Jimmy Carr tax avoidance

[Poulay]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9343267/Taxman-to-challenge-loophole-that-shelters-millions-for-Jimmy-Carr.html

Carr is an utter utter scumbag.

I work in the self-employed sector and have heard of these scams schemes, whereby supposedly you avoid tax by taking out a spurious 'loan' in order to reduce your income to zero. And I and all those I spoke to said 'this is not a legitimate scheme'.

I don't see any difference between this and fraud or theft. Long prison sentences are in order for these scum. He is using our fucking public services and refusing to pay for them.

People made a lot of noise about Red Ken getting paid through a limited company, but at least the limited company paid Corporation Tax. Carr is paying nothing.

How can he possibly think it is legitimate, legal or reasonable to say that his millions he earns are actually a loan on the never never? He is an intelligent man and should be made to pay the price of his actions. No fucking excuses.

'Self-employed'? I don't think his lawyers would claim that. Self-employed people pay lots of taxes - that's why they set up limited companies, to avoid taxes.

I'm not a fan, but I gather that he is 'employed' by Channel 4 and others.

The best shot of catching this scheme is Ramsay but I am so sure that would fail, because it relies upon looking at the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, and testing whether they were intended to apply to the transaction, viewed realistically. There are no relevant statutory provisions. So I reckon a challenge under Ramsay would fail.

It's pointless trying to shut down these schemes as and when they pop up. They're like hydras, and as soon as you draft something that closes them down, you've potentially created a whole new set of loopholes that can be bent and twisted.

The only way of catching this is for a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to come into effect. That is scheduled for next year, by the way, so it's not all doom and gloom.

No, Pouley, officially he is characterised as self-employed. Just because he has been hired by a number of different organisations, does not mean that he is employed by them. There is a raft of legislation on the difference between the two.

If he were employed, then organisations such as C4 would be obliged to deduct PAYE from his earnings under the legislation you have quoted. He is self-employed so he can ask for his earnings to be paid gross into his Jersey company.

By the way, this scheme is as old as the hills. Literally thousands of sportsmen and entertainers do it.

Eh, I've worked on a similar basis, and I was employed - by my own limited company. The income received appears on the company's Corporation Tax return, and the company would pay me dividends equivalent to the basic rate tax return, retaining the rest of the income in the company, to be paid out in a subsequent tax year.

Had I been self employed the income would go on my personal tax return and would all be taxed at 40% in the year of receipt.

I am 100% certain that Carr was not self employed in respect of Channel 4 and others. Had he been so, the income would be paid into Carr's bank account, and he would been taxed on it immediately, under the personal income tax regime, which is the most expensive possible way to be taxed.

The money Carr earns will be paid to at least one, but (probably several companies, which then pay him. He definitely ISN'T self-employed.

Interesting article from the New Statesman here

The first paragraph reads as follows:

"I wonder if whoever advised Cameron to comment on Jimmy Carr has realised what they?ve done yet?" tweeted Marina Hyde this morning and most commentators seem to be in agreement that the Prime Minister has been foolish to make a moral pronouncement about a comedian's tax affairs. It?s certainly a licence for journalists to rake over Tory donors' tax returns."

I honestly do not understand how a Prime Minister who has known about this scheme forever, yet failed to close it down, can take such a standpoint of moral indignation. It's absurd!!

I have no idea who Gina Ford is.

Do you really think, with all the negative publicity, that Jimmy Carr would ACTUALLY try to sue someone?

Not going to happen.

So we can say ILLLLEGGGGAAALLLL JIMMY CARR til the cows come home and nothing will come of it.

Introducing Gina Ford

All of the newspapers and serious commentators have been careful to comment that Jimmy Carr is acting within the law. There's a difference between negative publicity and defamatory publicity :)

Although I guess he would look beyond ridiculous for suing MN.

Well, reading about the Gina Ford thing, it seems a very different case. People were commenting on her as a person, and it was likely to have an impact on her image.

As others have said, if Carr was up in court, the scheme would likely be deemed illegal. He is, therefore, very unlikely to risk suing anyone else.

Ahem, but that was my point, YRC.

Others have said that the scheme would be deemed illegal. Others who are not really in the know about tax matters or have any idea frankly, what the courts would say. And even then, there is a massive difference between saying ...

1. I think the courts would find this scheme illegal (matter of opinion)
2. Jimmy Carr is acting illegally (stated as a matter of fact)

The second can get you sued. The first cannot.

And my point is no-one is going to get sued, so we can say what we want really.

"they'll never sue...'"

Wanna bet?

I'd put all the money I saved through my entirely legal tax loophole on it.

HMRC are very keen to tell ordinary freelancers we are employed if we go into an office and work there. I was, until recently, a freelance journalist. But if I went into a newsroom and did a shift, I was suddenly employed for that shift and on PAYE. Even if I was only there for a week. So how come Carr gets away with being self-employed all the time? He's working at the employer's location, using the employer's tools - he doesn't own the cameras or studio. He can't send someone else to do the job, they want him. Three of the key points HMRC use to tell you even if you are freelance, you count as employed for the purposes of that particular short-term role.

I'm intrigued by the argument that being left wing is necessarily incompatible with disablism, racism etc. Jimmy Carr peddles an anti-Tory, mushy Guardianista line plainly because that's what it takes to fit in with those he perceives as his peers - "radicalism" only goes so far, after all. But I've no doubt at all he self-identifies as left-wing - but so do plenty of other people I've heard with my own ears come out with appallingly disablist shit.
The notion that voting the "correct" way makes you automatically purer and freer from bigotry than those on the Right is naive, sentimental, and not borne out by facts.

There's no evidence he's left wing at all. It's a canard - no-one's come up with any proof.

And the fight against racism, sexism, disablism and homophobia is one led by people on the left - the right gave us Section 28, FFS.