Brian Marwood
Well-known member
So if I was to 'carelessly' rob a bank but then repay it back when the bank/police/authorities investigated and find that I acted illegally, I would be let off with the error?
Did he lend them it?
So if I was to 'carelessly' rob a bank but then repay it back when the bank/police/authorities investigated and find that I acted illegally, I would be let off with the error?
Means tested of course
I think that's definitely what they're relying on, that's why they rarely resign or get the sack. Ride it out and hope people lose interest. Probably modelled on the trump approach in the states.I’m not so sure you know.
There is a real danger of sleaze fatigue with jo public - it is becoming the norm and, in general, the anger is subsiding to a shrug of the shoulders.
Until the RWM start their smear campaigns against everything Labour. ANY skeletons, no matter how small, will be brought out and "enhanced". The gullible British public will do their "well, Boris wasn't perfect but I'm not voting for Labour ..." act and suddenly the Tories have a fighting chance.Only the seriously deluded, deranged and those that really only care about themselves would even consider voting this shower in again. Im inclined to think there has been the sea change we saw withy the major govt in the 90's, there is no way back from this lot, not for a long time.
a bit of a read but all here
However, ‘reasonable care’ is different for each client’s circumstances and abilities. For example, a client with relatively straightforward tax affairs may only need a simple system of record keeping that is regularly updated. A large business with complex tax affairs is expected to have a more sophisticated system that is well-managed.
For example, if:
- a penalty arises because of a lack of reasonable care, the penalty will be between 0% and 30% of the extra tax due
- the error is deliberate, the penalty will be between 20 and 70% of the extra tax due
- the error is deliberate and concealed, the penalty will be between 30 and 100% of the extra tax due
As Zahawi is only citing "carelessness", I assume he is referring to #1. I would assume the wording from HMRC is pretty precise - it probably indicates clearly which of the 3 criteria applied.Based on what has been reported (30% penalty) it could fall under any of those 3 criteria
Bottom line is he did not contest the penalty, which is tantamount to admitting tax evasion. Otherwise he would have taken HMRC to court and if he won, he would have been shown to have acted lawfully. Given that he is a money-grubbing tory who would sell his mother for a buffet lunch, he would have taken it to court if he thought he had any chance of winning.As Zahawi is only citing "carelessness", I assume he is referring to #1. I would assume the wording from HMRC is pretty precise - it probably indicates clearly which of the 3 criteria applied.
The fact he hasn’t contested means he admits he was careless l, doesn’t mean he deliberately avoiding paying taxBottom line is he did not contest the penalty, which is tantamount to admitting tax evasion. Otherwise he would have taken HMRC to court and if he won, he would have been shown to have acted lawfully. Given that he is a money-grubbing tory who would sell his mother for a buffet lunch, he would have taken it to court if he thought he had any chance of winning.
I think we do.L
The fact he hasn’t contested means he admits he was careless l, doesn’t mean he deliberately avoiding paying tax
He probably did but we don’t know that for sure
I agree.I think we do.