You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@hugo7
Yes.
In a oversimplified hypothetical:
Say you reduce corptax by 20%, from 30% down to 10%
X LTD makes £10m and would have paid £3m CT.
They don't want to, so they use a clever instrument to offset 85% of their profits, thereby ending up paying £450k CT.
They know that they'll have to pay a chunk in advisor fees, followed by legal fees, but it's still less, and worst case they'll defer the tax for a few years and probably only have to pay half the original amount originally due. All round win.
In my scenario they only pay £1m, so they are £550k down, but would probably have spent around half of that on fees to reduce their profits in the first place. So why bother.
The Govt gets £1m with no bullshit. No teams of staff ranging in seniority, working on the case. No legal fees. No risk of loosing the case.
Not just that, but you could actually foster an air of cooperation between business and the Revenue, which might actually help develop business in the long run.
Like I said it's just my opinion.
Call me cynical, but I think the main forces against this are because; HMRC would reduce in size, the senior individuals would loose their political power - especially given their current ability to ride on the back of public opinion to create and expand their power separate of Parliament. And the politicians can't sell it to the electorate.
Personally I don't think any of those are good reasons.