Crossing the £10k threshold

[LawrenceChard]

10 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

Is it the same for sellers? If say a retiree had accumulated 240 one ounce gold Britannia's during their working years, and then was selling one/month to supplement their state pension income, £1500/month, £18,000/year to the same dealer, would that dealer be obligated to report that to HMRC?

No, but...

We would ask for and expect to get some more information, to satisfy ourselves that the source was legitimate, otherwise we might fall foul of anti-money laundering regulations.

😎

 

[Bratnia]

Just now, LawrenceChard said:

No, but...

We would ask for and expect to get some more information, to satisfy ourselves that the source was legitimate, otherwise we might fall foul of anti-money laundering regulations.

😎

 

Was just thinking the exact same. If the dealer didn't keep a record of passport/driving licence data for that, then any investigations that HMRC might make against that dealer could see them come down heavily upon that dealership on the grounds of not having undertaken Money Laundering Due Diligence. So in turn that pensioner could be visited by HMRC ...

"you're repeatedly selling gold, how much have you left, where was it sourced from and how did you fund paying for it".

"I bought it over many years, haven't kept the records or receipts"

"OK we're going to confiscate it as we believe it to the proceeds of illicit activities"

Fundamentally to me that shouts that collectors/stackers should keep their own good records, down to the individual coin level, identify each coin individually (numbered plastic sleeve with a unique reference number) and records of the source ... where/when/how much was paid. So if say in years to come gold coin sales are subject to capital gains tax you can precisely calculate that as/when each coin is sold.

[LawrenceChard]

On 20/02/2023 at 22:40, Bratnia said:

Was just thinking the exact same. If the dealer didn't keep a record of passport/driving licence data for that, then any investigations that HMRC might make against that dealer could see them come down heavily upon that dealership on the grounds of not having undertaken Money Laundering Due Diligence. So in turn that pensioner could be visited by HMRC ...

"you're repeatedly selling gold, how much have you left, where was it sourced from and how did you fund paying for it".

"I bought it over many years, haven't kept the records or receipts"

"OK we're going to confiscate it as we believe it to the proceeds of illicit activities"

Fundamentally to me that shouts that collectors/stackers should keep their own good records, down to the individual coin level, identify each coin individually (numbered plastic sleeve with a unique reference number) and records of the source ... where/when/how much was paid. So if say in years to come gold coin sales are subject to capital gains tax you can precisely calculate that as/when each coin is sold.

Keeping invoices and records would always be sensible for a number of reasons.

I doubt anyone wold need to keep such an extremely detailed record as you suggest, but it would be unlikely to cause any harm.

I doubt that authorities could or would seek to confiscate the gold or the proceeds unless there was other good reason to suspect it had been acquired illegally.

I know that quite a few people who "stack" can be a little paranoid about some things, including the government, taxmen, or more. I think most of it is overdone.

😎

Edited March 5, 2023 by LawrenceChard
typo

[ArgentSmith]

1 hour ago, Bratnia said:

"you're repeatedly selling gold, how much have you left, where was it sourced from and how did you fund paying for it".

"I bought it over many years, haven't kept the records or receipts"

"OK we're going to confiscate it as we believe it to the proceeds of illicit activities"

Fundamentally to me that shouts that collectors/stackers should keep their own good records, down to the individual coin level,

To me it screams Guilty until proven innocent... bit tyrannical for my liking, what's happened to us?

[Bratnia]

4 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Keeping invoices and records would always be sensible for a number of reasons.

I doubt anyone wold need to keep such an extremely detailed record as you suggest, but it would be unlikely to cause any harm.

I doubt that authorities could or would seek to confiscate the gold or the proceeds unless there was other good reason to suspect it had been acquired illegally.

I know that quite a few people who "stack" can be a little paranoid about some things, including the government, taxmen, or more. think most of it is overdone.

😎

Some years back when HMRC outsourced investigations I was investigated. Seemingly purely at random, but where it was hell. I suspect they were under remit to get x% into court as part of that contract and the questions/means employed were horrendous. I'd receive a letter stating a reply must be made with two weeks of the letter date, but where the letter date was more than a week already out of date (postmark more accurately reflected the lag between postage and delivery). Repeatedly had to stop planned days activities to dig around to find and return the information they requested, such as documents/certificates from years ago that fortunately I had rather than having to request. After many months it all came to a end, no polite thank you for your time/efforts, just a notice to say that the investigation had completed successfully. Anyone going through such a experience will likely be a little paranoid. More so if they ended up in Court through not having responded within the demanded timescales. 

[Bigmarc]

8 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

Some years back when HMRC outsourced investigations I was investigated. Seemingly purely at random, but where it was hell. I suspect they were under remit to get x% into court as part of that contract and the questions/means employed were horrendous. I'd receive a letter stating a reply must be made with two weeks of the letter date, but where the letter date was more than a week already out of date (postmark more accurately reflected the lag between postage and delivery). Repeatedly had to stop planned days activities to dig around to find and return the information they requested, such as documents/certificates from years ago that fortunately I had rather than having to request. After many months it all came to a end, no polite thank you for your time/efforts, just a notice to say that the investigation had completed successfully. Anyone going through such a experience will likely be a little paranoid. More so if they ended up in Court through not having responded within the demanded timescales. 

I have had many dealings with them and they seem to always lead with a threat. It's not a nice feeling I agree but once you keep an open dialogue they seem to be happy-ish.

 

[Gordy]

1 minute ago, Bigmarc said:

I have had many dealings with them and they seem to always lead with a threat. It's not a nice feeling I agree but once you keep an open dialogue they seem to be happy-ish.

 

self employed from 1988 until 2022 and never had a bad experience with them, always helpful when questions need answering but i aint ever been investigated so my view might have changed if i had been...

[Bratnia]

11 minutes ago, ArgentSmith said:

To me it screams Guilty until proven innocent... bit tyrannical for my liking, what's happened to us?

All part of stopping evaders. Which is fine, everyone paying taxes as they should ... until you have the likes of Roy Jenkings (Labour Chancellor) who in 1968 decided a fair tax should be a 130% retrospective tax rate. Those were the days. Where the Beatles were singing 'Taxman', "19 for you, 1 for me" in reflection of their 95% taxation rates. Very much looks like we're returning to those 'good old days', but beforehand the groundwork has to be laid to ensure 'evaders' can't evade such confiscations.

[Bratnia]

6 minutes ago, Bigmarc said:

I have had many dealings with them and they seem to always lead with a threat. It's not a nice feeling I agree but once you keep an open dialogue they seem to be happy-ish.

 

Recently had a over-payment demand, as you say opening with threats. Paid it instantly via direct debit/phone, after a query - that involved two 40 minute waits on their phone system queue, the first attempt ending in a simple disconnect. I find the 'abuse of our staff will not be tolerated' repeated message whilst waiting and threatening opening letters to be inconsiderate giving their common leaving you waiting for so long system and that most such as myself might be courteous and make payments in a timely manner. Opening with threats or being inconsiderate such as keeping you waiting for 1.5 hours is IMO only inclined to incite abuse/rudeness in return.

[Bratnia]

On 19/02/2023 at 01:25, scotwasp said:

Just wondering if anyone other than me considers not buying more than the reporting limit from any one dealer.  Not that I am buying with anything with other than taxed income, but why would you want to have them reporting you to HMRC?
in the US it’s any single purchase, which means they informally advise you to buy in instalments, but I understand that in the UK it’s annual spend.

I buy my pm to be a wee bit “off grid “ so I don’t really welcome my purchases being monitored. 
Am I just being overly paranoid, or does it ever cross your mind that you buying, is being monitored? 

Assuming you're above board, then reporting/recording is a good thing, a audit trail that might mean the difference between having your gold confiscated, or not. A concern is having your name/address being recorded as having a stack of gold potentially present at that address, both on dealers systems and HMRC systems. One option might be to purchase using a different address/person to where you might actually bury/hide gold i.e. get someone else to buy for you. Strictly they're supposed to record that on the sales form, but no harm if they don't provided you have separate records of them having acted on your behalf (your assets funded by you).

If below board there are alternative 'better' means than gold such as hard cash/currency. Hence the general directional trend towards all transactions being recorded/associated (along with movements). The ultimate benefit for the state, all movements/transactions recorded however comes at the cost of liberty (citizens existing in a Open Prison and subject to 'fair' taxation even if that 'fair' tax rate might at times amount to being confiscatory).

[Gordy]

36 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

One option might be to purchase using a different address/person to where you might actually bury/hide gold i.e. get someone else to buy for you.

we had this scenario spoken about a while back, now picture the scenario where you need to make a claim on insurance for a theft or fire.... you have no chance of recovery if said purchases are in someone elses name and address is also different if you never lived there.. insurance companies always do due diligence on these types of claims

[Gordy]

simple answer, buy it, enjoy it and dont worry about it, your data is protected by legit dealers, as if they misuse it then they are fined 1000's, hacking is different though.... 

and tbh all a crook would need to do is sell you a coin on ebay or other outlet and they have your address details

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours ago, ArgentSmith said:

To me it screams Guilty until proven innocent... bit tyrannical for my liking, what's happened to us?

Are you sure you are not a paranoid conspiracy theorist?

Having said that, I have had many interactions with HMRC, police, and others which have been extremely unsatisfactory. It can be very time consuming to defend oneself, and even more so when you know the other party is wrong, incompetent, dishonest, malicious, etc. On a number of occasions, I should have made formal complaints at or after the time, but that requires even more time and effort; it usually ends up that I find better things to do with my time.

With HMRC, I take the view that I / we over-perform in our systems, and  efforts to comply with AML and reporting, so if we ever get an investigation, I will be ready to argue with them to the ends of the earth.

When we have any lengthy meeting with our accountant, she tells me no end of horror stories where HMTC makes mistakes, tell lies, breach their own rules and codes. She ensures she puts any of her evidence and complaints in writing. If you don't have a feisty accountant, the average member of the public probably gets screwed over most of the time.

If HMRC are so incompetent, it is probably because we have incompetent and corrupt politician and governments.

Apart from that, I do like to stay positive!

😎

Edited February 21, 2023 by LawrenceChard

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours ago, Bratnia said:

All part of stopping evaders. Which is fine, everyone paying taxes as they should ... until you have the likes of Roy Jenkings (Labour Chancellor) who in 1968 decided a fair tax should be a 130% retrospective tax rate. Those were the days. Where the Beatles were singing 'Taxman', "19 for you, 1 for me" in reflection of their 95% taxation rates. Very much looks like we're returning to those 'good old days', but beforehand the groundwork has to be laid to ensure 'evaders' can't evade such confiscations.

At the time of "Taxman", top rate income tax was 83%, and there was a 15% unearned income surcharge, so the top rate was 98%.

Thinking about it used to disincentive me, and it still does!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours ago, Bratnia said:

Some years back when HMRC outsourced investigations I was investigated. Seemingly purely at random, but where it was hell. I suspect they were under remit to get x% into court as part of that contract and the questions/means employed were horrendous. I'd receive a letter stating a reply must be made with two weeks of the letter date, but where the letter date was more than a week already out of date (postmark more accurately reflected the lag between postage and delivery). Repeatedly had to stop planned days activities to dig around to find and return the information they requested, such as documents/certificates from years ago that fortunately I had rather than having to request. After many months it all came to a end, no polite thank you for your time/efforts, just a notice to say that the investigation had completed successfully. Anyone going through such a experience will likely be a little paranoid. More so if they ended up in Court through not having responded within the demanded timescales. 

5 hours ago, Bigmarc said:

I have had many dealings with them and they seem to always lead with a threat. It's not a nice feeling I agree but once you keep an open dialogue they seem to be happy-ish.

 

5 hours ago, Bratnia said:

Recently had a over-payment demand, as you say opening with threats. Paid it instantly via direct debit/phone, after a query - that involved two 40 minute waits on their phone system queue, the first attempt ending in a simple disconnect. I find the 'abuse of our staff will not be tolerated' repeated message whilst waiting and threatening opening letters to be inconsiderate giving their common leaving you waiting for so long system and that most such as myself might be courteous and make payments in a timely manner. Opening with threats or being inconsiderate such as keeping you waiting for 1.5 hours is IMO only inclined to incite abuse/rudeness in return.

Some of the comments I made in my previous post in this topic are relevant here, so I repeat them (I know, you can say that again!):

Having said that, I have had many interactions with HMRC, police, and others which have been extremely unsatisfactory. It can be very time consuming to defend oneself, and even more so when you know the other party is wrong, incompetent, dishonest, malicious, etc. On a number of occasions, I should have made formal complaints at or after the time, but that requires even more time and effort; it usually ends up that I find better things to do with my time.

With HMRC, I take the view that I / we over-perform in our systems, and  efforts to comply with AML and reporting, so if we ever get an investigation, I will be ready to argue with them to the ends of the earth.

When we have any lengthy meeting with our accountant, she tells me no end of horror stories where HMTC makes mistakes, tell lies, breach their own rules and codes. She ensures she puts any of her evidence and complaints in writing. If you don't have a feisty accountant, the average member of the public probably gets screwed over most of the time.

If HMRC are so incompetent, it is probably because we have incompetent and corrupt politician and governments.

Apart from that, I do like to stay positive!

😎

 

[Cornishfarmer]

Is this the same in all industries? £10k isn’t a lot now.    So if mortgages, loans or buying a car do the have to report it to HMRC?

[Bigmarc]

28 minutes ago, Cornishfarmer said:

Is this the same in all industries? £10k isn’t a lot now.    So if mortgages, loans or buying a car do the have to report it to HMRC?

The last guy that bought a car off me had a gold tooth and a man bag, I instantly thought money laundering but it wasn't anywhere near 10 grand

[Bratnia]

2 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

At the time of "Taxman", top rate income tax was 83%, and there was a 15% unearned income surcharge, so the top rate was 98%.

Thinking about it used to disincentive me, and it still does!

😎

1967/1968 tax year a one-off retrospective wealth tax was introduced by Roy Jenkings, a tiered 'special charge' that ran up to 45%. So combined 98% and 45% taxation. He structured the special charge so that any investment income below a £3,000 threshold was exempt, but subsequent tranches were taxed at a steeply progressive scale: 10 per cent between £3–4,000, 15 per cent between £4–5,000, 30 per cent between £5–8,000 and at 45 per cent above £8,000. 

That's as defined in 

https://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FABJ4458_Wealth_Tax_Report_260516_WEB.pdf

Also have a browse through page 18 (PDF page 20) "Proposal for a one-off levy on passive wealth" and I suspect we're back into a confiscatory cycle (after prior years of moderately low taxation) most likely IMO after Labour win the next General Election. A factor is that 1% of people pay a third of the total income taxation, when that 1% flight the country that leaves the rest having to find/pay 50% more in taxation. Better would be to attract/expand that 1% to 3%, but UK political cycles are such that we don't have the stability for that to occur. The US in contrast will more than welcome the 1% that the UK ejects (or rather those that are enforced into exile).

[Bratnia]

Unsurprisingly favoured generational wealth assets include a considerable weighting of cash (in-hand), gold and art such as paintings that can be rolled up into a tube. And for the uber wealthy a yacht and/or private jet as a transportation means. Any hint of confiscatory type policies such as like the UK is expressing and that wealth is rapidly moved to alternative 'more stable' geopolitical alternatives. By the time actual 'wealth tax' is applied, its more a case of average-Joe that cops the pain.

[Bratnia]

7 hours ago, Gordy said:

we had this scenario spoken about a while back, now picture the scenario where you need to make a claim on insurance for a theft or fire.... you have no chance of recovery if said purchases are in someone elses name and address is also different if you never lived there.. insurance companies always do due diligence on these types of claims

Self insured, being discrete and diversifying storage (hiding) can be safer than having a additional layer of visibility (insurance companies records) - that will tend to include details of where and how much.

"Hi Reg, its Ron, I've just got this new job at We-Insure-Gold, and guess what - the records show that there's a geezer just down the road from us with a million quids worth of gold that for insurance purposes he has to store in a locked safe. Fancy grabbing a couple of pencils and paying him a visit after I finish at 5pm?"

Even the most secure safe can be opened with a pencil - held near a loved ones eye.

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, Cornishfarmer said:

Is this the same in all industries? £10k isn’t a lot now.    So if mortgages, loans or buying a car do the have to report it to HMRC?

I don't know, but they may all ask the source of your money / wealth.

But, yes if you tried doing it using cash, except for the neighbourhood loan shark!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

2 hours ago, Bratnia said:

Unsurprisingly favoured generational wealth assets include a considerable weighting of cash (in-hand), gold and art such as paintings that can be rolled up into a tube.

How many in a tube?

😎

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours ago, Bratnia said:

1967/1968 tax year a one-off retrospective wealth tax was introduced by Roy Jenkings, a tiered 'special charge' that ran up to 45%. So combined 98% and 45% taxation. He structured the special charge so that any investment income below a £3,000 threshold was exempt, but subsequent tranches were taxed at a steeply progressive scale: 10 per cent between £3–4,000, 15 per cent between £4–5,000, 30 per cent between £5–8,000 and at 45 per cent above £8,000. 

That's as defined in 

https://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FABJ4458_Wealth_Tax_Report_260516_WEB.pdf

Also have a browse through page 18 (PDF page 20) "Proposal for a one-off levy on passive wealth" and I suspect we're back into a confiscatory cycle (after prior years of moderately low taxation) most likely IMO after Labour win the next General Election. A factor is that 1% of people pay a third of the total income taxation, when that 1% flight the country that leaves the rest having to find/pay 50% more in taxation. Better would be to attract/expand that 1% to 3%, but UK political cycles are such that we don't have the stability for that to occur. The US in contrast will more than welcome the 1% that the UK ejects (or rather those that are enforced into exile).

I was wondering about the 130% tax rate.

If hat had ever applied to me, I would have left the country.

"UK political cycles are such that we don't have the stability for that to occur."

There are a few reasons, or contributory factors:

We have a left and a right in UK political parties, with nothing much in the middle, whereas most big decisions / policies would be better somewhere in the centre of opinions.

This will probably continue to get worse. Most people with limited intelligence can only follow one concept at a time. There was some research published about this a few months ago, but it is almost obvious. Political parties and other influencers use this to polarise their audiences in their preferred direction.

Four years is probably too short a term for any government to plan for. It might be better if only half or a third were subject to an election at any time, as it would ensure some continuity.

Changing a country's government every four years is a stupid way to run a country. It would be a stupid way to run a business, so why do we do it with governments?

😎

Edited February 21, 2023 by LawrenceChard

[MonkeysUncle]

Maybe I should get rid of the shiny stuff and store my wealth in KitKats. I could always eat the evidence if Her Majesty's Robbing Chocolate people came calling.

[MonkeysUncle]

2 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I was wondering about the 130% tax rate.

If hat had ever applied to me, I would have left the country.

"UK political cycles are such that we don't have the stability for that to occur."

There are a few reasons, or contributory factors:

We have a left and a right in UK political parties, with nothing much in the middle, whereas most big decisions / policies would be better somewhere in the centre of opinions.

This will probably continue to get worse. Most people with limited intelligence can only follow one concept at a time. There was some research published about this a few months ago, but it is almost obvious. Political parties and other influencers use this to polarise their audiences in their preferred direction.

Four years is probably too short a term for any government to plan for. It might be better if only half or a third were subject to an election at any time, as it would ensure some continuity.

Changing a country's government every four years is a stupid way to run a country. It would be a stupid way to run a business, so why do we do it with gevernments?

😎

Ermmmm.... now let me think....

Pol Pot

Mugabe 

Mad Vlad