Lineker follow-up

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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" 

'HMRC claims it is owed £3,621,735.90 worth of income tax and £1,313,755.38 in national insurance contributions from the TV star.'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-5million-pounds-tax-battle-hmrc-freelance-match-of-the-day-b933772.html

You're making a disingenuous dispute out of the difference between the argument of the case and the outcome of the case.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Foxy2600 301]

Look, I don't like Lineker, I find him an annoying supercilious kn0b who gets paid to comment on recorded highlights for the BBC. If I wore the trousers in the house, I wouldn't pay the BBC Tax (masquerading as a 'Licence Fee') either - because just look how much these idiots are paid! Ken Bruce, Simon Mayo, Chris Evans et-al all gone to the private sector where as far as I'm concerned Lineker could spout whatever far left drivel he wants. I expect impartiality, not lefty 'opinion' - Kuennesburg's another one - and no I don't care if I have spelt her name wrong either.....

And this is NON-FOOTBALL

 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,392]

No good can come of arguing on the internet, but I'd just say that if you think Gary Lineker is a disgraceful woke tax-avoider but don't know who Jonathan Harmsworth is, then the Daily Mail has got you exactly where they want you.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

'HMRC claims it is owed £3,621,735.90 worth of income tax and £1,313,755.38 in national insurance contributions from the TV star.'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-5million-pounds-tax-battle-hmrc-freelance-match-of-the-day-b933772.html

You're making a disingenuous dispute out of the difference between the argument of the case and the outcome of the case.

There is nothing disingenuous at all. What is it about the tax having been paid through a partnership that you don't understand?  Try relying on a reliable and trustworthy source. The opening statement from Lineker's Barrister was that "no one disputes that this tax has been paid". HMRC never claimed it hadn't been paid and didn't dispute that fact in court. It's just that some shoddy reporters are too lazy or stupid to understand. Or perhaps they do understand but think the truth won't sell as well. 

You are wrong. I've explained it to you once and I'm not going to waste my time doing so again. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

3 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

Look, I don't like Lineker, I find him an annoying supercilious kn0b who gets paid to comment on recorded highlights for the BBC. If I wore the trousers in the house, I wouldn't pay the BBC Tax (masquerading as a 'Licence Fee') either - because just look how much these idiots are paid! Ken Bruce, Simon Mayo, Chris Evans et-al all gone to the private sector where as far as I'm concerned Lineker could spout whatever far left drivel he wants. I expect impartiality, not lefty 'opinion' - Kuennesburg's another one - and no I don't care if I have spelt her name wrong either.....

And this is NON-FOOTBALL

 

 

Did you stop and wonder why Graham Norton isn't on that list? 

[king canary 7,609]

7 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

Look, I don't like Lineker, I find him an annoying supercilious kn0b who gets paid to comment on recorded highlights for the BBC. If I wore the trousers in the house, I wouldn't pay the BBC Tax (masquerading as a 'Licence Fee') either - because just look how much these idiots are paid! Ken Bruce, Simon Mayo, Chris Evans et-al all gone to the private sector where as far as I'm concerned Lineker could spout whatever far left drivel he wants. I expect impartiality, not lefty 'opinion' - Kuennesburg's another one - and no I don't care if I have spelt her name wrong either.....

And this is NON-FOOTBALL

 

 

But why do you expect impartiality from him on social media? I'd understand if he was on MOTD talking about government policy or even appearing on shows like Question Time or various such news discussion shows. 

Also, I find it quite funny you clearly see Kuenssberg as giving 'lefty opinions' while many on the left see her as a mouthpiece for the Tory government. Maybe it isn't her impartiality that is in question. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

14 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

There is nothing disingenuous at all. What is it about the tax having been paid through a partnership that you don't understand?  Try relying on a reliable and trustworthy source. The opening statement from Lineker's Barrister was that "no one disputes that this tax has been paid". HMRC never claimed it hadn't been paid and didn't dispute that fact in court. It's just that some shoddy reporters are too lazy or stupid to understand. Or perhaps they do understand but think the truth won't sell as well. 

You are wrong. I've explained it to you once and I'm not going to waste my time doing so again. 

You're saying the evening standard is untrustworthy now? 'Fake news'? Is everything fake news that doesn't fit the world according to Dylan?

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're saying the evening standard is untrustworthy now? 'Fake news'? Is everything fake news that doesn't fit the world according to Dylan?

I'm saying they got it wrong. Perhaps they didn't have anyone in court or the person they sent, like you, simply didn't understand. 

Reuters, The Guardian, The Times and the FT all got it right. 

Having said I wouldn't be lured back in I'm going to try and lay it out in simple terms for you. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Take all day to check responsible news sources if you really can be bothered. 

Lineker was a member of a Limited Liability Partnership with his wife. There are reports that Lineker entered into that arrangement to protect himself in the event of a divorce. I have no idea if that is true or not and although it's a bit intrusive it may help you understand that not all legal arrangements are set up with tax in mind. 

Their incomes from all media interests were paid into that partnership, including that from the BBC. 

The partnership made a Self Assessment and paid the tax on that self assessment in full. 

HMRC was of the view that the payment from the BBC should have been taxed under PAYE and opened an enquiry notice. 

They alleged as part of their enquiry that Lineker's earnings should have been taxed by means of PAYE under Schedule E of the Taxes Acts and made an assessment under Schedule E. 

Lineker appealed against the Schedule E assessment and formally asked for the tax to be withheld from collection as it had already been paid in full under Schedule D (self employment /freelance) 

When the appeal was heard by the High Court, Lineker pointed out that the tax due as shown by the assessment wasn't at issue and in fact had been paid by virtue of his Self Assessment as a partner. 

HMRC did not dispute the fact that the tax had been paid, nor did they dispute that he hadn't gained an advantage by paying in the way he had. This was merely a point of principle to them. 

The argument was basically about in which section of the Tax Return Lineker should have included the income. 

If we make a Self Assessment Tax Return we are required to pay the tax arising from that self assessment regardless of how the income you earned arose. Lineker did that. He paid the tax under his self assessment. 

HMRC could have repaid that tax to him and asked him to pay it back to the by virtue of their Schedule E assessment. They didn't, basically because it wouldn't have made any difference to the amount due and would have been a waste of everyone's time. It was easier for them to sit on the money paid under the Self Assessment pending the Court's decision. 

As a point of law, no tax is payable on an assessment pending an appeal. To suggest that tax was payable under the assessment issued to Lineker is incorrect in law. In this case it didn't really matter because HMRC was sitting on his money already. 

Although it's not relevant to the payment issue, the way HMRC has approached this matter is extremely unusual. In these circumstances HMRC would normally challenge the organisation that made the payment on the basis that they failed in their legal responsibility to operate PAYE. The fact that they went after Lineker instead is strange and has left the 'tax world' scratching it's head. 

I hope this helps and you can finally accept that Lineker paid his tax in full at the right time. 

 

[shefcanary 2,410]

@dylanisabaddog thanks for the response above. I think you have it set out very well. I too have been scratching my head about why those young'uns at HMT thought they could get at Lineker through HMRC with such a poorly conceived case.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@dylanisabaddog thanks for the response above. I think you have it set out very well. I too have been scratching my head about why those young'uns at HMT thought they could get at Lineker through HMRC with such a poorly conceived case.

Thanks. I'm not sure about where the instruction to HMRC originated. I spoke to a senior partner of one of the top 10 yesterday on a completely unconnected matter. He doesn't appear to be politically motivated (in fact I doubt he has time to vote) but his response was brief. Johnson hated Lineker and was in charge when the enquiry started. His only other comment was that he was slightly upset he doesn't represent Lineker. 

I don't know one way or another but it stinks. 

My annoyance stems from the number of people who say that all Lineker does is waffle a bit on Match of the Day. Try speaking to 10m people for an hour after a player dies on the pitch and tell me how easy it is. 

Meanwhile, Graham Norton sits nervously waiting for the ill educated media to work out why he isn't on the BBC pay list😂

[Robert N. LiM 4,392]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're saying the evening standard is untrustworthy now?

The Evening Standard is owned by a Tory peer, Evgeny Lebvedev. Its last two editors were former Tory PM David Cameron's sister-in-law and the former Tory chancellor George Osborne. When Veronica Wadley was editing it, it campaigned openly for Tory Boris Johnson as Mayor of London, including running a headline accusing Ken Livingstone, his Labour opponent, of being in league with a suicide bomber. 

It has, and has had for ages, a clear pro-Tory bias. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself*; we have a free press. But it's not surprising that the Standard is attacking a recent critic of the government, and its articles should be read with that bias in mind.

Edit: * you could argue that a paper with a monopoly position in London, especially now it's given away free, should be politically impartial. Especially if you think it's more influential than the guy who presents the football highlights.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Robert N. LiM

[essex canary 497]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@dylanisabaddog thanks for the response above. I think you have it set out very well. I too have been scratching my head about why those young'uns at HMT thought they could get at Lineker through HMRC with such a poorly conceived case.

Absolutely. The engager party makes the IR35 assessment rather than the commissioned individual so seems a waste of public money to bring this case.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

24 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 

Edit: * you could argue that a paper with a monopoly position in London, especially now it's given away free, should be politically impartial. Especially if you think it's more influential than the guy who presents the football highlights.

The unedited post was good. This is the edit of the year. But it's only March so don't get too excited 😂

[Barbe bleu 827]

On 28/03/2023 at 17:50, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Agree. IR35 is designed for people becoming  “self employed” limited companies and only working for one principal. It is/was rife in the construction industry. 
 

Lineker obviously works for more than one (or two) principals. Even HMRC admitted he worked for both BBC and BT , in itself a fairly obvious measure. Add in his other presenting work (he turns up on non UK sports channels regularly) as well as having other income streams . I can’t see how it was ever going to be successful. 

I have two jobs and thus have two 'principals'.   Can I avoid income tax too?

I dont know the details of the case but good luck to him, what he did was legal and above board. Not exactly in keeping with his 'lefty' image but that's a moral judgement for him.

I'm not sure that there is any conspiracy here, unless the government were also conspiring against lorraine kelly and eamon holmes.

I suspect that HMRC were trying to push the IR 35 rules so that they include more people (and this raise more tax for the public good). Perhaps in some respects they did, maybe someone can read the full judgment and let me know (ive better things to do)

 

 

[essex canary 497]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I have two jobs and thus have two 'principals'.   Can I avoid income tax too?

I suspect that HMRC were trying to push the IR 35 rules so that they include more people (and this raise more tax for the public good). Perhaps in some respects they did, maybe someone can read the full judgment and let me know (ive better things to do)

 

 

You need to look at such issues as whether you get leave or sick pay provision within the jobs and whether the hours are in your control as distinct from the control of your engager etc. Also the extent to which the jobs are specialist and under your control as distinct from being under a line manager.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I have two jobs and thus have two 'principals'.   Can I avoid income tax too?

I dont know the details of the case but good luck to him, what he did was legal and above board. Not exactly in keeping with his 'lefty' image but that's a moral judgement for him.

I'm not sure that there is any conspiracy here, unless the government were also conspiring against lorraine kelly and eamon holmes.

I suspect that HMRC were trying to push the IR 35 rules so that they include more people (and this raise more tax for the public good). Perhaps in some respects they did, maybe someone can read the full judgment and let me know (ive better things to do)

 

 

He didn't avoid tax. He was correctly taxed. 

You sort of gave the game away when you admitted to not knowing the details of the case. 

[shefcanary 2,410]

At least now HMRC could devote more time investigating Dual Representation of EPL clubs and their use of agents. Whilst I'm all in favour of the corrupt dealings of agents finally being given a proper national review, so that a better way of overseeing the transfer process is created that doesn't see £millions leaking from the football sector, a note of caution as always as to whether such a review is in the best interests of state owned clubs?!

To be clear, my tongue is firmly in my cheek over that last sub-clause!

Edited March 30, 2023 by shefcanary

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

The Evening Standard is owned by a Tory peer, Evgeny Lebvedev. Its last two editors were former Tory PM David Cameron's sister-in-law and the former Tory chancellor George Osborne. When Veronica Wadley was editing it, it campaigned openly for Tory Boris Johnson as Mayor of London, including running a headline accusing Ken Livingstone, his Labour opponent, of being in league with a suicide bomber. 

It has, and has had for ages, a clear pro-Tory bias. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself*; we have a free press. But it's not surprising that the Standard is attacking a recent critic of the government, and its articles should be read with that bias in mind.

Edit: * you could argue that a paper with a monopoly position in London, especially now it's given away free, should be politically impartial. Especially if you think it's more influential than the guy who presents the football highlights.

"Gary Lineker has won his battle against HMRC after a judge concluded that the Match of the Day presenter was wrongly accused of underpaying £4.9m in tax"

So even the Daily Mirror is peddling fake news that the HMRC prosecution was about unpaid taxes?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/breaking-gary-lineker-tax-battle-29569979

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

41 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I have two jobs and thus have two 'principals'.   Can I avoid income tax too?

I dont know the details of the case but good luck to him, what he did was legal and above board. Not exactly in keeping with his 'lefty' image but that's a moral judgement for him.

I'm not sure that there is any conspiracy here, unless the government were also conspiring against lorraine kelly and eamon holmes.

I suspect that HMRC were trying to push the IR 35 rules so that they include more people (and this raise more tax for the public good). Perhaps in some respects they did, maybe someone can read the full judgment and let me know (ive better things to do)

 

 

There aren't many people on here I'd rely on for a fair summary of anything, personally. Not on the non -football side, anyway.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

"Gary Lineker has won his battle against HMRC after a judge concluded that the Match of the Day presenter was wrongly accused of underpaying £4.9m in tax"

So even the Daily Mirror is peddling fake news that the HMRC prosecution was about unpaid taxes?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/breaking-gary-lineker-tax-battle-29569979

Cop on will ya?  Youre wrong, it happens, accept it. Quoting tbe Mirror ffs!! How low can you go. Get a mirror and argue with yourself in that.....one way to be right all the time. 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There aren't many people on here I'd rely on for a fair summary of anything, personally. Not on the non -football side, anyway.

Moi surely?

[Foxy2600 301]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Did you stop and wonder why Graham Norton isn't on that list? 

Who? 

[Barbe bleu 827]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

He didn't avoid tax. He was correctly taxed. 

You sort of gave the game away when you admitted to not knowing the details of the case. 

Well yes, the judge agreed, but I'm not asking  about the outcome, I'm asking about the HMRC case.

I'm not following this closely. In simple terms can you explain what HMRC were trying to argue?

Seems to me that if they agreed that GL was categorised correctly and paid the amount of tax owing from such category then there was no need for any action.

Lyb seems to think that this is about disguised employees /IR35.  On this analysis GL avoided/underpaid tax that would have been due had he been 'correctly' (from the HMRC perspective) categorised (granted though GL paid the full amount owed given what he thought was his freelance status)

I have to say that LYBs argument does seem logical and is the way its all been reported in the mainstream media. Your assertion that HMRC were happy there was no underpayment and that there was no argument over categorisation seems illogical as if there was no dispute at all then what was the case about?

Why is LYB wrong? Or are you talking at cross purposes to him?

Edited March 30, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Well yes, the judge agreed, but I'm not asking  about the outcome, I'm asking about the HMRC case.

I'm not following this closely. In simple terms can you explain what HMRC were trying to argue?

Seems to me that if they agreed that GL was categorised correctly and paid the amount of tax owing from such category then there was no need for any action.

Lyb seems to think that this is about disguised employees /IR35.  On this analysis GL avoided/underpaid tax that would have been due had he been 'correctly' (from the HMRC perspective) categorised (granted though GL paid the full amount owed given what he thought was his freelance status)

I have to say that LYBs argument does seem logical and is the way its all been reported in the mainstream media. Your assertion that HMRC were happy there was no underpayment and that there was no argument over categorisation seems illogical as if there was no dispute at all then what was the case about?

Why is LYB wrong? Or are you talking at cross purposes to him?

I point you to the rather lengthy post I made earlier today for an explanation of proceedings. 

I'm not talking at cross purposes at all, I've explained everything at great length in the simplest terms possible but I'm afraid I've been unable to make LYB understand. 

The dispute was about how the income from the BBC should be taxed. Lineker paid it one way and HMRC thought it should have been paid another way. I'm afraid I can't explain why HMRC has behaved this way. 

The judge was extremely unimpressed and most people in the tax profession are baffled. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 827]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I point you to the rather lengthy post I made earlier today for an explanation of proceedings. 

I'm not talking at cross purposes at all, I'm afraid that LYB simply doesn't understand. 

The dispute was about how the income from the BBC should be taxed. Lineker paid it one way and HMRC thought it should have been paid another way. I'm afraid I can't explain why HMRC has behaved this way. 

The judge was extremely unimpressed and most people in the tax profession are baffled. 

So the case was about IR35 then?HMRC wanted the court to define him as an employee (and pay more tax) and GL preferred to be a contractor as (we can probably assume)  it attracted less tax.

Isn't that exactly what LYB was saying? 

Odd case really, the people you would expect to be on the side of HMRC are with GL and vice versa!  The power of twitter is real!

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

49 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So the case was about IR35 then?HMRC wanted the court to define him as an employee (and pay more tax) and GL preferred to be a contractor as (we can probably assume)  it attracted less tax.

Isn't that exactly what LYB was saying? 

Odd case really, the people you would expect to be on the side of HMRC are with GL and vice versa!  The power of twitter is real!

 

Err no, you don't need to assume anything as all the facts were disclosed in court. Try reading my earlier post again. 

Usually IR35 enquiries centre around a Limited Company being used. If that had happened here Lineker would have had all sorts of ways of using that company to engage in tax avoidance. He didn't, he used a Partnership and HMRC agreed in court that all the money paid to the Partnership had been declared. They also agreed that the tax paid by Lineker through the partnership was to all intents and purposes the same as if it had been taxed under PAYE. 

It is probable that Lineker has set things up in this way for reasons other than tax but he hasn't said. Frankly that's his business not ours. 

So he didn't save any tax and he paid the correct tax at the correct time. 

Sorry, I don't want to sound rude but I've spent longer than I would want going through this today. I've only done that because I don't like to see a thoroughly decent man having his name trashed on social media. So I can't see the point in going through it any more. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,392]

31 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, I don't want to sound rude but I've spent longer than I would want going through this today. I've only done that because I don't like to see a thoroughly decent man having his name trashed on social media. So I can't see the point in going through it any more. 

Well, I for one appreciate the time you spent. I'm very ignorant when it comes to tax matters so it was very helpful to see it spelled out so clearly.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

26 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Well, I for one appreciate the time you spent. I'm very ignorant when it comes to tax matters so it was very helpful to see it spelled out so clearly.

In all likelihood, Gary Lineker would probably happily be ignorant of his tax matters; this is what wealthy people employ accountants for, with a tax deduction for paying the accountant.

Edited March 30, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

Many years ago, when I was a young man, workers in the construction industry were encouraged to be "self employed". So I became "self employed".

As a young man, I forgot to save enough to pay my tax bill. So I went to HMRC to see if I could arrange a deal.

They were very obliging. Yes, they could arrange a deal. The deal was that I paid what I owed, on or before the date that the debt was owed, and they wouldn't take me to court.

Harsh but fair, those HMRC guys 😃

[Barbe bleu 827]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Err no, you don't need to assume anything as all the facts were disclosed in court. Try reading my earlier post again. 

To be honest your earlier post isn't particularly clear.

I skim read the two judgments.  God knows why. But my understanding is as follows.

GL set up a Partnership to organise/channel his business activities. All of the money earned  by this partnership less £30,000 paid to his then wife, then went to GL. GL paid NIC and income tax on those earnings.  The partnership did not try to pay dividends in lieu of salary so there was no tax efficiency from this part of rhe arrangement.

HMRC assessed that the partnership was akin to a limited company and that Ir35 should apply.  They also found that there was an underpayment of £6500 in NIC.

GL objected to the assessment and appealed. 

The judge said IR35 could apply to partnerships (in this sense HMRC were successful) but not in this case (so GL won overall)

I can see why the case was brought as the sharpening/clarification of the law might have been useful. I'm not entirely sure why GL didn't just pay the £6500 and be done with it (but that's his call I guess).

I'm not sure what happened to the disputed NIC but it does seem from my reading that the papers were wrong to suggest this was a standard IR35 case where the defendant sought to be tax efficient.

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Barbe bleu