« Topics
123456
mr_vivian910 posts since 11 Oct 2015
UTV Newsline
I think Lorraine is in the wrong here.

It's ironic that they made a big deal about the NHS on one of her shows last year.

But I guess she was acting all the time and the tears were just an act? Nah, don't buy it.


I don't think, as an actor, you'd have to disagree with everything you act.


I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.
Woodpecker380 posts since 19 Jan 2018
Central (West) Midlands Today
Lorraine's getting such a kicking over this in the media and it's not deserved.


Maybe, but if you've ever read her awfull Clarkson-esque Sun column you'll know she's not above ill-informed, mob mentality shaming so there's a bit of a "what goes around comes around" scenario here.


Perhaps just slightly off topic here, but I'd be interested to know how many of these celebrity newspaper columns are in fact ghostwritten.
1
Brekkie gave kudos
bilky asko5,327 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
I think Lorraine is in the wrong here.

It's ironic that they made a big deal about the NHS on one of her shows last year.

But I guess she was acting all the time and the tears were just an act? Nah, don't buy it.


I don't think, as an actor, you'd have to disagree with everything you act.


I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.


That makes out that there is no tax being paid at all, which is nonsense. She is self-employed and therefore paying tax accordingly, and the court has found this to genuinely be the case. She has no responsibility to pay for the NHS any more than the amount she is due to pay under the tax system, which the court found she had paid.
Jon7,464 posts since 11 Apr 2005
Central (West) Midlands Today
I think Lorraine is in the wrong here.

It's ironic that they made a big deal about the NHS on one of her shows last year.

But I guess she was acting all the time and the tears were just an act? Nah, don't buy it.


I don't think, as an actor, you'd have to disagree with everything you act.


I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.

So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?
1
bilky asko gave kudos
mr_vivian910 posts since 11 Oct 2015
UTV Newsline

I don't think, as an actor, you'd have to disagree with everything you act.


I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.

So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

This ruling from the judge may well be lawful but it doesn't mean it's ethical.
JKDerry1,400 posts since 15 Oct 2016
UTV Newsline

I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.

So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

This ruling from the judge may well be lawful but it doesn't mean it's ethical.

I guess Lorraine's tax bracket is at the 45% mark? Her salary must be large from ITV.
Jon7,464 posts since 11 Apr 2005
Central (West) Midlands Today

I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.

So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

But I’m assuming if they were asking you for money you didn’t owe because they were calculating it on an incorrect basis you’d put your case forward?
Last edited by Jon on 23 March 2019 12:55am
1
bilky asko gave kudos
Brekkie30,799 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

This ruling from the judge may well be lawful but it doesn't mean it's ethical.

I guess Lorraine's tax bracket is at the 45% mark? Her salary must be large from ITV.

You've missed the point of this thread. She doesn't get paid a salary by ITV. Instead they pay her company for her services, with her company then paying her a salary and her ultimately taking money out of the company in profits as a shareholder.
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.
1
London Lite gave kudos
bilky asko5,327 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)

I think you've missed my point.

Taxes go towards stuff like the NHS but Lorraine is saying no you can't have that - it's all mine - so by doing that she's denying money that could go towards the NHS. That's how I see it.

So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

This ruling from the judge may well be lawful but it doesn't mean it's ethical.


HMRC aren't infallible - far from it. The court found that they were wrong in this case, and no money was owed to them.
noggin14,163 posts since 26 Jun 2001
So I assume you voluntarily pay more tax than you are required by law then? Or are you saying "no you can't have that - it's all mine'?


I am sure Lorraine pays tax (or she'd be in prison) but the HMRC clearly believe she should be paying more.

Regarding your question - I have received notices from HMRC in the past that I owed them tax and I paid up. Sure it wasn't over a million but I paid them what I owed them.

This ruling from the judge may well be lawful but it doesn't mean it's ethical.

I guess Lorraine's tax bracket is at the 45% mark? Her salary must be large from ITV.


That's the entire point of this issue. Lorraine isn't taxed as PAYE (Pay As You Earn) with normal employer deductions for income tax and national insurance.

Instead Lorraine's services to ITV are provided by her service company, who ITV pay. ITV aren't employing Lorraine directly, they are contracting Lorraine's service company to provide her services (just as you might contract a cleaning company to clean your offices, rather than directly employing cleaners yourself)

This means ITV don't pay any employer national insurance contributions, and don't handle her income tax via PAYE. Those responsibilities are devolved to the company that employs Lorraine (i.e. her own service company).

Lorraine's service company employs Lorraine, not ITV. Her service company may employ her at a very low salary (so she doesn't pay any income tax, or only pays at a low rate) and only pays a small amount of National Insurance contributions.

Her company keeps the rest of the ITV payment (pre-tax), and then pays the company shareholders (Lorraine, but possibly also her husband, kids, relatives etc.) lumps sums via dividends, which are then also taxable, but possibly not at the same rate as would be the case for PAYE income tax, and won't incur NI payments.

Similarly Lorraine's company may cover a lot of her expenses, allowing money to spent that has yet to be taxed as income (though some of these may be taxed as benefits).

This is a widespread technique to reduce the amount of tax paid by people, and was deemed legal and acceptable for many years.

It is a technique the HMRC are trying to reduce the use of though, particularly where people working via service companies are doing so only to avoid being taxed PAYE, and where employers are using it to minimise their NI payments, when the people working are, in effect, direct employees.

Lorraine seems to have argued that as she is a performer, her approach to taxation was valid. HMRC was arguing she should refund the HMRC the amount they believed she saved in tax payments (comparing her service company taxation payments vs what she would have paid if she had been PAYE)
Last edited by noggin on 23 March 2019 10:56am - 3 times in total