Jump to content
Mastermind

The Derek Mackay texts and the Scottish Budget

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

So who should they consult with?

HMRC used to be the experts. But they've all been laid off now.

Edited by Baxter Parp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So who should they consult with?

They certainly shouldn't be facilitating every bloody wheeze that the big accounting firms "advise" them to implement. 

 

 

Consultation should be limited to the practicalities of the tax system not the principles that it is built on.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were designed by the Government.

The whole tax code is designed by the government.

Tax avoidance is simply looking at the law, and arranging your affairs in a way that means you pay less tax. If the government (the ones who are making the rules up) don’t like what you are doing, they have the power to change those rules.

It is exactly like putting your money into an ISA rather than a normal bank account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:


The whole tax code is designed by the government.

Tax avoidance is simply looking at the law, and arranging your affairs in a way that means you pay less tax. If the government (the ones who are making the rules up) don’t like what you are doing, they have the power to change those rules.

It is exactly like putting your money into an ISA rather than a normal bank account.

EBT's weren't designed by the Government and it's taken years of very expensive litigation to stop them and they still haven't got the money due. It's cheating normal taxpayers, and the onus should be on the people who come up with these scams to prove their legality in advance, not the other way around and retrospectively. They are nothing like ISAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:


The whole tax code is designed by the government.

Tax avoidance is simply looking at the law, and arranging your affairs in a way that means you pay less tax. If the government (the ones who are making the rules up) don’t like what you are doing, they have the power to change those rules.

It is exactly like putting your money into an ISA rather than a normal bank account.

Correct

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

EBT's weren't designed by the Government and it's taken years of very expensive litigation to stop them and they still haven't got the money due. It's cheating normal taxpayers, and the onus should be on the people who come up with these scams to prove their legality in advance, not the other way around and retrospectively. They are nothing like ISAs.

EBTs aren't/weren't part of the tax code.

It can't be beyond the wit of legislators to design a tax code which invalidates EBTs etc. Unless they don't want to, of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, welshbairn said:

So Rangers asked the HMRC if EBT's were cool before they started paying players using them?

No because that disclosure rule wasn't in place at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

They certainly shouldn't be facilitating everh bloody wheeze that the big accounting firms "advise" them to implement.

 

Consultation should be limited to the practicalities of the tax system not the principles that it is built on.

 

 

Who should they consult though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

EBT's weren't designed by the Government and it's taken years of very expensive litigation to stop them and they still haven't got the money due. It's cheating normal taxpayers, and the onus should be on the people who come up with these scams to prove their legality in advance, not the other way around and retrospectively. They are nothing like ISAs.

I have already told you that they have to do this now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man not being charged for not breaking the law. 

Perhaps explains yet again why the parents went to the papers rather than the police. 

Politically motivated meltdowns imminent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure why he would be charged. What he did was extremely creepy but the boy was of a (barely) legal age.

Is there any sign of Mr Invisible yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kate Forbes is to be his replacement. Very happy with this appointment - she's very easy on the eye, although  that wouldn't have influenced my choice as MacKay's successor of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kate Forbes is to be his replacement. Very happy with this appointment - she's very easy on the eye, although  that wouldn't have influenced my choice as MacKay's successor of course.


Is it because of her views on abortion, trans people, or just because you want to shag her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Is it because of her views on abortion, trans people, or just because you want to shag her?

 

Hopefully her first and last message asks him how old he is.

Edited by BawWatchin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mastermind said:

Not quite sure why he would be charged. What he did was extremely creepy but the boy was of a (barely) legal age.

Is there any sign of Mr Invisible yet?

He's signed of his work after a catastrophic episode.

Is that not enough for you or do you want him to take some more flak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sophia said:

He's signed of his work after a catastrophic episode.

Is that not enough for you or do you want him to take some more flak?

 

It was entirely of his own making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

It was entirely of his own making.

You are spectacularly missing the point and the episode was quite clearly not of his making.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sophia said:

He's signed of his work after a catastrophic episode.

Is that not enough for you or do you want him to take some more flak?

He should have resigned as an MSP, not taken a sickie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...