You might also be interested in
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Hair today, gone tomorrow..
Like the hair on his head, Rooney's tax affairs are no doubt designed to (legally) hide the bare truth of his earnings!
Joking apart, I can sympathise with Rooney, as at some point the money has to be extracted from the company at which point he will have to pay dividend tax at the marginal rate or CGT if the co is wound up, so there's no way his eventual tax bill would be as low as 2%, but Joe Public reading that article may well have surmised as much.
Which is worse?
public contempt for the super-rich using EFRBS-type schemes to pay lower rates than Joe PAYE ever could, or the Gutter Press (no doubt also employing such schemes!) exaggerating it, whipping up Joe's support for the sort of knee-jerk HMRC guff we have to endure, which only actually makes tax more taxing on TC Mits and his long-suffering accountant?
Funnily enough, it's always business as usual for Gutter Press (Cayman) Ltd & Rooney (IoM) Ltd. And the senior members of HMRC using service companies...
avoidance or not
I think that most people will want to minimise the amount of tax they pay...and if they can do that (and I can help them!) within the rules then good luck to them. And in response to your point that Rooney's tax affairs are designed to hide the truth ... well the truth is loans are not income - so there is no hiding!
And if Mr Rooney would like some help in clearing up his loans then I can help him do that without a 50% tax charge.
55.44% Surely ?
I agree unless there is a winding up and CGT applies then the rate of tax must me 42.5% plus another 2% for delaying it. Ignoring class1A
£100,000 less corporation tax of £28,000 leaves £72,000 for loan or distribution to be repaid by £80,000 gross dividend taxed at 42.5% less 10% =£26,000
loan of £72,000 *4%* 50% = £1,440
Tax paid = £1,440 +28,000+26,000 =£55,440
Am I right ?
Presumably the saving is in the Ers NIC for the club ?
Does Rooney actually pay more tax this way than he would as an employee ?
Now I think I am missing something ?
Hiding
Blimey, us accountants are such pedants! I said "hide", qualifying it with a bracketed "legally", because otherwise my admittedly obvious joke would not have worked!
sorry guv
Sorry Roger...didn't mean to be pejorative just wanted to make my point!
And to Kalden ... ummm. pretty much yes, but only if you don't do any tax planning! The but is you can probably get the money out on an ongoing basis at around 15% cost, including corporation tax and income tax/nic.
Bit of pedantry here -
1 the image rights ploy goes back a lot further than 50% tax rates - we were writing about it three or four years ago and it's older than that - originally I suspect with non-domiciled players and offshore companies
2 If Nick Graves knows of senior members of HMRC using service companies he should name them and they should be hounded out !
They should be
Bit of pedantry here -
1 the image rights ploy goes back a lot further than 50% tax rates - we were writing about it three or four years ago and it's older than that - originally I suspect with non-domiciled players and offshore companies
2 If Nick Graves knows of senior members of HMRC using service companies he should name them and they should be hounded out !
I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it.
No surprise there
[/quote]
"I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it."
Government departments are big users of Umbrella companies , the MOD (or what ever it's called now is an example too)
Did you really expect joined up thinking ?
Do as I command; not as I do
"I'm sure it was here or in one of the trade publications only recently, it was reported that not only IT contractors to HMRC but also other senior advisors were using the service companies they otherwise claim are so crooked! I should have save the article, but I was so much in disbelief I simply believed it."
Government departments are big users of Umbrella companies , the MOD (or what ever it's called now is an example too)
Did you really expect joined up thinking ?
[/quote]
You are clearly a very kind person, merely presuming stupidity, whereas I presumed malice aforethought.
Bit like Gov't limos & P11D reporting; I expect the apparatchiks are a 'special case' and are permitted umbrella companies whereas you and I are not...
Planning ?
You mean EBTs and EFRBSs yes ?
I had assumed he had not used these as article did not refer to them. But as usual perhaps the relevant bits of information are missing from the press article.
You are all missing the point.
Did Rooney make the claim because he was only able to read the headline, being that it was in BIG BLACK LETTERS and was NOT JOINED UP writing?
I should love to know where I can lodge a complaint against this foul-mouthed lout.
foul-mouthed louts
Do seem to be highly valued in our society though, perhaps because they sell news !
mmm
Shame a civil action could not be brought on behalf of (the taxpayers).
be interesting to see some tax experts argueing for instead of defending.
probably why we are all still subjects and not citizens ?