Working cash in hand

The (in his own words) "morally repugnant" David Gauke is at it again.

This time he is branding those who offer to pay tradesmen cash in hand as being "morally wrong".  For once he's actually talking some sense because paying somebody in cash to evade paying tax is a criminal offence.  The tradesman would be guilty of evading VAT or income.corporation tax or both.  Because the buyer and seller are acting together to avoid tax they would be guilty of conspiracy to evade whichever tax(es) it is they are agreeing not to pay.

According to the BBC report, Boris Johnson admitted that he has paid tradesmen cash in hand many times.  If that's true and it's with the intention to evade paying tax then he is guilty of conspiracy to evade tax.  Although a large part of me suspects that BoJo simply didn't understand the question

It does seem to me that Government Ministers have found a phrase they like, "morally wrong", or "morally repugnant" and intend to run with it... cue the next election being fought on a platform of cracking down on all sorts of "morally wrong" individuals... though surely not a return to the single-mother bashing of the early 90's?

Comments

  1. Fitzroy24 July 2012 at 13:28

    "If that's true AND IT'S WITH THE INTENTION TO EVADE PAYING TAX then he is guilty of conspiracy to evade tax"

    That's the difficult part, of course. Unless a tradesman out-and-out asks to be paid in cash "so I don't have to put it through the books", or words to that effect, you can never know that he intends to evade tax.

    Even if he offers a discount for cash that's not necessarily an indicator - he may be doing so for perfectly legitimate reasons (e.g. the convenience of not waiting for a cheque to clear, or not having funds swallowed up by an overdraft etc.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defence Brief3 August 2012 at 09:56

      In which case it's neither illegal nor immoral.

      Delete
  2. Old Codger24 July 2012 at 20:16

    "...though surely not a return to the single-mother bashing of the early 90's?"

    Definitely not, Dave surely considers them the salt of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bagpuss27 July 2012 at 10:08

    and it's with the intention to evade paying tax This is the relevent bit, though, isn't it?

    There is nothing wrong with paying, or being paid, in cash per se

    I'm a solicitor - I often come across clients who do not have chequebooks. We often suggest that they pay by way of a standing order (we accept cards, but it costs)

    A lot of people are simply much more comfortable with cash.Quite apart from anything else, if you are not good with figures, then the benfit of cash is that youkknow for surewhether you've got it or not...

    I'm very wary of anyone seeking to make out that paying in cash is, of itself, ethuically or morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Geordie Moonraker27 July 2012 at 21:30

    I pay in cash and am usually given a receipt.That is my part of the transaction finished. It is no concern of mine whether or not my contractor deals with it in a double entry way or not, I trust him and I resent being categorised in this way

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous22 November 2012 at 02:59

    Α tablеt anԁ а lаptop
    come tοgеther at httр://www.squidοo.
    com/samѕung-аtiν-smaгt-рc-ρro-700t-reviеw
    Take a look at my weblog how to lucid dream tonight

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous22 November 2012 at 08:59

    Having trouble losing wеight? How about takіng a look at what iѕ
    conѕidered to be a fat burner in a bottle?

    Cheсk our guide оn how to use Rapberrу
    Ketones and get thеm for the best price at http://raspberгyketοnes.
    heaгtԁata.net/
    My weblog framingnailerreviews.allthebestproducts.net

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>