Raynor the tax dodger

[Lower]

It was instructed by the courts.

...as part of her divorce process that she and her ex husband would have asked for.

 

[motorbiking]

It depends what you mean by guilty.

did something wrong. She has confessed that she did not pay the taxes she should have paid. Nobody expects her to admit to deliberately evading tax, her statement would have been carefully checked.. unlike her SDLT 1e.

She has admitted that she followed bad advice and paid the wrong amount of tax as a result.

She has claimed she followed bad advice. There is no evidence that this was sought from an appropriate expert or even knowledgeable person. We also don't know how much she paid for this advice if anything. I'm sure you are aware of the professional rules.. or not.

But an innocent mistake is not a crime.

Again we have no evidence that the claimed mistake was not careless or reckless.

I think motorbiking has been confusing everyone again with his own made up legal principles.

It's not me who is confused. The tax man fines people who commit tax evasion, when caught.

 

[motorbiking]

...as part of her divorce process that she and her ex husband would have asked for.

no it was nothing to do with her divorce.

 

[MNW67]

The tax man fines people who commit tax evasion, when caught.

You posted earlier that tax evasion had to be deliberate. You now say that carelessness is enough. That is why you are confusing people.

 

[motorbiking]

There may be no evidence, but why else would you set up a trust?

I have a disabled brother, and we have a family trust that was set up when my father died specifically to avoid the state swallowing up his inheritance to fund state care. It means that my parents could/can leave him money in their wills that we can then use to supplement his care or, if the state fails to provide decent care, fund it in its entirety if required. The alternative was it leave everything to me, but then if i was (god forbid) to get divorced, my ex wife would be entitled to half the money intended for my brother.

Ironically, the trust is invested, makes a profit, and pays tax on that profit.

What I haven't done, is use the money in my brother's trust to buy me a house, which is effectively what she has done with the money her son received from the NHS.

I've done something similar for family / friends.
- the goal is to avoid the disabled person making bad decisions and to avoid loss of necessary benefits.

It was instructed by the courts.

A court makes an order based on the submission of the parties, if it is proper to do so. Her statement that the court ordered it, implies it was out of her hands. That is unlikely to be the case.

 

[motorbiking]

You posted earlier that tax evasion had to be deliberate. You now say that carelessness is enough. That is why you are confusing people.

I think that was your view wasn't it? i.e. there had to be dishonesty. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Tax evasion is the unlawful avoidance of tax. i.e. had to pay it, didn't pay it.

Deliberate vs dishonest, is the level of culpability. Something HMRC will assess.

As with other laws, carelessness and recklessness can establish a mens rea.

 

[Charlie George]

...as part of her divorce process that she and her ex husband would have asked for.

The trust was formed 2020, they divorced in 2023, a trust is normal in the situation they was in.

 

[denso13]

part of her divorce process that she and her ex husband would have asked for.

Don't think that's correct, not sure why you asked the question if you think you know the answer.

 

[motorbiking]

The trust was formed 2020, they divorced in 2023, a trust is normal in the situation they was in.

do we know the exact date of the divorce? pre Apr-2023 or post Apr-2003.

I am assuming it was after.

 

[MNW67]

I think that was your view wasn't it? i.e. there had to be dishonesty. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Tax evasion is the unlawful avoidance of tax. i.e. had to pay it, didn't pay it.

Deliberate vs dishonest, is the level of culpability. Something HMRC will assess.

As with other laws, carelessness and recklessness can establish a mens rea.

That is so confused, I don't know how to start to unpick it. Both of us have already posted the quote from HMRC that says tax evasion has to be deliberate. So, here is a quote from some specialist tax lawyers which makes it even more emphatic.

Tax Avoidance Vs Tax Evasion: What's The Difference? (2022)

Understanding how tax evasion vs tax avoidance differ is key to avoiding landing yourself in hot water. Learn the definition of both at DBT & Partners.

www.dbtandpartners.co.uk

What is tax evasion?​

However, tax evasion is much different.

Tax evasion is when individuals or businesses deliberately decide to commit a crime and allow illegal actions to take place to avoid paying tax. This is much easier to define, as to have committed tax evasion, there has to have been a clear decision to willfully commit a criminal offence to evade taxes. This is a serious crime and can result in fines, penalties and even jail time if a person is found guilty of tax evasion.

Do you still think being careless is sufficient?

 

[motorbiking]

That is so confused, I don't know how to start to unpick it. Both of us have already posted the quote from HMRC that says tax evasion has to be deliberate. So, here is a quote from some specialist tax lawyers which makes it even more emphatic.

Tax Avoidance Vs Tax Evasion: What's The Difference? (2022)

Understanding how tax evasion vs tax avoidance differ is key to avoiding landing yourself in hot water. Learn the definition of both at DBT & Partners.

www.dbtandpartners.co.uk

Do you still think being careless is sufficient?

having read the actual law that creates the offences. I am confident that the above is an advert for business.

 

[JP_]

I see despite what Notch etc have said .Out of her own mouth she has admitted she has evaded paying correct tax.

Yes, she raised it as soon as it became apparent. Nobody found her out. She spotted the error, and reported it herself

I know, it's unusual to have a honest politician.

Anyway, let's keep spreading the lies, shall we? It's not like there's defamation laws or anything ...

 

[MNW67]

having read the actual law that creates the offences. I am confident that the above is an advert for business.

So both HMRC and these lawyers are wrong when they say tax evasion has to be deliberate?

Or is it another case of you inventing your own legal principles.

This is what HMRC say:

Tax evasion is where there is a deliberate attempt not to pay the tax which is due. It is illegal.

This is what the first solicitors say:

Tax evasion is when individuals or businesses deliberately decide to commit a crime and allow illegal actions to take place to avoid paying tax. This is much easier to define, as to have committed tax evasion, there has to have been a clear decision to willfully commit a criminal offence to evade taxes. This is a serious crime and can result in fines, penalties and even jail time if a person is found guilty of tax evasion.

This is what another set of solicitors say:

What is tax evasion?​

Put simply, tax evasion is the act of deliberately attempting not to pay tax which is due. Crucially this requires a conscious decision by a taxpayer to do so. In legal terms this is known as the “mens rea” or guilty mind. It is, therefore, not possible to accidentally or carelessly evade tax.

Do you still think carelessness is enough?

 

[gas112]

Yes, she raised it as soon as it became apparent. Nobody found her out. She spotted the error, and reported it herself

I know, it's unusual to have a honest politician.

Anyway, let's keep spreading the lies, shall we? It's not like there's defamation laws or anything ...

She spotted the error really so she had to employ someone because she didn't know how to do it but she spotted the error really she said she noticed the error

 

[motorbiking]

So both HMRC and these lawyers are wrong when they say tax evasion has to be deliberate?

Or is it another case of you inventing your own legal principles.

This is what HMRC say:



This is what the first solicitors say:



This is what another set of solicitors say:



Do you still think carelessness is enough?

Do you know what strict liability is?