Skip to main content

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. "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. In which case it's neither illegal nor immoral.

      Delete
  2. "...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. 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. 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. 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

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…