Mark, Let's get the Tax issue sorted out. Money gets wasted, yes it does, but I didn't comment on it originally. ISA's, keeping money in companies such as yours and other 'approved' methods of tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate and in terms of ISA's there is a maximum that we are allowed to put in to them each year. Correct me if I am wrong but this is perfectly above board and recognised by all.
Leeds collected Tax and NI from their employees and VAT from others (fans, etc) they failed to hand it over to the taxman, this is wrong. Effectively they stole it. In this case HMRC said give us our money or else (and to be fair to them it was their money) and Ken Bates said no. The two are very different cases. Yes, it is very easy to hold up the failings of the NHS when talking about tax recovery but I didn't mention it. I have not voiced any opinions on whether or not HMRC should be paid any monies out of the ashes of Leeds United, what I did was highlight the process and therefore the obvious outcomes of this (ie, budget balancing, etc) I haven't succumbed to sitting on either side of the fence. I am not sticking up for HMRC on the recovery of monies in the event of administration/liquidation of any company, indeed I have been on the receiving end of this where HMRC got their money and I was left 10 grand out of pocket as a creditor. All I did say was that I thought that HMRC were right chase the debt. Cheers Briggsy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Nick Allen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [LU] FW: From Sq Ball re Voting >I don't really have a political axe to grind. > > My point about IT budgets, junkets/worldwide tours etc was simply to > defuse > the emotive aspect to taxes not being paid. Yes taxes come from our > pockets, but millions are pissed up the wall every year, its a fact of > life, > it wont stop blah blah blah. That is my point, a shitload of money is > collected from us, a shitload is wasted. If a hospital ward is closed > then > why is that due to someone not paying tax rather than money being wasted? > It is not. Net result is the same. > > When trying to make a point about the 'cost' of tax evasion it sure is > spin-worthy to mention NHS etc etc isn't it? I don't know if you did or > not, but other people have on the list. > > It is not right that people don't pay their taxes. Whether they are > income > tax, VAT, corporation tax or whatever. However I am not a hypocrite, I > avoid paying my taxes wherever possible, by using legal tax evasion > techniques (ISAs) etc. I know it could never happen but if had my own > business and it was financially struggling I would certainly make sure the > mortgage was paid and my kids were fed before paying HMRC. I bet everyone > else would here too. > > It also happens all the time in business. Businesses go bust and leave > creditors out of pocket. Incidentally its usually the HMRC who get their > debt paid in full (where possible) and the poor little businesses and Joe > Public who get nothing at all. Thats 0p in the pound. > > Oh, and I used to be an IT consultant with my own company, I am now a perm > employee elsewhere. I have not closed down my old company because there > is > some cash in it still and if I closed it down (and took the money) I would > have to pay 40% corporation tax on it (or 40% income tax as an additional > earning). Am I wrong in preventing HMRC getting hold of that 40% now (as > opposed to at some point in the future)? If I were worried about the NHS, > Blair's junket or the latest unsuccessful IT implementation I probably > would. The fact that the money still sits in the account should tell you > something.. > > Mark > > PS FACTs. One - I couldn't give a toss that the HMRC got 1p in the pound. > Two - not one hospital ward will be closed down or nurse lose their job > etc > as a direct result of them losing out. > > Opinion - of the bidders to the KPMG who were offering more to the > creditors > (therefore HMRC), they were only doing so to win votes and given a choice > would not have done so. Furthermore all the bidders who 'only' matched > Bates offer to the creditors are surely therefore as morally bankrupt as > Bates and 'we' wouldn't want them in charge either, would we? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 June 2007 11:57 > To: Mark Humphries; 'Nick Allen'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LU] FW: From Sq Ball re Voting > > Mark, > > You really do have a political axe to grind, read the post again and point > out something that is my opinion and therefore something that doesn't > actually happen. > The problem is that you are confusing politics with the machinations of > the > civil service. > > Lets just get the facts sorted out as I presented them in the original > email > > post. > Leeds collected Tax from employees salary. > Leeds collected Tax from fans, etc, via VAT. > Leeds DID NOT PAY the Tax, NI and VAT to HMRC. > Budgets need to balance. > > A couple of things. I never said Taxes will have to be increased, I wasn't > emotive about budget cuts having an affect on other gov services so please > remove your nads, you mentioned nurses, schools, NHS, etc. > It is a fact that if you don't collect Taxes into government you can't > spend > > it on other things, FACT not opinion. The NHS, pensions, benefits would > not > exist if it wasn't for the tax/ni regime. > > There may or may not be a budget provision for bad debts, I am not able to > comment, I assume that if you take time out to write a letter to HMRC > under > the FOI they will tell you. In any case where do you think the money comes > from for a bad debt budget, it comes from our pockets as tax payers not > the > winnings from the national lottery or euromillions. > However, in the case of this debt the amount of debt compared to the cost > of > > chasing, etc outweighs it, and as a tax payer why should I pay tax when > someone else has chosen not to (that is an opinion BTW) > > Six million quid is a big tax debt, the rules were broken and punishment > has > > to be dealt out. The problem is that we are all emotionally tied to LUFC > and > > therefore some may see this pursuit of this debt as being a personal > matter, > > it isn't. i doubt very much that you would have the same opinion if either > Scum or Chelski owed the taxman. > > As for the Blairs spending money, yeah, I have an opinion on that, > probably > similar to yours that the money could be better used elsewhere. > > To use your Chancellors argument about making the system more efficient > because he has less cash, you really think that this would happen, take a > reality check. Over the past 10 years public service employee levels have > increased to such a point that more people work in public services than > don't, the fact that the Department of Health is the world's 3rd largest > employer highlights this. Does this show that they are interested in > efficiency? > > IT overspend? Couldn't possibly comment on this one as I am a direct > benefactor of some of the budget being awarded to my employer. > > So Mark, your task for the day is to explain why you think that it is ok > not > > to pay Income Tax, NI and VAT to HMRC when you have collected it from > employees and people like you and I that have paid VAT on goods bought > from > Leeds. > > Cheers > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Nick Allen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [LU] FW: From Sq Ball re Voting > >> Doesnt this sort of thing happen all the time though? >> >> So to say taxes will have to be increased isn't actually the case is it. >> >> Loads of businesses go to the wall owing money, most go 'legitimately', >> others go 'voluntarily'. >> >> Is there not a provision for bad debt in the HMRC budgets? >> >> Another thing that gets on my nads is the deliberate use of emotive areas >> that are cited when talking about tax cuts or loss of revenue. Why is it >> that the poor old NHS, schools, firemen etc etc will lose out? >> >> Instead of thinking about that, think about the cost of Blairs fairwell >> worldwide tour and the possibility of that being cut short by HMRC losing >> out on 6mil. All of a sudden I bet you're feeling slightly less >> sympathetic? >> >> How much money has been wasted in overspend on government IT projects in >> the >> last 5 years? >> >> So, maybe if there is 6mil less cash swilling around in the chancellors >> coffers he might be more inclined to make the government's project >> management a tad more efficient rather than sack a poor nurse or teacher? >> >> Just a thought. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 04 June 2007 10:09 >> To: Nick Allen; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LU] FW: From Sq Ball re Voting >> >> As one of those that currently benefit from HMRC ,I work on the Aspire IT >> programme and therefore my time is paid for indirectly by the tax and NI >> contributions. I feel that something must be said in their defence. >> >> HMRC act as a processing mechanism for the Tax and NI contributions for >> the >> UK but they do not make the rules, these come from central government. >> Everyone knows that there is a requirement to collect Tax and NI from >> employees and pay it to HMRC, what Bates did was flout the rules and and >> as >> harsh as it may seem he needed to be chased for the debt, the debt >> management centre will seek to recover the debt regardless of size by the >> same mechanism and by using the same risk criteria, just because the debt >> is >> >> owed by a football club is irrelevant, in terms of employee numbers the >> scale of the operation at Leeds is small, it is only the size of the debt >> and the profile of the company that make the difference. >> >> The 6 million quid owed to HMRC will have to come from somewhere if Leeds >> don't pay the debt, there is no point in us saying that it isn't our >> problem >> >> and that it is one in the eye for the government as in reality it doesn't >> work like that. We have all paid money to leeds for programmes, shirts, >> pies, etc and have been charged VAT on these items, so theoretically, as >> VAT >> >> has not been paid to HMRC we have all been defrauded. The tax shortfall >> will >> >> have to be made up from by budget cuts in other areas of government as it >> can not sustain a decrease in the amount collected. Given the current >> political climate surrounding the Tax credits overpayments HMRC can not >> been >> >> seen to not be doing it's job and hence the threat of winding up issued >> to >> Bates. >> >> Must go and do some work now as you tax payers are paying for my time :oP >> >> Cheers >> >> Briggsy >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nick Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:38 AM >> Subject: [LU] FW: From Sq Ball re Voting >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> When has the tax man done anyone any favours? >>> >>> Just as an aside, erm... >>> >>> NHS, Education, Pensions, Roads, taking your rubbish away... >>> >>> Don't want to divert from an enthralling debate, just thought it needed >>> saying. And when you bear in mind that nothing invokes tabloid fury like >>> tax-dodging guttersnipes (although to be fair they're usually >>> "dole-scroungers" or "single-mums" etc) and they are usually touted as >>> the reason you're faced with tax increases... >>> >>> ...anyway back to Bates. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >>> administrators >>> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >>> Leedslist mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>> Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators >> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >> Leedslist mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators >> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >> Leedslist mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators > accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. > Leedslist mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org > _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
