Should We Pay Christa's Hmrc Bill?

[-Talbot-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5459007/BBC-faces-revolt-presenters-tax-bills.html

[Zacs-Master]

Spicey, haven’t you a therapy session to go to or something?

[Spicerack]

They could always make lower quality programmes, though God knows how.
Or maybe you'd like to enlighten us mere mortals, using that enormous brain, of where else the money will come from, Zacs.

[Zacs-Master]

Where else will what money come from?

[gulliver1]

17.50 Z/M, Your crack about Spicecrack , very funny PMSL.

[New Judge]

I'll try to keep it simple because you're clearly suffering a logic breakdown, Zacs.

- The stars suggest the BBC should meet their tax demands;
- The BBC gets all its funds from the public;
- ergo, the stars suggest the public meet their tax demands.

Whether the BBC demands increased licence fees to meet those costs or whether they vire the funds from some other part of their budget is immaterial. Wherever the funds come from, ultimately they would be provided by the public.

[Zacs-Master]

The BBC gets all its funds from the public does it? That would be apart from Licensing the content to other for-profit media outlet (ie, the Discovery Channel)

And apart from
Selling formats and co-producing programming with for-profit media outlets (ie Dancing With the Stars)

And apart from
Licensing the content to online streaming services (ie Netflix)
And apart from
DVD/Blu-Ray sales

And not forgetting Merchandising.

The BBc’s Commercial arm returned £227 million to the corporation’s core public service division in 2015. Top Gear alone netted £50m.

Logic eh.......

[jourdain2]

Erm........... these 'stars' must have made an awful lot of money to be faced with these tax bills. They can, therefore, afford to pay them. The fact that a tax avoidance scheme failed is their problem - I leave all my affairs up to the tax man - they must have thought that they could do better than the rest of us. The BBC is funded by everyone so their money (i.e. our money)should not bail out people who are the sort who have Financial Advisors.

[New Judge]

And who paid to produce the stuff that the BBC is flogging here there and everywhere? All those sales (£227m out of >£3bn) are doing is recouping some of the outlay made from the funds provided by the public.

[Zacs-Master]

NJ, you were wrong. Hand me that shovel.

[New Judge]

I give up!

[Zacs-Master]

BTW, expenditure is much higher than £3b.

For the year ended 31 March 2017 The commercial arm brought in £1.16bn. Page 63.

[Zacs-Master]

So you should. Making statements like ‘the BBC gets all its funds from the public’ which is patently inaccurate doesn’t put you on a firm footing in the debate.

[Zacs-Master]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc-annualreport-201617.pdf

[Peter Pedant]

tha rticle is more interesting than the question
"Should I pay someone elses tax bill - Nope"

and if you read the article does not concern tax avoidance but evasion
every man can order his affairs in a say to minimise tax

butcha cant set up a chain of companies whose only trading object in reality is to minimise or not pay tax

the UK is moving towards the NX model of GAAP
general anti avoidance procedures

and as those narty narty people are finding out
the purse of the revenue is bottomless
and erm theirs is deep but not bottomless

scrow them - I am surprised that the Beeb behaved like this

[Peter Pedant]

not NX - - - NZ - New Zealand

[Peter Pedant]

// The fact that a tax avoidance scheme failed is their problem - I leave all my affairs up to the tax man //

jesus this column has lost its rag
where are Messrs Nice Guy and Polite ?

no I tend NOT to leave my tax affairs to the tax man
as in 'here is my gross income - take what you need and give the rest back to me' - every since he tried to tax me on my brother's turn over .....
yeah clearly mr taxman hadnt put his glasses on for that one

[Peter Pedant]

// Why do you think it would be Jo Public picking up any shortfall?//

because if they are not subcontractors but employees then there is an employee contribution owing

but the employer also would have contributed
something called - the employers contribution
( dont they ? I have just had a wobble)
otherwise there is no tax saving for the beeb - because the NI contrinution of the employee comes out of the employees' monthly mega-whack anyway

[youngmafbog]

No we should not. Many others have used this method and then been forced to pay, the companies do not. IR35 has been around for a long time now and any accountant (which they will have had) no doubt would have advised them of the risk. There are also insurances available to cover the potential investigation and also to help pay any fines. Guess they didnt want to fork out.

I dont agree with IR35 but those are the rules the rest of us have to play by so why not them?

[andy-hughes]

I am sure the Inland Revenue is more than capable of ensuring that its tax laws are implemented properly.

On that basis, they will assess each case individually, and where the BBC and the employee have been found to avoid paying tax, it will become liable for payment.

The notion that presenters were 'invited' to form companies to avoid tax at the BBC's insistence, and they remained ignorant of potential tax payment shortfalls in the future, does not fly.

If you are in a financial position to need to form a company to handle your salary and tax, then you are in a position to employ an accountant to ensure that you are following due process in terms of paying tax correctly.

Failure to do so is the responsibility of the individual concerned, and that is where the IR should pursue any monies owing.

[ToraToraTora]

ah IR35, bottler's "help" for small businesses in the late 90s!