[fatboydave73]

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.u ... px?id=7618

The full tribunal decision is in the above link.

The facts I find incredible are; that CM though he could get away with putting car dealer on his tax return, back in 2008 that must have been the height of his fame!

It also says in the adjudication that there were no laws actually broken; it was a loophole that (appears from the outside looking in) was very crudely exploited!

The day I get rich (haha) I think I will politely tell any "advisors" where to stick their advice......

[chrysostom]

I think the expectation is that people like Chris and big companies like Amazon etc make enough money that they should willingly contribute to society by paying their taxes. I'm not necessarily saying that's the right way to think, but that's the general public opinion, and someone like Chris who has a lot of haters anyway is clearly gonna bear the brunt of it.

I agree with a lot of this, and as such I don't think he'll be able to take on a high profile role for a while - let alone actively promote any product. Neil's point of Chris trying to avoid such a significant amount of tax (in proportion to his earnings) is the kicker here.

In relation to my work (an accountancy body), I'm very much of the opinion that accountants are paid very large sums of money in order to save their clients money. It's as simple as that - if you have a desire not to contribute taxes to the levels which the state dictates, a good accountant will find legal ways of minimising it that will be accepted as feasible by HMRC.

Chris clearly had a bad accountant, which is why he will have to repay up to £400,000. If only he was telling the truth when he told Charlotte Church that his mum handles his finances...

Much like Nic said, I would if I could (contribute the minimum) - and I think that would apply no matter how much I was earning. It's wonderful that some people are happy to let the government decide how much (over the normal rate) they should be paying - but inevitably, some people will disagree. If those people can afford it, they'll seek advice on doing something about it.

We should all contribute to society, but if I fell into the higher rate of tax I would do what I could to pay less, purely on the principle that, percentage-wise, I shouldn't pay more than anyone else, given that I am already paying more than lower earners due to earning more.

I think Travis' proportional contribution argument is one which has significant weight - and in asking richer people to contribute a higher proportion of their earnings, like it or not they are doing more for society than the normal tax payer. Given the rhetoric and vitriol* with which they are treated (and if you don't think that's true then stop reading), is it any wonder that they don't want to exceed the average contribution?

I certainly don't believe that in our society that you can make things as black and white as 'this person doesn't need all this money, so we should be allowed to take what we see as excess away'. If that's the case, then the logical conclusion to that way of thinking is that all excesses in life should be minimised based on our society's dictation of what 'enough' is.

*Please don't use the coverage of those on benefits as an excuse or contrast for my point. One doesn't excuse the other

[Nicola_Red]

So to bring the discussion back round to the show, do we think that:

a) Chris decided to end the show mainly, or wholly, on the basis that this story would become public and damage his reputation/listener figures/the BBC's reputation, and/or force him to resign further down the line

b) The tax business is what caused his rift with Dave, rather than his friendship with Jayne, on the basis that his actions would damage Dave's budding media career - and that's why Jayne likes to passive-agressively spread negativity about Chris on Twitter

c) both or none of the above?

[dimtimjim]

Been mildly aware of this over the weekend and been awaiting comin' on 'ere to catch up; makes for interesting reading...

I agree, silly man. But then I think we all need to look at this from a '6 years ago' point of view. Pre-Jimmy Carr tax thingy, pre-MPs-expenses scandal; I think we'd all be very surprised exactly how much of this shit is/was going on.

the deeper politics with any possible tie in with this and the demise of the breakfast show/chris' actions since make for interesting speculation.

As with Jimmy Carr, I see no reason for this to end Chris' work ability. Jimmy being a great example, as although publicly loved, he also had many 'haters' due to his close-to-the-mark comedy style. If you watch the episode of 8oo10c from the week the JC tax thing went to press, he is treated with genuine anger and aggression from others on the show (Jon Richardson in particular) regarding the stupidity of his actions. Handled correctly, there is no reason this can't be moved on from.

And, to my mind, the best news to take from all this is; Chris might need to be earning £'s again pretty soon... Keep ya pinky's crossed Radio fans.

[Misfit]

I don't pay tax cos I'm a student so I don't have to. By the way cheers for the student finance guys!

[Nicola_Red]

I don't pay tax cos I'm a student so I don't have to. By the way cheers for the student finance guys!

Lolz. I had years of surgery and disability benefits before I'd ever paid a penny in tax. The brace they used in my leg alone cost £10,000 to make. I try to see the tax I pay now as helping to pay that back.

[fatboydave73]

So to bring the discussion back round to the show, do we think that:

a) Chris decided to end the show mainly, or wholly, on the basis that this story would become public and damage his reputation/listener figures/the BBC's reputation, and/or force him to resign further down the line

b) The tax business is what caused his rift with Dave, rather than his friendship with Jayne, on the basis that his actions would damage Dave's budding media career - and that's why Jayne likes to passive-agressively spread negativity about Chris on Twitter

c) both or none of the above?

If we looked at the evidence, I think a bit of all of the above.

a) The timing of the anonymity ruling and the announcement to leave the show were the same day; cannot be a coincidence can it? I would suggest that he would have had (or his counsel would have had) a good inkling on which way the ruling would go, and so he went to Ben Cooper and confessed all. They would not have wanted this controversy linked with the flagship show, and so an exit strategy was planned, which would make all parties look good.

b) The sudden axing of the show, and had been discussed on here at the time Dave's only regular income at that time would not have helped matters; there maybe more (ie shared advice, speculation totally) and the Jayne scenario have contributed to the falling out.

Either way; I would suggest that CM is feeling more than a little foolish at this present time; and any other broadcasting "car dealers" must be waiting for their knock on the door.

[The Deadly]

I don't pay tax cos I'm a student so I don't have to. By the way cheers for the student finance guys!

Cheers for paying it back for the rest of your life after finishing Uni.

[Nicola_Red]

a) The timing of the anonymity ruling and the announcement to leave the show were the same day; cannot be a coincidence can it? I would suggest that he would have had (or his counsel would have had) a good inkling on which way the ruling would go, and so he went to Ben Cooper and confessed all. They would not have wanted this controversy linked with the flagship show, and so an exit strategy was planned, which would make all parties look good.

b) The sudden axing of the show, and had been discussed on here at the time Dave's only regular income at that time would not have helped matters; there maybe more (ie shared advice, speculation totally) and the Jayne scenario have contributed to the falling out.

Either way; I would suggest that CM is feeling more than a little foolish at this present time; and any other broadcasting "car dealers" must be waiting for their knock on the door.

I think that's very true. This being the reason for Chris and Dave's fallout makes so much more sense to me than the theory about his friendship with Jayne, which I never quite believed. In the past I've felt a bit hesitant to discuss Dave's personal life on here, particularly after reading his book in which he had a bit of a go at us for dissecting his marriage breakdowns, but given the way Jayne behaves on Twitter she's already having a good stab at making their private business public.

[chrysostom]

I had a meeting, so all my post is basically in FatBoyDave73's one, but anyway:

a) Chris decided to end the show mainly, or wholly, on the basis that this story would become public and damage his reputation/listener figures/the BBC's reputation, and/or force him to resign further down the line

The (anonymised) statement which declares that Chris wouldn't be granted private trial was issued on July 11th 2012. This was the same day which Chris announced the show would finish.

Aled also said there was no prior indication given to the team that the show was to end - that Chris just came in and told the whole team first thing. If true, he likely would have told them about the hearing which would justify his decision to them.

As we know, Chris' contract was under negotiation and this hearing (which he probably knew would end up costing him £400,000 & his career) would likely mean he'd have to resign under a massive cloud. Chris seems like the kind of person who would HATE that - I'm absolutely convinced that Chris' decision to end the show at such short notice was down to the hearing, and knowing that at any point he could be thrust into the press as 'Tax dodging Moyles'.

b) The tax business is what caused his rift with Dave, rather than his friendship with Jayne, on the basis that his actions would damage Dave's budding media career - and that's why Jayne likes to passive-aggressively spread negativity about Chris on Twitter

The end of the show didn't really have much of an effect on the job security of Pippa, Freya, Aled or Tina as they were contracted to the BBC - and had skills/projects which weren't reliant on the Chris Moyles Show. Dom (who had just gone freelance) got a new job 6 months after the show finished (knowing that his skills weren't reliant on Chris or the show).

We know Dave's media career without Chris is awful - he wasn't a particularly talented broadcaster, his creative ideas would be laughed out of any real writer's room for a TV or radio show (aside from Soccer AM) and he had no area of expertise. Unless you count motorways. The show ending basically cut Dave's earning potential by half (if we assume he was on around ~£75k) - with 2 divorces and a child, this would be a huge deal and would probably be enough to end a friendship like theirs.

[wild-speculation]There's also the question of whether Chris might have passed on advice to Dave re:NT Advisors what with him famously being the tight.[/wild-speculation]

[James H]

Well I must say I agree with Deadly, at least on the point that if I ever had an option to reduce my tax outgoings I'd take it!

Very interesting theories, nice to see the forum alive again!

All I could think of after reading Twitter was this:

[fatboydave73]

It certainly is (or at least seems) an immense series of coincidences surrounding the ending of the show; and CM subsequent "reluctance" to get back into any meaningful work.

I am sure earlier in this thread we all presumed the truth would out itself at some stage.......

[Nicola_Red]

[wild-speculation]There's also the question of whether Chris might have passed on advice to Dave re:NT Advisors what with him famously being the tight.[/wild-speculation]

That is something I hadn't really considered, and entirely possible. Of course we'll never know, but Dave has a 'day job' now which I don't think I expected would happen. I'm sure it's a bit different to one of us in that he probably uses his 'celebrity' status as part of his role at the charity, but still.

[fatboydave73]

Would Dave really have earned enough to benefit fully from getting into such a scheme?

By the sounds of the scheme; it was high rolling Fund Managers and celebs; coming from a Fund Management background I know that the high rollers would be earning similar money to CM, and so would benefit greatly.

Must pop upstairs and see what cars there are on offer

[neilt0]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ta ... ke-3178059

[chrysostom]

Imagine if they portrayed a woman who has lost loads of weight as still being fat. I know that's not the point, but still. Tax avoider he may be, but he's in great shape.

[Nicola_Red]

Imagine if they portrayed a woman who has lost loads of weight as still being fat. I know that's not the point, but still. Tax avoider he may be, but he's in great shape.

No, you're right. It really annoys me that it's somehow okay to use a person's weight as a way to make fun of them, whether it's a man or woman. As I mentioned a page or two ago, there are other famous fat men who don't come in for anywhere near as much stick about their weight. Peter Kay is always the first one that comes to mind, but there are others.

[JayE]

Johnny Vegas?

[bmstinton93]

Blimey, this forum has really come alive! I can't be bothered going back and quoting but I hadn't really considered theory b of Nic's but it definitely seems very very plausible with the way Jayne acts on Twitter towards Chris. I know I got slated the other day for "acting like a tit" but I think it's highly relevant information still, whether people agree with speculating or not.

[Badger Mark]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tax-dodging-chris-moyles-like-3178059

Chris surely deserves the derision, but the depiction of him here is just plain lazy. Not surprising though.

[colinho]

So we now have 2 options(supposedly) for why the show stopped-1: Chris was 'friendly' with Jayne. 2:Chris could've been outed as a tax dodger at anytime.

Which option would you prefer to be true(if any)?

I'd prefer it to be the tax reason, but I also think that would be a shame if so, as he would've found it easier to recover from if he was still in his high profile job, rather than his current situation, whatever that may be.

[Badger Mark]

Based upon what we now know, I think the tax issue is the more likely of the two. As to which I'd prefer between the 2, I guess I'd have to say #2.

[Travis Bickle]

So we now have 2 options(supposedly) for why the show stopped-1: Chris was 'friendly' with Jayne. 2:Chris could've been outed as a tax dodger at anytime.

Which option would you prefer to be true(if any)?

I'd prefer it to be the tax reason, but I also think that would be a shame if so, as he would've found it easier to recover from if he was still in his high profile job, rather than his current situation, whatever that may be.

I don't think it's either...not directly, anyway. If it was the tax reason, why did Ben Cooper offer Moyles another show on Radio 1 and why did Moyles consider it for so long? I go with the original explanation that few people disputed at the time: a new controller took over, with fresh ideas, who was under increasing pressure from the BBC Trust to lower the average age of the listeners and with the show in clear decline, with falling ratings and Moyles older listener base on the flagship show, it was an obvious decision to make the change.

It's a fair to ask whether either of those reasons were behind the breakdown in the friendship with Dave, which then led to the show becoming so poor near the end (I think the main reason is because Moyles got bored with the job and wanted to try other things) but I don't think the decision to end the show was directly because of either of them.

[Nicola_Red]

So you think the show ending announcement happening on the same day as the ruling denying Chris anonymity is pure coincidence? Obviously that's entirely possible.