Lineker follow-up

[BigFish 1,988]

59 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Absolutely. It could also be that some contractors are genuinely getting different or multiple engagements and taking the risks accordingly in which case paying themselves by dividend seems perfectly legitimate.

Legitimate in terms of being legal yes, but in terms of an effective taxation system probably not. Nothing to do with GL, but no real argument to have different rates of tax on income from work to from income from wealth.

[C.I.D 302]

His knighthood or peerage should be nailed on now 🤗

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Other way round then maybe?  I dont think we were clear that she was Stu's boss until further down the line?

You are never clear , as you assume shoite before you even read tbe info. What a gimp.  

[essex canary 497]

8 hours ago, BigFish said:

Legitimate in terms of being legal yes, but in terms of an effective taxation system probably not. Nothing to do with GL, but no real argument to have different rates of tax on income from work to from income from wealth.

A reasonable argument. Nonetheless there are contracts of engagement that take place without holiday or sick pay entitlements or where non in-house specialist skill is offered or where there are no specified hours so the legal differentiation is a challenge.

[zema abbey football genius 36]

On 28/03/2023 at 17:25, Branston Pickle said:

Just for those who decided to spout rubbish based on no knowledge - Lineker won his case against HMRC so he is not a tax evader. 

The separate issue on rights and wrongs of loopholes and tax law that could easily be tightened are for the govt -who could easily do more but simply don’t want to, largely as they/their mates are using them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65103265

Not a tax evader, but certainly a tax avoider. As previously commented, trading as a PSC (Private Services Company) means he will pay corporation tax on ‘company profits’ (25% on profits over £250k) instead of tax at the usual income tax rate of 45% (annual salaries over circa £125k per annum).

No laws were broken, but it makes you pretty sick that someone earning the ridiculous figures he does, has a lower % tax rate than someone earning circa £50k per annum (40% income tax) 
 

Jug eared pr1ck

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

42 minutes ago, zema abbey football genius said:

Not a tax evader, but certainly a tax avoider. As previously commented, trading as a PSC (Private Services Company) means he will pay corporation tax on ‘company profits’ (25% on profits over £250k) instead of tax at the usual income tax rate of 45% (annual salaries over circa £125k per annum).

No laws were broken, but it makes you pretty sick that someone earning the ridiculous figures he does, has a lower % tax rate than someone earning circa £50k per annum (40% income tax) 
 

Jug eared pr1ck

Then it is clear that the issue is with the laws, not with Lineker.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

16 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then it is clear that the issue is with the laws, not with Lineker.

100%.  Tbh I have much less of a problem with people who use the sieve-like tax regulations to minimise what they pay , than I do with those who deliberately leave the holes there to be used so their wealthy mates can benefit.

Edir: the thing is that Lineker is not some left wing socialist, he’s very middle of the road and I’m pretty sure has voted tory in the past - he’s a self-confessed floating voter. But these days unless you’re rabidly right wing on certain issues it seems you’re the enemy.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[zema abbey football genius 36]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then it is clear that the issue is with the laws, not with Lineker.

Agreed.

Lineker is a smug, self righteous prat though. I find the fact that he avoids tax on multi million earnings offensive to the rest of the tax payers in the country.

People rant and rave about footballers earning millions, imagine the reaction if they started becoming PSCs! 

Edited March 29, 2023 by zema abbey football genius

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 hours ago, zema abbey football genius said:

Agreed.

Lineker is a smug, self righteous prat though. I find the fact that he avoids tax on multi million earnings offensive to the rest of the tax payers in the country.

People rant and rave about footballers earning millions, imagine the reaction if they started becoming PSCs! 

Meh, that's just a personality clash. Branston's response to me nails it. We'd all do what he does in his position. His personality isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather save my criticism for the enablers instead of the users.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

IR35 doesn't apply because he worked for both the BBC and BT sport, except he quit BT sport in May 2021, leaving him with only one primary employer, which means arguably he should have gone on a direct salary at that point. The argument list, but I don't see that it's a given.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

IR35 doesn't apply because he worked for both the BBC and BT sport, except he quit BT sport in May 2021, leaving him with only one primary employer, which means arguably he should have gone on a direct salary at that point. The argument list, but I don't see that it's a given.

The years in question were 2013/14 and 2017/18.

He didn't just work for BBC and BT and he didn't just present MOTD for the BBC. 

A specialist judge has found in Lineker's favour. 

HMRC is considering an appeal but quite why is unclear as HMRC didn't actually lose any tax as a result of the arrangement in place. 

As for the current position, Lineker now runs a very successful media company on top of his duties with the BBC and others. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

The years in question were 2013/14 and 2017/18.

He didn't just work for BBC and BT and he didn't just present MOTD for the BBC. 

A specialist judge has found in Lineker's favour. 

HMRC is considering an appeal but quite why is unclear as HMRC didn't actually lose any tax as a result of the arrangement in place. 

The criticism seems a bit damned if you do and damned if you don't to me. I'm sure their lawyers weighed the risks of winning and losing, and likely the precedent would have knock ons for other potential pursuits.

While only with the BBC, if money from other sources was tiny in comparison to BBC money then it seems fair enough to me that you might argue he's getting out of a lot of tax there for the sake of a tiny bit of work on the side that shouldn't justify being a company freelancing for the BBC.

The court ruled for him, though, so fair play to him. No sense letting the tax man have money unnecessarily.

[DraytonBoy 155]

A bit of perspective assuming this is correct -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65097761

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

22 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The criticism seems a bit damned if you do and damned if you don't to me. I'm sure their lawyers weighed the risks of winning and losing, and likely the precedent would have knock ons for other potential pursuits.

While only with the BBC, if money from other sources was tiny in comparison to BBC money then it seems fair enough to me that you might argue he's getting out of a lot of tax there for the sake of a tiny bit of work on the side that shouldn't justify being a company freelancing for the BBC.

The court ruled for him, though, so fair play to him. No sense letting the tax man have money unnecessarily.

Read the link again and consider the facts. HMRC accepts that it didn't lose any tax as part of the arrangement. 

It was not a tiny bit of work elsewhere. The amount paid by the BBC was reportedly lower than Lineker's partnership received from elsewhere. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Read the link again and consider the facts. HMRC accepts that it didn't lose any tax as part of the arrangement. 

It was not a tiny bit of work elsewhere. The amount paid by the BBC was reportedly lower than Lineker's partnership received from elsewhere. 

That was the outcome of the case;  HMRC is hardly going to argue with the judge after the event. If they didn't think they had an argument worth testing, HMRC lawyers wouldn't have bought it to court in the first place, nor would they be appealing.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That was the outcome of the case;  HMRC is hardly going to argue with the judge after the event. If they didn't think they had an argument worth testing, HMRC lawyers wouldn't have bought it to court in the first place.

Really? They had already lost 2 identical high profile cases. 

All high profile cases involving HMRC are considered at the very highest level of that organisation. 

HMRC reports to the Treasury whose boss is the Chancellor. The Chancellor reports to the Prime Minister. 

Can you work out from that why this case was taken to court, especially bearing in mind there was only a principle at stake and zero potential yield to the Exchequer? 

Do you think it's remotely possible that people at the highest level don't like Lineker and enjoy seeing his name blackened on social media? 

I've spoken to several highly paid, experienced and sensible people within the industry over the last few days and they are completely baffled. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Really? They had already lost 2 identical high profile cases. 

All high profile cases involving HMRC are considered at the very highest level of that organisation. 

HMRC reports to the Treasury whose boss is the Chancellor. The Chancellor reports to the Prime Minister. 

Can you work out from that why this case was taken to court, especially bearing in mind there was only a principle at stake and zero potential yield to the Exchequer? 

Do you think it's remotely possible that people at the highest level don't like Lineker and enjoy seeing his name blackened on social media? 

I've spoken to several highly paid, experienced and sensible people within the industry over the last few days and they are completely baffled. 

A lot of supposition in there. This tax thing was going on before he started dabbling in politics for fun. You're claiming this is outright corruption with no evidence. At the very least, the courts aren't in on this supposed conspiracy against Lineker and HMRC doesn't have a vested interest in making itself look stupid, so your suspicions seem pretty wild.

The claim there was no money in the argument is just wrong; the dispute was over £4.9m in unpaid tax by the HMRC argument.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[essex canary 497]

40 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A lot of supposition in there. This tax thing was going on before he started dabbling in politics for fun. You're claiming this is outright corruption with no evidence. At the very least, the courts aren't in on this supposed conspiracy against Lineker and HMRC doesn't have a vested interest in making itself look stupid, so your suspicions seem pretty wild.

The claim there was no money in the argument is just wrong; the dispute was over £4.9m in unpaid tax by the HMRC argument.

I thought this message board was about Norwich City. There is a thread about their money management 'Let's Be Honest -Exceptional Performance Needed'.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

I thought this message board was about Norwich City. There is a thread about their money management 'Let's Be Honest -Exceptional Performance Needed'.

You might note I was replying to someone else's comments about it. If you have a problem with it, trace back the conversation and bring it up with whoever raised it in the first place.

[shefcanary 2,410]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The criticism seems a bit damned if you do and damned if you don't to me. I'm sure their lawyers weighed the risks of winning and losing, and likely the precedent would have knock ons for other potential pursuits.

While only with the BBC, if money from other sources was tiny in comparison to BBC money then it seems fair enough to me that you might argue he's getting out of a lot of tax there for the sake of a tiny bit of work on the side that shouldn't justify being a company freelancing for the BBC.

The court ruled for him, though, so fair play to him. No sense letting the tax man have money unnecessarily.

All the accountancy profession analysts are extremely critical of HMRC fighting this case and costing the taxpayer needless expense. Yes, they have skin in the game, accepted but they do generally have years of experience in such matters. As for HMRC, I blame the pressure put on HMRC from the 35 year olds who are running HM Treasury at the moment, trying to make a name for themselves.

[Note to people who may be confused by that statement, I've worked with HMT and know the games they play: despite advising individuals in HMT we should not take the route they feel will give them mucho kudos amongst their peers, you have to pursue to pay the piper - I can see this case as having been driven by HMT, not HMRC.] 

Edited March 30, 2023 by shefcanary

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A lot of supposition in there. This tax thing was going on before he started dabbling in politics for fun. You're claiming this is outright corruption with no evidence. At the very least, the courts aren't in on this supposed conspiracy against Lineker and HMRC doesn't have a vested interest in making itself look stupid, so your suspicions seem pretty wild.

The claim there was no money in the argument is just wrong; the dispute was over £4.9m in unpaid tax by the HMRC argument.

FFS. Both sides accept that no tax had been lost to the Exchequer. You are committing libel by suggesting otherwise. 

HMRC was required to issue an assessment on Lineker personally, effectively to produce an appeal which could be heard in court. There is no system in place to allow this sort of argument to be held in court without an assessment and an appeal to argue about. 

Lineker appealed the assessment and will have asked for the tax to be withheld from collection because the full amount had already been paid through the partnership. The fact that some incredibly dubious individuals and media outlets are claiming he hadn't paid is disgusting. Hang your head in shame. And get your news from a more reliable source in future. 

My reason for suggesting that this was ordered on high out of pure malice is based, if you like, on Occam's Razor. Look at ALL the facts of a question and the answer is usually the one you first thought of. That doesn't mean you don't check out all the other possible answers. In this matter I have yet to see any good reason why the case went to court. Quite simply it beggars belief. 

A friend suggested to me by private message just now that Lineker knew full well what was going on and was also absolutely certain he was going to win. So 2 or 3 weeks ago he decided to show the Government what he thought of them with the now infamous tweet. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[shefcanary 2,410]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

My reason for suggesting that this was ordered on high out of pure malice is based, if you like, on Occam's Razor. Look at ALL the facts of a question and the answer is usually the one you first thought of. That doesn't mean you don't check out all the other possible answers. In this matter I have yet to see any good reason why the case went to court. Quite simply it beggars belief. 

You hopefully will have seen the addendum to my recent post. This was all driven from No. 11, via HMT, applying pressure to HMRC. It stinks, but everyone in Whitehall plays these games, and Lineker seems to know it too!

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

You hopefully will have seen the addendum to my recent post. This was all driven from No. 11, via HMT, applying pressure to HMRC. It stinks, but everyone in Whitehall plays these games, and Lineker seems to know it too!

The matter of employment status of tv staff was considered in detail during the time of the first Thatcher government and lengthy negotiations were held between the Inland Revenue and the profession. The talks dragged on and on and finally with a General Election looming, the Inland Revenue inexplicably backed off. All people in front of the camera or behind the microphone were accepted as freelance. Hmmm..... 

[Foxy2600 301]

Seems Eamonn Holmes isn't as woke and slippery as Lineaker or maybe big-ears just had a better QC?

Upper Tribunal judges upheld a previous decision that the 63-year-old broadcaster should pay tax as an ITV employee for his work on the programme, rather than as a freelancer.

In a judgment given on Wednesday, Mr Justice Mellor and Judge Jonathan Canna said they were “satisfied” that the First Tier Tribunal which originally dealt with Mr Holmes’ claim in 2020 “considered the overall picture”.

They said they were not convinced by Mr Holmes’ lawyers assertion that the tribunal overlooked “characteristics which might have indicated that the ITV contracts were part of Mr Holmes’ self-employed business activities”.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

FFS. Both sides accept that no tax had been lost to the Exchequer. You are committing libel by suggesting otherwise. 

HMRC was required to issue an assessment on Lineker personally, effectively to produce an appeal which could be heard in court. There is no system in place to allow this sort of argument to be held in court without an assessment and an appeal to argue about. 

Lineker appealed the assessment and will have asked for the tax to be withheld from collection because the full amount had already been paid through the partnership. The fact that some incredibly dubious individuals and media outlets are claiming he hadn't paid is disgusting. Hang your head in shame. And get your news from a more reliable source in future. 

My reason for suggesting that this was ordered on high out of pure malice is based, if you like, on Occam's Razor. Look at ALL the facts of a question and the answer is usually the one you first thought of. That doesn't mean you don't check out all the other possible answers. In this matter I have yet to see any good reason why the case went to court. Quite simply it beggars belief. 

A friend suggested to me by private message just now that Lineker knew full well what was going on and was also absolutely certain he was going to win. So 2 or 3 weeks ago he decided to show the Government what he thought of them with the now infamous tweet. 

 

Don't be ridiculous. The 4.9 million pound figure comes from national headlines. The papers' lawyers know more about libel than you do.

Theories are all very well, but yours has a complete lack of substantive evidence. The idea that the government is using the tax service to nobble political opposition with baseless legal cases without making moves to nobble the judges is well is fundamentally flawed to the point of being laughable.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

17 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

Seems Eamonn Holmes isn't as woke and slippery as Lineaker or maybe big-ears just had a better QC?

Upper Tribunal judges upheld a previous decision that the 63-year-old broadcaster should pay tax as an ITV employee for his work on the programme, rather than as a freelancer.

In a judgment given on Wednesday, Mr Justice Mellor and Judge Jonathan Canna said they were “satisfied” that the First Tier Tribunal which originally dealt with Mr Holmes’ claim in 2020 “considered the overall picture”.

They said they were not convinced by Mr Holmes’ lawyers assertion that the tribunal overlooked “characteristics which might have indicated that the ITV contracts were part of Mr Holmes’ self-employed business activities”.

If you're going to accuse someone of being slippery you could at least have the decency to spell his name correctly. 

The facts of the case of Holmes and ITV are significantly different from Lineker. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't be ridiculous. The 4.9 million pound figure comes from national headlines. The papers' lawyers know more about libel than you do.

“We’re in front of you to argue an appeal in respect of an amount of income tax that everybody acknowledges has been paid.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/27/gary-linekers-lawyers-say-hmrc-tax-probe-looking-in-the-wrong-place

Try reading my post about the chain of events and stop relying on the Daily Mail. 

The tax was paid in full through the partnership. 

I despair. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

“We’re in front of you to argue an appeal in respect of an amount of income tax that everybody acknowledges has been paid.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/27/gary-linekers-lawyers-say-hmrc-tax-probe-looking-in-the-wrong-place

Try reading my post about the chain of events and stop relying on the Daily Mail. 

The tax was paid in full through the partnership. 

I despair. 

I haven't made any comments either way on what may or may not have actually been paid. Yet another straw man argument.

I don't read the Daily Mail, not that it would be a point of be bothered about if I did. With the amount of derision of Trump here, it's remarkable how often his tactics of attacking and/or discrediting the poster rather than talking what's being posted is favoured here.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Foxy2600 301]

7 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If you're going to accuse someone of being slippery you could at least have the decency to spell his name correctly. 

The facts of the case of Holmes and ITV are significantly different from Lineker. 

I know - I just love quoting his name wrong - all the petty Grammar Police come out of the woodwork 

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I haven't made any comments either way on what may or may not have actually been paid. Yet another straw man argument.

Apart from these 2 comments.

"The claim there was no money in the argument is just wrong; the dispute was over £4.9m in unpaid tax by the HMRC argument" 

"Don't be ridiculous. The 4.9 million pound figure comes from national headlines"