Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“NJ...How can what LH has done be a way to defer the running costs of his aircraft.”
I’ve no idea because I am not a tax expert. But I can only guess that there was more to it than simply avoiding VAT on the purchase which, for the reasons I outlined, he would not have paid anyway.
“…be realistic and acknowledge that it was all a ploy to get more money into his small bank account.”
Agreed. Or more properly to have less taken out. That’s what all these schemes are for – to stop the taxman getting his hands on any more than the absolute minimum required under the law. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s the duty of every business and individual to do likewise.
I’ve no idea because I am not a tax expert. But I can only guess that there was more to it than simply avoiding VAT on the purchase which, for the reasons I outlined, he would not have paid anyway.
“…be realistic and acknowledge that it was all a ploy to get more money into his small bank account.”
Agreed. Or more properly to have less taken out. That’s what all these schemes are for – to stop the taxman getting his hands on any more than the absolute minimum required under the law. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s the duty of every business and individual to do likewise.
Hans; https:/
Seems to be all here, if you can be bothered (I can't) but it relates to the finished product. I think that materials used, plus fixture and fittings of the aircraft are all VAT liable
Seems to be all here, if you can be bothered (I can't) but it relates to the finished product. I think that materials used, plus fixture and fittings of the aircraft are all VAT liable
"Save 3 million here and 3 million there and you're soon talking big money. :0) "
Indeed, which sort of makes it worse. I am not saying it is illiegal, like a lot of the stuff in the programs: there is plainly a sliding scale of offshore shadiness which goes from Her Majesty's money in a few off short accounts, up to the scam involving being appointed as adviser to a trust in say Mauritius, which allows you effectively to "advise" yourself to spend your millions as you see fit - on yourself. Worse of course were the money to be illegally gained (and there's no suggestion that any of the cases pursued closely by Panarama were criminal. You kind of feel that is a loophole or two though that needs closing. In fact it seems that the scam affecting eg Germany, that the EU is currently investigating, is a loophole the UK actually opened a few years ago.
Indeed, which sort of makes it worse. I am not saying it is illiegal, like a lot of the stuff in the programs: there is plainly a sliding scale of offshore shadiness which goes from Her Majesty's money in a few off short accounts, up to the scam involving being appointed as adviser to a trust in say Mauritius, which allows you effectively to "advise" yourself to spend your millions as you see fit - on yourself. Worse of course were the money to be illegally gained (and there's no suggestion that any of the cases pursued closely by Panarama were criminal. You kind of feel that is a loophole or two though that needs closing. In fact it seems that the scam affecting eg Germany, that the EU is currently investigating, is a loophole the UK actually opened a few years ago.
ichkeria - // What seems churlish and greedy to me is going to all that trouble to save 3million when you have enough money to spend on a private jet //
There is a popular train of thought that rich people shouldn't shield their income from taxes because they can afford to pay the taxes because of their wealth.
It's not an approach I subscribe to personally.
Who is to say when someone is deemed 'rich enough' to pay taxes which can legitimately and legally be avoided?
My wife is self-employed and employs an accountant to ensure that anything she can claim on expenses is accounted for. She is not as rich as Lewis Hamilton, but she is a professional person and attracts a worthwhile remuneration for her skills.
Some may say she is 'rich enough' to pay tax on everything, but like the richest people in the world, the money she saves from the IR is used to give her family a better standard of living, and will be passed don to our children when she passes.
I believe that principle applies to anyone and everyone, and the notion that because someone is richer than me (like my wife!) should not be allowed to benefit legitimately from the tax laws of the country is unfair, and small-minded.
There is a popular train of thought that rich people shouldn't shield their income from taxes because they can afford to pay the taxes because of their wealth.
It's not an approach I subscribe to personally.
Who is to say when someone is deemed 'rich enough' to pay taxes which can legitimately and legally be avoided?
My wife is self-employed and employs an accountant to ensure that anything she can claim on expenses is accounted for. She is not as rich as Lewis Hamilton, but she is a professional person and attracts a worthwhile remuneration for her skills.
Some may say she is 'rich enough' to pay tax on everything, but like the richest people in the world, the money she saves from the IR is used to give her family a better standard of living, and will be passed don to our children when she passes.
I believe that principle applies to anyone and everyone, and the notion that because someone is richer than me (like my wife!) should not be allowed to benefit legitimately from the tax laws of the country is unfair, and small-minded.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank54 mins ago
News60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles98 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.