income from illegal actives part of IVA

[martinw]

another Martin's hypothetical question (Melanie said she liked em,lol)

I remember hearing that even money obtained illegally (say by drug dealing) is still taxable, but how does this fit in an IVA.Also how about illegal asserts if I declared I had 10K of drugs who would sell these for benefit of creditors

Martin

[MelanieGiles]

Any reputable IP would not touch such case with a bargepole, and would make a report to the appropriate authorities under the Money Laundering regulations. Please don't ask Martin - as I wont be able to say any more on this topic.

[Foggy]

Such monies ( if the source is proven) would more likely to be seized than taxed.

[ClareSilver]

I'm sure SOCA would have a field day with this sort of scenario!

[martinw]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy

Such monies ( if the source is proven) would more likely to be seized than taxed.

I'd have thought Osborne n co would tax then seize, then chase for the tax bill

Martin

[martinw]

There was a panorama(or similar) on a couple of months ago, it would seem that they aren't actually that good at seizing (in quite a few cases the legal bill is already more than the proceeds of crime).

Martin

[Foggy]

This is true, Martin. English law is so clumsy and convoluted, it is unbelievable!

The problem ( which is also, perversely, a bonus) is the way our laws are made then interpreted. Here, when we change a law we don't, as many other countries do, just scrap the whole thing and start again. We tack on amendments here and there, which causes a ripple effect.

Then we base many judgements and interpretation upon case law and precedent.

We also have two concepts to bear in mind: the "letter of the law" ( what it says) and the "spirit of the law" ( what we think it really means).

[martinw]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy

This is true, Martin. English law is so clumsy and convoluted, it is unbelievable!

The problem ( which is also, perversely, a bonus) is the way our laws are made then interpreted. Here, when we change a law we don't, as many other countries do, just scrap the whole thing and start again. We tack on amendments here and there, which causes a ripple effect.

Then we base many judgements and interpretation upon case law and precedent.

We also have two concepts to bear in mind: the "letter of the law" ( what it says) and the "spirit of the law" ( what we think it really means).

I remember when I was growing up this appearing in the papers quote from a judge 'the law must say what it means and mean what it says'. In this case it was a toll that the law said the vehicle must pay (which is somewhat difficult)

Martin