iPlayer to require TV licence

[ik9000]

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102/

and that is the point. No TV licence to listen to BBC radio. And no TV licence currently needed to use BBC catch up iplayer. So watching iplayer withuot a licence but in accordance with their terms, and the national law, in your opinion is morally wrong, while listening to BBC live radio is ok? Argument illogical methinks.

[badsyntax]

Fair enough if they tie it to a login/subscription model. If they try to suggest that everyone should purchase a licence for BBC content on the off-chance then balls to that. Give me an opt-out and I'll sign on the line.

I'm not paying Auntie for a licence to own a PC or tablet that doesn't consume their content.

[Spud1]

it's a TV licence..not a Radio licence. Anyway i'll give up arguing now, I think i've made my point enough times

[ik9000]

it's a TV licence..not a Radio licence. Anyway i'll give up arguing now, I think i've made my point enough times

I disagree. BBC radio would not exist without the TV licence fee. therefore everyone who listens to radio without paying for the TV licence is freeloading as you imply just as someone who watches iPlayer without a licence. the licence is a permit to receive TV signals at the time of broadcast. but the company it supports has many other branches which also rely on that licence fee. Is it not therefore equally dubious to use those services without paying for them? for you to say one is ok and the other not is inconsistent.

[Saracen]

..... I'll run with Saracen's tax anaology, but please bear with me because I'm liable to run on for a bit

.... Then there's tax avoidance, which is using legal means to pay less tax than was intended under the spirit of the law.

....

As a technical aside, that's actually a rather simplistic, and somewhat unrepresentative view of tax avoidance. It's a LOT more complex than that. For a start, who gets to define the "intent" of the tax law?

So, there are quite a few definitions, the simplest of which is .... using legal means to reduce your tax bill. HMRC draw a distinction between aggressive tax avoidance, which is a more complex version of the principle you state, and which they are seeking to stamp out, and other forms, some of which are actively encouraged. For instance, government used tax policy to encourage forms of activity it wants to see by making tax advantages. An ISA would be an example. Lower tax rates for capital gains tax on investment income would be another, especially when encouraging investments in start-ups, because it recognises risk levels.

On the other hand, highly artificial schemes that have little purpose other than avoiding tax that might otherwise be payable are actively targeted by HMRC, but even then, it's only really a court that can decide if it's "aggressive" avoidance that frustrates tax intent. These distinctions have ended up in court numerous times, including in the House of Lords. See IRC v Ramsay, for instance.

(IRC = Inland Revenue Commissioners).

[artturnip]

What would happen to ITV Player and 4oD? Would you require a TV licence to watch their on demand content?

[virtuo]

What would happen to ITV Player and 4oD? Would you require a TV licence to watch their on demand content?

With the number of adverts they shoehorn in to their catch-up services, I think it'd be a little cheeky to want a license fee as well.

[peterb]

The licence is to watch broadcast television so I guess any extension to cover broadcast catch up could cover all players.

That said, the proposal comes from the BBC and specifically mentions BBC player. http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ee-bbc-iplayer

[scaryjim]

... HMRC draw a distinction between aggressive tax avoidance, which is a more complex version of the principle you state, and which they are seeking to stamp out, and other forms, some of which are actively encouraged. For instance, government used tax policy to encourage forms of activity it wants to see by making tax advantages. An ISA would be an example. ...

Indeed - the bloke I was listening to (and this was a few years ago) would class the aggressive stuff as tax avoidance, and the encouraged stuff as tax planning. After all, there's a reason those tax breaks are in the legislature in the first place.

[Saracen]

Indeed - the bloke I was listening to (and this was a few years ago) would class the aggressive stuff as tax avoidance, and the encouraged stuff as tax planning. After all, there's a reason those tax breaks are in the legislature in the first place.

And that, of course, makes using the intent of tax bill reduction measures difficult to define.

What did government intend when framing law, and what did the taxpayer intend when undertaking a transaction, or series of transactions.

A few years ago, I paid a solicitor to draw up a very simple legal document, consisting of about two brief, boilerplate paragraphs. It cost me about £50. It changed the status of an asset, and saved me about £80,000 in tax.

The objective was to change the status of the asset AND reduce tax liability.

It was 100% legal, and done with the full knowledge of, and under the very watchful direct gaze of HMRC. By which I mean, I showed them the document.

And not so much as an eyebrow was raised.

That move had a valid benefit (which I'm not going into) that wasn't tax, but in all honesty, the driving imperative was mainly not paying £80k in tax that I didn't have to.

Some schemes, however, can involve a complex series of transactions that really have no valid point or commercial value except avoiding the tax bill that otherwise would have resulted. It's more complex than that, but it's the kind of "aggressive" thing HMRC target.

[Donny John]

My understanding was that an EU ruling made the enforcement of TV license fees (especially the BBC) for non live TV illegal.

As suggested, they could charge a subscription fee and/or encrypt the iPlayer service, but currently cannot force a person to buy a TV licence if they are not watching/listening to live transmissions.

[The Hand]

Looks like the BBC license fee is on the way out now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26711459
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26714328
They can't justify getting rid of BBC 4 IMO, since its by far the cheapest of the channels. It only costs £48million roughly per annum and BBC 1 for example is well over £1billion and I only really watch Question time on that channel. If the BBC does go subscription based then maybe subscribers will have the choice of channels they want and pay for those, I would probably go for BBC 4 + BBC 2 + News Channel. In theory it should work out alot cheaper for me that way!

[peterb]

Looks like the BBC license fee is on the way out now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26711459
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26714328

I am not a lawyer, but from reading those articles...

.. it just means it will be de-criminalised. If you don't pay, you would get a penalty notice - a bit like a parking penalty. If you don't pay that, then civl action could be taken for enforcement.

However, it will relieve pressure on the Courts as the penalty can be applied without needing a court conviction to impose a fine. It would then be up to the 'defendant' to prove that the penalty should not be applied.

[santa claus]

I think the beeb is worth £145 a year.

[scaryjim]

I think the beeb is worth £145 a year.

Surely that depends on how, and how much, you use it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who could make a convincing argument that they don't get anywhere near £145-worth of content from the BBC in a year. And there are doubtless plenty who get well over that, but pay nothing because of the way they consume content.

As a funding model, the license fee is at least ten years out of date. The BBC needs to start coming up with modern, flexible alternatives that cover the wider range of media that it now broadcasts on.

[Saracen]

Surely that depends on how, and how much, you use it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who could make a convincing argument that they don't get anywhere near £145-worth of content from the BBC in a year. And there are doubtless plenty who get well over that, but pay nothing because of the way they consume content.

As a funding model, the license fee is at least ten years out of date. The BBC needs to start coming up with modern, flexible alternatives that cover the wider range of media that it now broadcasts on.

I'm inclined to think that fulling the BBCs basic remit (Inform, educate, entertain), as a general good for the public, ought to be funded like other public goods, which is general taxation.

But a LOT, IMHO, of content falls outside that, and so probably ought to be on subscription .... those who want and consume it pay for it, be it PAYG, a top-up licence or monthly sub.