people get all worked up about benefit cheats i.e. poor people trying to get an extra fifty quid here and there (not defending it), but personally I consider the rich avoiding tax a worse crime. And nobody really has a go at builders, plumbers etc. doing work for cash in hand.
Most people try to pay as little tax as possible. As obscene as this seems, being £2.5m and all, the truth is that he earned a lot of money so he is trying to save more than you or I would do. Every time we go to France to stock up on booze and/or cigarettes we are doing so to pay less tax, the same applies to ISAs that are exempt of tax. He earned so much (which is a different discussion, completely) he just needed different schemes to keep his tax bill down.
He hasn't broken the law, he just found out that the scheme he was using is not eligible.
I, personally, consider benefit cheats and those that won't work but keep claiming money as far worse, even if the sums, on an individual bases, are less.
He hasn't broken the law, he just found out that the scheme he was using is not eligible.
So he thought he could get away with bending the law but was actually breaking the law and therefore has to pay the money back.
That's not how these schemes work. Someone sets them up based on the current rules. They are fully declared and no information is withheld, then the Inland Revenue look at the scheme and make a ruling. It is not bending the law, it is working within the law in 'grey' areas, oppose to black and white.
Probably a combination of all three in some cases. Film investing schemes can often be in the same league as land banks, forests, boiler rooms, carbon offsetting and ostriches.
I've been told of one individual who played at the highest level who just had his (very large) wages paid into his Building Society account until such time that the balance got to ridiculous levels. He then just gave his dosh over to his agent and asked him to invest it for him. So, really he had no idea where his money went nor what sort of schemes he might have ended up in. No doubt many thought they were doing the best they could for their clients although it's almost certain that some so-called financial advisers were not what we would know as being proper, qualified, authorised financial advisers but wide-boy accountants/solicitors.
As the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(Anyone interested in the sort of crap that lawyers can get up to, could do worse than Google "Andrew Greystoke and Atlantic Law".)
To be fair he probably didn't think he was "bending" the law and at the time had good reason to think he wasn't. The government often brings in schemes to encourage people to do certain thinks and they do this by giving tax breaks. The most obvious are pensions and ISAS but there are others. The government did want people to invest in film industry and gave certain reliefs. However as is always with a lot of type of things, there is always a grey area as to what is and what isn't covered. Certain institutions set up schemes in this grey area. They are quite often supported by views from legal counsel. However because it's grey there is room for challenge by HMRC and their legal counsel has supported their view. Over the years I have seen many tax avoidance schemes, in my work rather than personal, many just don't feel right, look to challenge and wouldn't be worth the risk. A professional footballer is probably not in a position to make that judgement if he has a "close to wire" adviser. Having said all that it is right that HMRC should be seeking every penny for failed schemes even id it means bankrupting people. If only to send out the message for others to be diligent in future
Comments
I'm sure he was badly advised, but it's just greedy.
And nobody really has a go at builders, plumbers etc. doing work for cash in hand.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/23/footballers-tax-demands-hmrc
Greedy, naive or just plain stupid?
The picture is perfect opportunity to paraphrase that famous Mrs Merton quip.
"So Mrs Murphy, what attracted you to that multi millionaire footballer and media personality?"
He hasn't broken the law, he just found out that the scheme he was using is not eligible.
I, personally, consider benefit cheats and those that won't work but keep claiming money as far worse, even if the sums, on an individual bases, are less.
So he thought he could get away with bending the law but was actually breaking the law and therefore has to pay the money back.
Why wouldn't he want to pay more
I've been told of one individual who played at the highest level who just had his (very large) wages paid into his Building Society account until such time that the balance got to ridiculous levels. He then just gave his dosh over to his agent and asked him to invest it for him. So, really he had no idea where his money went nor what sort of schemes he might have ended up in. No doubt many thought they were doing the best they could for their clients although it's almost certain that some so-called financial advisers were not what we would know as being proper, qualified, authorised financial advisers but wide-boy accountants/solicitors.
As the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(Anyone interested in the sort of crap that lawyers can get up to, could do worse than Google "Andrew Greystoke and Atlantic Law".)
Over the years I have seen many tax avoidance schemes, in my work rather than personal, many just don't feel right, look to challenge and wouldn't be worth the risk.
A professional footballer is probably not in a position to make that judgement if he has a "close to wire" adviser.
Having said all that it is right that HMRC should be seeking every penny for failed schemes even id it means bankrupting people. If only to send out the message for others to be diligent in future
only a few days left though Danny.
Put him in the stocks!