hi guys,

my friend is getting lump sum money maybe 6 to 9k.

He will get it from Pakistan.

he intends to put the cash into deposit account.

he is worried about tax man finding out, his family tax credits etc.

what is the safe method of putting money into the account before the tax man hangs her and forgets google, starbucks and microsoft.

someone suggested to him, put 1k into the account per week or its safe upto 5k at a time.

Ali

You want the site to advise on how to evade tax or falsely claim a state benefit.

You aren’t asking how to lawfully avoid tax, but how to unlawfully evade tax or falsely claim eg tax credits.

Read the site rules.

Well TBH i never thought of it that way.

i was thinking similar to what someone suggest 1k at a time or upto 5k or simething.

yes when he says he dose not want someone to find out, i am sure he dose not want the tax man finding out.

i am sorry. i got enough issues with will fraud.

Sure. As shown by:

philmycoke said:

he is worried about tax man finding out.

I mean, you only mention the tax man not finding out 3 times .....

Yet it never occurred to you that that'd be illegal?. Sure ......

Dishonest by the standards of R v Ghosh!

i ageree with you on principle.

he gets tax credits, both the mrs and he works. they get tax credits or something.

this is one of lump sum hes going to get.

as one poor person to another i want to help him.

i am sorry people avoiding millions is all okay under the tax mans nose and yet few lil bucks here and there are all of an issue.

i am in agreement with you.

i regret asking the question here.

Starbucks, google et al manage it by having very clued up lawyers & accountants who structure their business so as to avoid (lawfully) / limit their tax liability.

In theory, that’s what your friend should do: find a loophole that allows them to avoid tax liability : that is legal (& the difference is they don’t have to hide it!)

You regret asking how to break the law and commit multiple criminal acts?

Somehow i dont think you do.

i have issue with people thinking i was asking about tax avoidance. loophole is better word.

yes pesonally i dont think he should pay. when his wife had to borrow milk from the neighbor for childs tea and local one stop council shop failed to help and took 4 months and refused to back date his support.

i feel hes earned it.

loophole is the word.

no its not. Its avoidance. Youre just trying to call it a loophole.

perhaps you need to find a different forum to discuss this

Yes okay. I agree.

Ali

Thread moved to HMRC Forum.

First off, the bank will want to know where this £1,000 is coming from each week, and they may well decide to report it as money laundering. If/when that happens, your friend could find himself having to answer a lot of questions. Even if it wasn't reported as money laundering, Inland Revenue would still know about it from the interest payments.

On the plus side, tax credits are not (as far as I understand) affected by savings. Any other means tested benefit that he might be claiming would still be available to him with up to £16,000 in savings. Although, anything over £6,000 would see the level of benefit payments reduce.

If he is on means tested benefits, the LA/DWP/HMRC will find out eventually and there is every chance that they could prosecute for benefit fraud. So.... Does he feel lucky in avoiding a money laundering investigation or a conviction for benefit fraud ?

MR.P you are magic. I will copy and paste this to him. Then it is upto him. Awesome. Thank you.

Yep - savings themselves don't affect Tax Credits. Any interest is treated as income and subject to the £300 annual disregard applied to the combined total of any household income that is not earnings or taxable benefits.

As far as the general question goes, it's not obvious to me that this money would be taxable.

I mean, it might be - that would depend on who is paying it and why - but I agree with the consensus.

Just tell the taxman about it, and if tax is due, pay the tax.

“Loophole” = avoidance, which is legal, and doesn’t have to be hidden.

Hiding = may be evasion, which isn’t legal.

So, where is the borderline??

Just “using the rules” in day to day transactions is fine, but “schemes” (especially complex sequences of transactions) are likely to be pursued by HMRC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841

i believe:

a) you still don’t understand the difference between lawful avoidance and unlawful evasion

b) What you or I feel about the definitions or if he should pay isn’t really relevant.

What matters is what HMRC feel about what he should pay or what he is allowed to claim or off-set.

Bazza, point something out this is illegal to some people and they will still go ahead and try and help their friends with the criminal enterprise.

I once did some analysis on a forged document that was supposed to have been written many years before but the font used didnt exist at the time and the printer technology likewise.

The person who presented ths document did so in a divorce case and his friend still went along as a witness to it despite the risk of a life sentence for perjury.

His reasoning? His mates wife wasn't very nice so didnt deserve a decent divorce settlement and he was a good mate so he signed a false document and then offered to be a witness to it.

Sometimes a misplaced sense of loyalty will get people to do stupid things they know are wrong but will do them anyway. The OP will always argue to find some chink in the solid reason why not to get involved regardless of the consequences.

The answer to the original question is less simple because there are many questions that need to be answered that arent regarding the exact circumstances of this putative transfer and the circumstances of the recipient..

“Only” seven years as the maximum if charged as perjury.

A life sentence is only a possibility if charged as perverting the course of justice (or conspiracy to pervert the course.....)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/

6 months when you kill, 7 years and life sentence if you don't pay tax

No.

The maximum sentence for perjury is 7 years.

The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life.

These sentences would only be possible “for not paying tax” if the offender also perjured themselves or perverted the course of justice, and even then the offence would have to be at the worst end of the scale to attract the maximum sentence.

If you still don’t understand, whilst you are at the solicitor for all your other matters, get them to read it for you, as you have (again) misunderstood.

i understand, kill and get 6 months and be out in 2 days for good behaviour.

pay alot and do legal tax evasion like your friends google or starbucks.

incase of my friend, get life inside with alot of unwanted sex whilst people turn the other cheek.

on serious note, i want to thank you for your writings on my posts, i am sure on other posts people do benifit. on my post i need a solicitor.

You really need to research what you're talking about Phil.

Apparently not, based on the evidence

You certainly do need a solicitor.

They can help you avoid (unlawful) tax evasion, warn you of the risks of perjury, advise you on your obligations regarding jury service......

Oh, and help you understand there is no such beast as “legal tax evasion”. If it is legal, it is tax avoidance. If it is evasion, it isn’t legal.

Just make sure they have all the facts, and don’t leave out any (inconvenient) parts, else they’ll be offering advice based on an incomplete picture, and if/when you lose out after an expensive legal battle, you’ll be back on CAG asking “How do I sue a useless solicitor?”........

I’m concerned this may fall on deaf ears, RI.

The thread should still stand (IMHO), though : it might help others.

Phil,

you have missed the point,

your friend may well be able to have money sent to him from abroad and still keep their benefits but without more information into their exact circumstances we cant answer this.

What we can say is that money transfers to and from abroad are heavily prescribed so banks and others have to look into things and anything that looks a little odd will result in the account being frozen and the cash may be sequestered.

All banks will err on the side of caution because they dont want to be fined billions for allowing money laundering. Everyting else said is a consequence of your own words and railing against this wont change the basics of this.

You cant compare the situation with anything else, that is like complaining when you are stopped for speeding that other people are drink drivers.

That isnt why you were stopped and the law is being applied to you as it stands