| 20:47 - Oct 14 with 937 views | _ |
|  | | |  |
| Didn't someone on here say they were duped by these? on 20:51 - Oct 14 with 903 views | factual_blue |
The even sadder part is that they almost certainly wouldn't have avoided having to pay care home fees: the transfer of the property is clearly done with the intention to deprive yourself of capital, a principle that's been at the heart of means-testing since at least 1948.
In other words, even if this firm hadn't gone bust, they'd have lost. |  |
| |
| Didn't someone on here say they were duped by these? on 13:25 - Oct 15 with 674 views | JimmyJazz |
While sympathising with those that have lost money let me ask this question
There are those that rally hard against companies / individuals who use tax avoidance schemes. So wasn't this whole premise just another tax avoidance scheme? BTW I'm all for the principal of protecting your money and assets in this way.
So should all tax avoidance be treated the same, or are we saying that if it's your average individual doing it, it's justifiable? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
