What are these when there is MOAR TAX at stake?
The way to tackle this is obvious. There has to be a change in the law. If a company collapses and the tax authority is the main creditor, and there is no sign that the company has tried to settle its debts over a reasonable period (more than just a month or two), then the presumption should be that this was deliberate. The directors should then be made personally liable for the tax the company owes, having knowingly traded while insolvent for their own benefit.
We should not require a liquidator to prove this.
We should not require HMRC to prove guilt.
Instead, HMRC should be able to raise assessments against directors in such cases. It would then be the directors’ responsibility to prove that they are not liable.
Fuck off you ghastly fascist.
No doubt Albo’d be the first to copy this if the UK bought it in!!!!
. . . and then we kill the directors.
When somebody on the right gets in and starts trying to do stuff he’ll be screaming about how the rule of law is sacred.
Ah yes. Prove that you did not have a guilty mind.
Go to gulag. Go straight to gulag. Do not pass Go.
I would go one step further and make politicians personally liable for the tax that they have spaffed. And further – make retired accountants liable for the losses incurred from their genius policies
…make politicians personally liable for the tax that they have spaffed.
I’d love to, but how exactly?
Btw, I’m in Greece for a month. Two nights ago, I was in the same taverna as Jonathan Powell (who was surrounded by an adoring coterie of late-20s US and UK post-grad types), and I was musing on how he could be punished for his treacherous Chagos deal…
That’s an easy one. The rack. They get stretched an inch for every million spaffed. UK would soon have some remarkably tall politicians. For Powell you’d need an altimeter & an oxygen.mask.
Don’t forget time – as he said to the Mighty Quinn – he has you cold:
Almost something David Koresh like about him at times…
Yes, V_P, there’s more than a whiff of cult-like evil about him…
More Witchfinder General I’d say. Only a witch denies she is one………
@Richard (NOT Murphy) (not Murphy)
There’s a formatting problem on the iPad using Brave.
Not on my iPad
Commie dick Murphy’s perpetual dilemma is, “Do we kill the wealthy before or after we take their stuff?”
Before. Where’s the fun in pulling out the fingernails from a corpse?
God, this man is evil.
If the company was not making money then there’d be no tax to pay, right?
Imagine a company that otherwise would be making money, other than an expense marked “scrooge mcduck’s consultacy fee”…
Does this cretinous fascist know what ‘Limited Company’ means?
My pets know more accountancy than this Solanum.
An accountant with a green night shade?
First little law firm I ran (USA), I was personally and automatically on the hook for any tax payments that we had deducted from employee paychecks but failed to send in to the IRS. So, what’s being described was already somewhat the norm.
Isn’t it true though that if a company trades while insolvent that the directors are already on the hook ? That is the case in NZ at least, the key being “while insolvent”, ands usually “knowingly”.
I guess the point being that if you are unable to repay your debts, continuing to trade represents a fraud on new creditors. You either go into receivership (or directly to liquidation), or seek an arrangement with your creditors such that they agree not to press claims for now while you attempt to trade your way out of it.That arrangement means you are not insolvent until your are solvent or the arrangement ends.
Actually doesn’t seem that controversial to me, to allow insolvent entities to pretend that they are solvent rather opens the door to fraudulent behaviour.
And there have been some controversial cases where board members were (apparently) deliberately mislead as to the actual state of affairs, so they finished up being potentially liable although they were themselves defrauded. I think the result was that if they could show that they were deliberately mislead and took all reasonable steps to find out the true state of affairs, then they could escape liability, but with some emphasis on them having to show that.
As a result companies tend not to stagger on quite like they used to with a catastrophic final collapse, rather the lack of solvency is treated seriously and receivers are called in, making receivership a tolerably profitable profession.
We should not require HMRC to prove guilt.
Someone has to!