From: JNugent on
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:

> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> I don't care if it is a cheque or cash, it all comes out of my bank
>>>>>>> in the long run. If they fiddle their tax returns it's on their
>>>>>>> conscience, not mine.

>>>>>> So you always insist on a serialised receipt?

>>>>> No - once I agree a price and pay up - that's the end of it as far as
>>>>> I'm concerned. A serialised receipt is no use...

>>>> ...to you.
>>>> But insisting on it is very helpful to HMRC and your fellow taxpayers...
>>>> But that's apparently not your concern.

>>> Don't be so ridiculous. The TRADER is responsible for HIS tax returns,
>>> not me.

>> Does that mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a customer") cannot possibly
>> profit from tacit collusion in such tax evasion?
>> Unless the answer is "no" (and it can't be), what are you on about?

> I already stated previously and in case you missed it I will state it
> again.
> I have *never* in my entire life asked any trader of any description
> for a discount for cash. They give me an estimate with no mention of
> cash. When it comes to paying the final bill, some have asked for a
> cash portion which doesn't matter to me as long as I have paid him for
> the job. What he does with it after that is no concern of mine

Yes - that's one of the things I said (see above). Doing your bit to help the
revenue in their fight against tax fraud (eg, by insisting on a serialised
receipt) is apparently not your concern. Thanks for confirming it so explicitly.

> and it
> would be hugely rude of me anyway to suggest that he not fiddle his
> accounts by not paying it into his bank. All that is my responsiblity
> is that I pay my taxes, which since I am on PAYE, I do.

That (taken as a whole - not just the last bit) is a plainly evasive answer.
One can only reasonably assume that you have phrased your response as you
have in order to try to avoid having to give the reply "No".

You are still in a position to point out any mistake in my assumptions. You
could, for example, answer the question:

Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?

From: MasonS on
On 11 Dec, 08:40, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No - there is no "tacit collusion" going on at all. So every other
piece of your argument falls down as the original premise is false.

Medway Highwayman would find it tantamout to libel (he has stated so
elsewhere) for you to infer that he avoids paying his taxes of various
descriptions by simply due to his taking cash for certain jobs.
--
Simon Mason
From: JNugent on
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:

> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
>> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
>> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?

> No - there is no "tacit collusion" going on at all. So every other
> piece of your argument falls down as the original premise is false.

Evasion.

> Medway Highwayman would find it tantamout to libel (he has stated so
> elsewhere) for you to infer that he avoids paying his taxes of various
> descriptions by simply due to his taking cash for certain jobs.

We aren't talking about him. We are talking about either:

(a) people in general, to the extent that they, like you, admit to paying
cash to traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done, or

(b) you, to the extent that you have already admitted to paying cash to
traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done.

Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?

Why don't you want to answer the question? Why do you keep inventing
different questions to answer?


From: MasonS on
On 11 Dec, 09:18, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
> >> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
> >> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?
> > No - there is no "tacit collusion" going on at all. So every other
> > piece of your argument falls down as the original premise is false.
>
> Evasion.
>
> > Medway Highwayman would find it tantamout to libel (he has stated so
> > elsewhere) for you to infer that he avoids paying his taxes of various
> > descriptions by simply due to his taking cash for certain jobs.
>
> We aren't talking about him. We are talking about either:
>
> (a) people in general, to the extent that they, like you, admit to paying
> cash to traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done, or
>
> (b) you, to the extent that you have already admitted to paying cash to
> traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done.
>
> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in
> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a
> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion?
>
> Why don't you want to answer the question? Why do you keep inventing
> different questions to answer?

Again you have made a mistake. You state in a) and b) that there is no
"receipt" for work done. Nowhere did I state that I do not receive a
receipt for the work I have paid for.

I said:

"No - once I agree a price and pay up - that's the end of it as far
as
I'm concerned. A *serialised* receipt is no use."

I get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and
that it cost me £270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and
nails cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised*
receipt, just a receipt and I always get one.

When I come to pay at the end, the trader does *not* say "since you
are paying by cash, I'll knock a few quid off" otherwise I *would* be
complicit.

--
Simon Mason


bottom line
From: Adrian on
"MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> I said:
>
> "No - once I agree a price and pay up - that's the end of it as far as
> I'm concerned. A *serialised* receipt is no use."
>
> I get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and that
> it cost me £270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and nails
> cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised*
> receipt, just a receipt and I always get one.

Sounds like you're using "serialised" for what I'd refer to as
"itemised". I'd assumed "serialised" was referring in some way to a
serial number on the receipt/invoice.