manxchatterbox Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 In the Guardian on 6thJan there was an article about Al-Fayed and his tax treatment by the UK's Inland Revenue. "Inland Revenue documents show that the taxman cut preferential personal forward tax agreements (FTAs) on his foreign income with Mr Fayed for 15 years from 1985, the year of the Harrods purchase, after failing to properly investigate the extent of his wealth. One expert estimated that Mr Fayed saved £60m over 10 years." link:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...news+-+guardian Does anyone know what the situation is here on the IOM between the Asessor and extremely wealthy individuals who claim IOM residency... Has the Treasury Minister / the Assessor ever cut any deals instead of initiating investigations?? Could anyone escape paying the full amount if they agreed a voluntary payment say for a good cause?? Just how long in any one tax year do you have to live on the IOM to be liable to IOM Income tax? Will the new Income Tax upper limit of £100,000 mean there will be properties owned by wealthy individuals claiming they live here but which are empty for say 11 1/2 months of the year?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Politician Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 "Has the Treasury Minister / the Assessor ever cut any deals instead of initiating investigations?? Could anyone escape paying the full amount if they agreed a voluntary payment say for a good cause??" Sorry, no idea. "Just how long in any one tax year do you have to live on the IOM to be liable to IOM Income tax?" Six months. "Will the new Income Tax upper limit of £100,000 mean there will be properties owned by wealthy individuals claiming they live here but which are empty for say 11 1/2 months of the year??" Possibly, but if they get caught spending too much time in their real countries of residence (the threshold is usually six months in any tax year or 90 days in four consecutive tax years), they will face prosecution for tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 as there aren't any party politics here where you could offer cash for a Knighthood wouldn't the next best thing be offering a fat donation instead of paying tax?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I guess that's the one downside of the internet, and in particular broadband internet connections. You can quite easily (and plenty of people do) move between several locations throughout the year and quite possibly pay no tax at all, without overly affecting your ability to earn an income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 "Just how long in any one tax year do you have to live on the IOM to be liable to IOM Income tax?" Six months. Are you sure - if you own property and you don't claim less than 6 weeks occupancy (ie a holiday cottage) then you have to fill out a Manx tax return - if like me you also spend a considerable time in UK and own property there then the UK tax authorities take some convincing that you are not UK tax resident and thus you land up filling out two tax forms with the UK getting all the tax money unless you have a somewhat strange income pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hmmm, well suppose, if ( just for example) some individual was to make a gift of , well lets say a million quid, and it was destined for the use of the youth on the Island, maybe in sport or education or whatever. Would that get the doner any advantages ? Just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I always thought it was 90 days before you paid tax actually, though I stand to be corrected on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 Topaz gets the gold star... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 There's a story there somewhere, isn't there? Did Manx Radio report on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 whats that.. MR report on someone 'approaching' the Treasury Minister with a 'suggestion'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Countries have been doing "tax deals" with the wealthy for a long time. There was a documentary about it a few weeks ago and it does make you wonder about the "scroungers" who cost the state so much as against the wealthy with access to advice that allows them to avoid taxes, apparently costing huge millions each year! Biting the hand that feeds me, and perhaps this is a small reservoir of socialism that remains, but I started a debate at work and asked why are clients using us? I kept asking "Why"? The two answers that came up were to preserve assets from some tax authority, and then the reply had to be why not contribute to the country you live in ? Then the next one was to preserve assets from a hostile regime, which you can kind of understand, but then you have to think why is it hostile? Sometimes you just have to shake off any conscience and just remember it pays the bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Sometimes you just have to shake off any conscience and just remember it pays the bills! I know what you mean - as a gigalo sometimes I just feel so...used. But it pays the bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Politician Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 "Just how long in any one tax year do you have to live on the IOM to be liable to IOM Income tax?" Six months. Are you sure - if you own property and you don't claim less than 6 weeks occupancy (ie a holiday cottage) then you have to fill out a Manx tax return - if like me you also spend a considerable time in UK and own property there then the UK tax authorities take some convincing that you are not UK tax resident and thus you land up filling out two tax forms with the UK getting all the tax money unless you have a somewhat strange income pattern. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "liable to IOM income tax". Possibly wrongly, I took Manxchatterbox to mean residency for tax purposes in the Isle of Man, which applies when a person lives here six months in any years or an average of more than 90 days for four consecutive years. However, income physically earned in another country could still be liable to that country's income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Sometimes you just have to shake off any conscience and just remember it pays the bills! I know what you mean - as a gigalo sometimes I just feel so...used. But it pays the bills! And, as age increases, you have to work harder!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Countries have been doing "tax deals" with the wealthy for a long time ... it does make you wonder about the "scroungers" who cost the state so much as against the wealthy with access to advice that allows them to avoid taxes, apparently costing huge millions each year! I kept asking "Why"? The two answers that came up were to preserve assets from some tax authority, and then the reply had to be why not contribute to the country you live in ? Sometimes you just have to shake off any conscience and just remember it pays the bills! I'm really not sure what to think about this ... I definitely agree that people should contribute to their country and their government ... and I agree that the ability to pay is a vital factor in that ... hence the rich should pay more .... but I am not convinced you have an obligation to pay additional tax when there are legal mechanisms which allow you to reduce your tax bill ... hey I don't see anyone going to the Personel department at work and asking to pay a bit extra Tax cause they are feeling generous! If the rules and regs say you should pay X ... then that is what you should pay ... not more not less. For most of us it's not worthwhile trawling through the regulations and setting up trusts etc etc ... but for the lucky few ... well as Gladys says ... they can save millions ... the rules say they should pay X but without paying a tax consultant a million or so they would end up paying Y ... which is several millions more ... hence its worth paying the consultants! These people may be actively rearanging their financial affairs to ensure X is as low as possible ... but X won't be zero ... I'm pretty certain it'll still be a vast amount of money when compared to the tax bills most of us pay! The only example I know about in any detail is the US tax system where the top 5% still pay something like 40% of the net tax reciepts and that is after all the avoidance schemes the accountants cook up! My philosophy in life is that I want to make a contribution to this planet ... leave behind when I'm gone a contribution which enhances the world for those who will live on after me ... bit high faluting I admit but there you go! If you're in the UK and if you're lucky and able enough to create assets over the inheritance tax threashold the marginal tax rate you eventually pay to the government over the life time of the assets after the income, capital gains and inheritance taxes these assets will pay is truely pernicious ... 40% of 40% of 40%! Is that right, I think capital gains is even higher!? If people didn't inheritance-plan it would be almost impossible to generate the cash to pay the death tax bill without selling off and breaking up the assets after death ... and that would ruin the purpose that person had worked their entire live to do ... coordinate and create a lasting on going asset. Hence I believe that by tax planning these people are able to make an asset contribute longer than would be possible if the government had insisted 40% of it was turned into cash and paid to them just because somebody died! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.