Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration
.png)
.png)
Crime pays
Aug 8, 2008, 03:50 AM
Authors :
Richard
Show link :
Yes
Show link in individual comments :
No
Show Printer-friendly URLs list :
Yes
User can post comments :
No
Display comments :
No
Sticky at top of lists :
No
Promoted to front page :
No
Premium content :
No
Feature in listings page :
No
Post date :
Aug 8, 2008, 03:50 AM
Finally, something the British are good at: crime!
The Times reports that – despite foreign competition – ‘British crime lords rule the underworld’.
That’s the criminal underworld, not Hades, for our classically educated readers.
I’ve written about the tax implications of crime before ('It's a fair cop') and it again occurs to me that if there is any sign of businesses becoming really successful, HM Government don’t seem to lose any time thinking of a way to tax the hell (Hades, if you prefer) out of them.
See recent calls for a windfall tax on energy companies, and I recall similar suggestions regarding banks a few years ago (ha, ha).
So come on, HMRC. It can’t be beyond your imagination to start issuing some discovery assessments on the local criminal fraternity.
In any other declared business, if there was a sniff of an undeclared trading transaction, HMRC would probably – as explained by Mark Beadles and Mike Down in their recent article The same old song - assume that similar transactions had been undeclared in previous years and, using its 'presumption of continuity' principle, would issue assessments for those years.
I imagine HMRC would easily be able to go back 20 years. After all, it would probably be a bit rich for the ‘customer’ to try to argue that the non-declaration was not fraudulent.
And of course, the burden of proof regarding the likelihood of such income is lower than for a criminal conviction, and if there is any doubt as to whether this does fall to be treated as a trading transaction under ITTOIA 2005, s 5 or ‘income not otherwise charged’ under s 687, I suggest a new section is inserted into ITTOIA 2005 – Part 5, Chapter 8; perhaps new s 689A: ‘ill-gotten gains’.
Surely even basic rate tax on £40 billion would help plug a hole in the public finances, and a lot of these ‘ghosts’ would be easy to find. The inspector only has to go down to the local court for a list of convictions.
What's more, at least 27 'Mr Bigs' are running their businesses from inside jails. So let's not forget PAYE, etc. on the payments to their 'management' teams and employees.
We are always hearing how important it is that everyone pays their fair share. What a great place to start; and who knows, subscriptions to Taxation might go up as well!
Keep more of your swag: go to Taxation.co.uk.
The Times reports that – despite foreign competition – ‘British crime lords rule the underworld’.
That’s the criminal underworld, not Hades, for our classically educated readers.
I’ve written about the tax implications of crime before ('It's a fair cop') and it again occurs to me that if there is any sign of businesses becoming really successful, HM Government don’t seem to lose any time thinking of a way to tax the hell (Hades, if you prefer) out of them.
See recent calls for a windfall tax on energy companies, and I recall similar suggestions regarding banks a few years ago (ha, ha).
So come on, HMRC. It can’t be beyond your imagination to start issuing some discovery assessments on the local criminal fraternity.
In any other declared business, if there was a sniff of an undeclared trading transaction, HMRC would probably – as explained by Mark Beadles and Mike Down in their recent article The same old song - assume that similar transactions had been undeclared in previous years and, using its 'presumption of continuity' principle, would issue assessments for those years.
I imagine HMRC would easily be able to go back 20 years. After all, it would probably be a bit rich for the ‘customer’ to try to argue that the non-declaration was not fraudulent.
And of course, the burden of proof regarding the likelihood of such income is lower than for a criminal conviction, and if there is any doubt as to whether this does fall to be treated as a trading transaction under ITTOIA 2005, s 5 or ‘income not otherwise charged’ under s 687, I suggest a new section is inserted into ITTOIA 2005 – Part 5, Chapter 8; perhaps new s 689A: ‘ill-gotten gains’.
Surely even basic rate tax on £40 billion would help plug a hole in the public finances, and a lot of these ‘ghosts’ would be easy to find. The inspector only has to go down to the local court for a list of convictions.
What's more, at least 27 'Mr Bigs' are running their businesses from inside jails. So let's not forget PAYE, etc. on the payments to their 'management' teams and employees.
We are always hearing how important it is that everyone pays their fair share. What a great place to start; and who knows, subscriptions to Taxation might go up as well!
Keep more of your swag: go to Taxation.co.uk.
Tags :
Tax Topic Tags :
- Blog
READERS' FORUM 
Tax tip: HMRC enquiries into R&D claims
Readers’ forum: Should income from different trades be declared separately?
Readers’ forum: Tax treatment of incentive upfront payment
Readers’ forum: What is the basis of the legal obligation to disclose errors?
Readers’ forum: Was credit note issued correctly for VAT purposes?
New queries
NEWS 
CASES
Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Leave a comment