[neilt0]

(Full article only available behind a paywall).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax ... 596026.ece

Radio star invested in tax scheme


Fay Schlesinger, Alexi Mostrous
Chris Moyles remains under contract to the BBC but left the Radio 1 breakfast show in September

Published at 12:01AM, November 10 2012

"Chris Moyles, the Radio 1 presenter, invested in an aggressive tax avoidance scheme that was used by 500 wealthy people to try to deny the Treasury £200 million.
The Rushmore strategy was described by a government minister as “highly abusive” and “a scam”, and was shut down by the Treasury in 2009 before investors could claim tax relief.

Overdue documents filed online show that Mr Moyles was a director of Romangate Ltd, a company involved in the scheme. The comedian Jimmy Carr was among the investors, The Times has previously revealed. It is not known how much either invested."
[SNIP -- "To see the full article you need to subscribe"]

ETA: It seems there were over 500 "directors" of Romangate Ltd: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... -avoidance

[chrysostom]

Vera handles his cash, right?

[wireman2004]

Contrasting story I read on my night shift in a Friday paper. Think it was the express. It was saying chris was using saviour enterprises. And that the BBC recomemded to use this method. Same arrival where it said that over 140 freelance people are to be offered staff contracts.

[The Deadly]

Good on him. If I earned his sort of money I'd want to pay less tax too. If the loophole is there then why not exploit it.

[Travis Bickle]

I cant get worked up about this. I'd most probably do the same.

[hdsport82]

Of course it's a moral question rather than a legal one until the loopholes are closed. It certainly doesn't endear me to Chris but it doesn't hugely surprise me nor I can't be to self-righteous over it as I still buy things from Amazon and I'm writing this on a Macbook Pro etc.

[neilt0]

This is 100% how this came about:

09:00 Chris Moyles' house: "Shit, I have that meeting with the bloody accountant today!"
10:28 Accountant's office: "Sorry I'm late, mate. I didn't read that tax thing you gave me. What do you want me to sign? No, I don't want to know anything about it".
10:46 Chris Moyles' house: "Ahhhh. Back to playing XBOX in my pants!"

[Nicola_Red]

Everyone would pay less tax if they could - until things like the NHS started visibly suffering, at least. Nobody looks at the amount taken for tax on their payslip and goes "yay!"

[MK Chris]

Everyone would pay less tax if they could - until things like the NHS started visibly suffering, at least. Nobody looks at the amount taken for tax on their payslip and goes "yay!"

I would very much like to think - and indeed I believe, though you can never know for sure until you're in the position - that if I was fortunate enough to afford to pay more tax, I would happily do so.

[dimtimjim]

Ah, the Jimmy Carr saga all over again. As previously stated, I can't hold any bad feelings for those utilising the system, if these loopholes are there, people will use them. I should, technically, be a high rate tax payer (40% on anything over £34,370), but with how my accountant works the figures I stay paying the same standard 25% (approx) that most people pay. (which in real terms saves me, but you could argue denies the treasury, about £2,00 per year).

hate the game, not the player.

[Wykey]

To be clear, they're not loopholes. Loophole implies something that's a hidden, obscure, twisting of the real meaning to find another altogether more secretive meaning something that contravenes a law but isn't illegal.

Like someone using the excuse "well you never said I couldn't" when asked by their wife why they slept with her sister.

These tax rules are all out in the open and they're all open to be used entirely legally and entirely without secrecy or questionable interpretation.

[Chris]

I disagree. A loophole is "An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules" (dictionary definition). I think it applies perfectly well in this case.

There is an expectation that people pay tax on the money they earn. To make a concious decision to pay less tax is to exploit a loophole in the system - an inadequacy in the current regulations. HMRC close hundreds of these each year, but for every one they close a new one pops up.

Morally, I don't think you can argue it's anything but wrong. Would many people do it if they had the means and could accept the inherent risk, probably yes.

I'm in a good mood this morning, can you tell?

[dimtimjim]

And there is a big difference between Johnny-average trying to avoid paying 40% on earnings over £35,000 if you, say for example, earn £50,000, and trying to avoid paying 40% tax on earnings over £35,000 if you earn in the millions (JC).

[chrysostom]

This is the first time I've ever thought that Chris might be in a mood where he's susceptible to trolling.

I would...

...but I'm worried he'd decimate every one of my posts and bring the My Little Pony picture back.

[Wykey]

I don't think there's a big difference at all. The principles are the same.


Chris - schemes are entitled to tax relief IF they fulfil certain criteria - criteria laid out by HMRC - they're not loopholes, they're simply fulfilling criteria laid out by the government.

Is receiving tax relief on a charitable donation a loophole or is it a case of "if you do X, then Y will happen"?

[neilt0]

Creating a fake company with 500 "directors" is not working the system, it's fraudulent and clearly should be illegal, so was made illegal. It's not "fair game".

I don't blame Chris, I blame those scumbag accountants. Chris should take responsibility for what the scumbag bean counter does in future though.

[ess]

I should, technically, be a high rate tax payer (40% on anything over £34,370), but with how my accountant works the figures I stay paying the same standard 25% (approx) that most people pay. (which in real terms saves me, but you could argue denies the treasury, about £2,00 per year). .

Maybe i'm missing something but your figures don't add up. You have to earn over 42.5 ish to pay 40% on anything above that. So if you were avoiding paying 2k at 40% that means your total gross is about 40 so you wouldn't be paying 40. Not sure what the 25% is either. NI is like 12% or 14% if over 800ish a week.

What exactly is you accountant doing? Don't most people that earn in the 40% region just put a larger amount into schemes like pensions where the tax is only taken when you draw your pension?

[chrysostom]

ess, you are a man of contradictions.

[ess]

ess, you are a man of contradictions.

Sexist pig! a person of...

[dimtimjim]

Maybe i'm missing something but your figures don't add up. You have to earn over 42.5 ish to pay 40% on anything above that. So if you were avoiding paying 2k at 40% that means your total gross is about 40 so you wouldn't be paying 40. Not sure what the 25% is either. NI is like 12% or 14% if over 800ish a week.

What exactly is you accountant doing? Don't most people that earn in the 40% region just put a larger amount into schemes like pensions where the tax is only taken when you draw your pension?

Not entirely convinced by your maths. the higher tax threshold is as I stated in earlier post, it changes next year, but still won't be as high as £42,500... And its 40% on earnings over the threshold, the first £35,000(ish) is at the lower rate.

No more detail on the exact figures, thats between me, my accountant and HMRC (Her Madg's Robbing C****).

[ess]

Maybe i'm missing something but your figures don't add up. You have to earn over 42.5 ish to pay 40% on anything above that. So if you were avoiding paying 2k at 40% that means your total gross is about 40 so you wouldn't be paying 40. Not sure what the 25% is either. NI is like 12% or 14% if over 800ish a week.

What exactly is you accountant doing? Don't most people that earn in the 40% region just put a larger amount into schemes like pensions where the tax is only taken when you draw your pension?

Not entirely convinced by your maths. the higher tax threshold is as I stated in earlier post, it changes next year, but still won't be as high as £42,500... And its 40% on earnings over the threshold, the first £35,000(ish) is at the lower rate.

No more detail on the exact figures, thats between me, my accountant and HMRC (Her Madg's Robbing C****).

I just like maths and was intrigued (and still am) by this "25% ish", you gave the figure of 2k avoiding tax.

For 2012-13 a person has to earn over £42,475 to pay the 40% tax.

[chrysostom]

There's a lovely site which works all this stuff out: http://listentotaxman.com/index.php

[a-moron]

I just like maths and was intrigued (and still am) by this "25% ish", you gave the figure of 2k avoiding tax.

For 2012-13 a person has to earn over £42,475 to pay the 40% tax.

Now you're just being a nosey *.

[R94N]

Great, something else for the haters to needlessly bleat on about for in the comments section of every article about him.

[Fathomer]

If he is avoiding his tax he is an absolute c*nt so I hope he isn't. I have no sympathy and hope the media expose anyone who takes part in tax avoidance. It's disgusting.