so, the issue is not how much you make....but the probability of being caught

Why not view this in trading terms where you could say it is the level of risk of getting caught against the reward for not being caught.


Paul
 
Why not view this in trading terms where you could say it is the level of risk of getting caught against the reward for not being caught.


Paul

absolutely right, that is the other side of the coin. :LOL:

if the probability of being caught is high, then the reward of not being caught has to be proportionately high to the risk associated with the risk being undertaken.
 
UBS to pay $780M, open secret Swiss bank records

WASHINGTON – Banking giant UBS has agreed to pay $780 million and turn over once-secret Swiss banking records to settle allegations it conspired to defraud the U.S. government of taxes owed by big clients.

As part of the deal struck in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., UBS has made the unprecedented step of agreeing to immediately turn over to the U.S. government account information for U.S. customers of the bank's cross-border business.

In doing so, federal authorities have struck a big crack in Switzerland's vaunted bank secrecy laws.

UBS will pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest and restitution for conspiring to create sham accounts to hide the assets of U.S. clients from the U.S. government.

"We accept full responsibility for these improper activities," Peter Kurer, chairman of Swiss-based UBS AG, said in a statement. He added that the bank was determined to abide by the terms of the deal with U.S. criminal and securities officials.

"Client confidentiality, to which UBS remains committed, was never designed to protect fraudulent acts or the identity of those clients, who, with the active assistance of bank personnel, misused the confidentiality protections," he said Wednesday.

According to U.S. officials, when an acquisition in 2000 of a U.S. company brought UBS a host of new, American clients, the bank set about to evade new reporting requirements for those clients. To do so, UBS executives helped U.S. taxpayers open new accounts in the names of sham entities.

Prosecutors contend that UBS executives used encrypted software and other counter-surveillance techniques to prevent anyone from detecting that they were actively marketing such Swiss bank secrecy — and tax evasion — to American taxpayers.

The clients, in turn, filed false tax returns that omitted the income they earned in their Swiss accounts, according to the court papers.

Federal officials said they had pulled aside a veil of secrecy that hid a corrupt international banking practice.

"This was not a mere compliance oversight, but rather a knowing crime motivated by greed and disrespect for the law," said Alexander Acosta, U.S. attorney for southern Florida.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Doug Shulman warned U.S. taxpayers hiding money overseas that it was time to come clean with Uncle Sam.

"People who have hidden unreported income offshore need to get right with their government. They should come forward and take advantage of our voluntary disclosure process," Shulman said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has estimated that abusive tax shelters and hidden offshore accounts cost the U.S. government nearly $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue.

Prosecutors are still hunting for UBS executive Raoul Weil, who was indicted in November 2008 on charges he conspired to defraud the government for overseeing the bank's cross-border business.

In June 2008 former UBS banker Bradley Birkenfeld pleaded guilty to a similar charge.

If UBS fails to turn over the clients' information, or stops cooperating with authorities, federal prosecutors could refile charges against the bank.

Under the deal, UBS also will completely stop engaging in the type of cross-border banking business that got them into trouble.
 
Top