Fortunately they’re thinking about a world tour not a local one

The pop group Take That will consider a new world tour to pay a £30 million tax bill following a court case brought by the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

Might not the world be a happier place without the tax payments and without the That That tour?

12 comments on “Fortunately they’re thinking about a world tour not a local one

  1. “No serious or even moderately sophisticated investor, genuinely seeking a profit… would rationally have chosen an icebreaker partnership,”

    Yes, yes… but what about pop stars?

    Anyway, I was surprised to read that Her Holiness Sinead O’Connor was involved in this scheme.

    I’d have thought she’d blown all her money on hair clippers and crazy pills years ago.

  2. I’d be rather surprised if they did need to tour to fund any liability. In my experience they’d have been strongly advised that the scheme was uncertain to succeed (if not by the promoters, by their own advisors) and would have set aside the funds to pay at the outset. These aren’t cash poor individuals who needed the tax saving to fund living hand to mouth.

    Accordingly the amount that they are down on the deal should be limited to the fees paid to the promoters, which should also cover off the legal costs of the defence.

    Of course, they may not have known that it was a little dodgy – I’ve certainly taken on clients who are in schemes who believe that they’re absolutely unchallengeable – and then the delicious prospect of suing for poor advice comes up.

    Ultimately though, the idea of needing to raise money for a tax bill equal to the amount you should have paid absent the scheme suggests that someone somewhere has been a bit of a dick.

  3. Hmm. Do they need all 4 members?

    What if the honest one wants to stay at home with the chickens?

  4. “At least the Spice Girls aren’t reforming.”

    But that is what I want
    What I really, really want.

  5. dearieme

    But that is what I want
    What I really, really want.

    +1

    What I want, what I really really want is for the Spice Girls to tour with Take That. And Boko Haram’s phone number.

  6. Isn’t this excellent news? HMRC has proved that aggressive tax avoidance can be challenged. Richard Murphy, Margret Hodge et al can now sleep easy in their beds.

  7. I’m beginning to feel uneasy about these tax avoidance decisions. Avoidance has traditionally been legal but we now have a middle ground where the authorities say that intentionally avoiding tax has been deemed illegitimate. Courts and tribunals are no longer just interpreting legislation but appear to be interpreting our intentions too.

    Yet when some of these kinds of schemes are described they sound much more like proper tax evasion by having individuals convoluting loans to themselves to create artificial losses for reasons that are not kosher.(eg the Working Wheels scheme relating to second hand car dealing that never took place)

    These cases have the appearance of a shakedown. Pay up and it all goes away. Either it is tax evasion and should be prosecuted properly or it is not tax evasion and no tax is owed.

  8. This already exists in the form of the Halifax principle and went all the way to the ECJ. Basically, if the only purpose a vehicle (such as a limited company) exists is to avoid tax, then that is unlawful – certainly in respect of VAT and the 6th Directive anyway.

    IR35 attempts (mostly unsuccessfully) to apply the same approach to so-called “false self-employment”.

    The reason why the UK tax code (in the form of Tolley’s tax guide), has grown so much is that even the simplest rules come with a raft of anti-avoidance provisions.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.