The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
What pray was "pathetic" about the part of Panorama which showed the compelling evidence that Usmanov is involved with Everton as well as Arsenal, and emphasised the issue at stake by being able to film from the actual Everton v Arsenal fixture?
I agree however that the Queen element seems a bit of a non-issue. But again it might be better if she did not allow her advisors to use offshore instruments. Lead by example, again. In the same way that you do not expect her to cruise around in a Daimler Maybach.
Why are you trying to twist and misrepresent what I post? I was responding to the Queen issue, nothing else.
Haven't even seen the Panorama programme and didn't mention it. From what I've read why is it news that football has a corrupt director? Given tax enquiries underway on many clubs, agent and manager bungs, ignoring FFP rules - am I excited or surprised about an Arsenal director breaking FA rule - frankly no, seems a minor issue in comparison to how the other stuff actually affects grass roots football.
On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority. The tax savings are on the tax paid by the companies who look after the money, and the absence of transaction taxes like stamp duty, not the tax due to be paid by the investors. It means the overheads of the wealth managers are lower and costs are lower so less is deducted from gross returns.
That's exactly why your fund manager might use an offshore base to manage your UK investments, typically Ireland, the difference with a rich investor is that he has a personal portfolio and personal records will exist, whereas you will just be a number in a collective investment account, oblivious to the shady tax avoidance you benefit from.
The US is now a tax haven and is benefiting from the inflow of funds to be serviced by advisers, accountants lawyers and banks. Are we going to ban using US based investment managers?
The ignorance of the reporting in the media and trial by paper hacks is par for the course. This gets sucked up by social media and regurgitated as informed comment, that's the point I was making. Panorama is not have the quality or gravitas it once had, now a bit like the Daily Mail of the TV screen.
I misunderstood, then. Apologies for that.
It's entirely unacceptable if a businessman has financial interests in more than one club in the same league. As Roland Duchatelet knows.
I agree with you about Panorama. There is however a long and well documented history to this. The old Panorama ratings went down and down and it disappeared from our screens for a while. I am afraid that it is a Panorama for a country where huge numbers read the Daily Mail. At least it still exists, unlike World in Action.
Anyway looks like tonight's Panorama concentrates on the corporates. Maybe we can see more eye to eye on ths one.
Virtually all UK Taxpayers have avoided paying tax one way or another - an ISA is avoiding tax (capital gains tax for S&S & tax on the interest on Cash ISA's) and the Government promote them.
You've come out with this several times, and each time someone has to point out to you how fallacious it is. The schemes you recommend help people avoid tax in the way Parliament intended, are argued to be for the greater good (in this case promoting savings) and as such arguably represent the Will of the People.
It definitely isn't the Will of the People when you buy your DVD from Amazon using a UK payment card and it is delivered to your UK address from a UK location using the taxpayer-funded UK infrastructure, and the resulting profit is minimally taxed in Luxembourg.
Please tell me you are able to grasp the distinction.
I think its you who has to grasp the distinction. I never mentioned Big Corporations failing to pay tax. The particular thread I was replying to was about the Paradise Papers & the disclosure that some individuals were avoiding paying tax. I said that tax avoidance was not illegal & mentioned that even ISA's are tax avoidance schemes, the same as VCT's, EIS's, BPR schemes and may other legitimate schemes that are cleared by HMRC. Nowhere did I mention or refer to Companies and their tax structures, but merely pointing out that there are degrees of tax avoidance, and generally they are all legitimate. I then went on to say that the allegation relating to 3 actors from Mrs Browns Boys seems to me to be tax evasion, if they are paid in the UK,immediately transferred offshore & then loaned back again. I would hope that HMRC look into their tax returns to see what they declared.
Caught most of tonights programme, was hoping for more to be honest - just a long list of people avoiding tax an awful lot of which seems perfectly legal (if not morally) although some must be foul of the rules it would seem.
Hopefully something comes of it otherwise Panorama has just told all those not currently doing it, how to!
Didn’t see it but as an average joe, the sheer greed and numbers don’t sit with me. I get that no one is essentially doing anything illegal, but come on. Apple and the big corporations really wind me up. It’s that having access to a whole system of accountants, lawyers and auditors and being able to lobby governments that really grates me.
I know a few on here have highlighted they know of individuals who have been able to take advantage of the personal tax system over here to pay as minimal a tax as possible, but every time that happens that’s having a knock on effect to valuable public services. Think of every single person who relies on universal credit (because they need it), or a disabled person that needs access to services. How many public services suffer because funds are diverted.
Caught most of tonights programme, was hoping for more to be honest - just a long list of people avoiding tax an awful lot of which seems perfectly legal (if not morally) although some must be foul of the rules it would seem.
Hopefully something comes of it otherwise Panorama has just told all those not currently doing it, how to!
I had that feeling too. However, there will be one very good reason for that. Legal firepower. The BBC can take on those rather grubby individuals. With the likes of Apple they have to be a lot more careful.
We saw for example that the Isle of Man, which was supposed to have cleaned up its act, has not.That is an example in the programme of why @Dippenhall should not be so confident that On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority.
As usual, Journalists have lifted the lid. It is now up to HMRC to stop harassing people like @LenGlover and focus on cases where serious amounts of tax money can be reclaimed in one go. Unfortunately HMRC cannot be trusted to do that. As @golfaddick admits above, HMRC waves through all kinds of dubious stuff. He still doesn't understand that that is not the same as Parliament, acting on behalf of the People agreeing that such schemes are OK. We need the political will to agree that the avoidance of tax on this scale is a huge societal problem. It is trans-national but the UK has a major responsibility because most of the tax havens still have the Union Jack on their flags. Get serious about collecting the tax Parliament intended first, and only then resume the phoney debate about lowering or increasing taxes on the general populace.
Finally I offer you a simple acid test for the dodginess of a given act of tax avoidance. The more a "professional" needs to be paid in fees to set the scheme up, the less likely that it is in accordance with the tax law as Parliament intended it to be enacted. The more, therefore, it stinks.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
What pray was "pathetic" about the part of Panorama which showed the compelling evidence that Usmanov is involved with Everton as well as Arsenal, and emphasised the issue at stake by being able to film from the actual Everton v Arsenal fixture?
I agree however that the Queen element seems a bit of a non-issue. But again it might be better if she did not allow her advisors to use offshore instruments. Lead by example, again. In the same way that you do not expect her to cruise around in a Daimler Maybach.
Why are you trying to twist and misrepresent what I post? I was responding to the Queen issue, nothing else.
Haven't even seen the Panorama programme and didn't mention it. From what I've read why is it news that football has a corrupt director? Given tax enquiries underway on many clubs, agent and manager bungs, ignoring FFP rules - am I excited or surprised about an Arsenal director breaking FA rule - frankly no, seems a minor issue in comparison to how the other stuff actually affects grass roots football.
On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority. The tax savings are on the tax paid by the companies who look after the money, and the absence of transaction taxes like stamp duty, not the tax due to be paid by the investors. It means the overheads of the wealth managers are lower and costs are lower so less is deducted from gross returns.
That's exactly why your fund manager might use an offshore base to manage your UK investments, typically Ireland, the difference with a rich investor is that he has a personal portfolio and personal records will exist, whereas you will just be a number in a collective investment account, oblivious to the shady tax avoidance you benefit from.
The US is now a tax haven and is benefiting from the inflow of funds to be serviced by advisers, accountants lawyers and banks. Are we going to ban using US based investment managers?
The ignorance of the reporting in the media and trial by paper hacks is par for the course. This gets sucked up by social media and regurgitated as informed comment, that's the point I was making. Panorama is not have the quality or gravitas it once had, now a bit like the Daily Mail of the TV screen.
The quality of Panorama and its associated gravitas is neither here nor there.
Global tax base erosion by high net worth individuals and corporate avoidance are estimated to be worth between 4-10% of the tax take. One estimate in a release associated with this latest leaks talks of $500Bn per annum of global tax avoidance. That's an awful lot of public services, especially in less developed countries.
Obviously a stronger EU with a more unified approach could cut through all of this so as to avoid the need for austerity in any part of the EU economy.
Perhaps that's why some like @Dippenhall are happy to post nonsense about the EU and the imminent collapse of Italy and the Euro. There's a theme across the Mail, Express and UKIP etc.
Given that many tax havens have no register of beneficial owners one wonders how "tax havens are no longer places where you can hide money". People place money there to avoid tax, publicity and the potential confiscation of assets by HMRC... and spouses!
Which people? The richest 1% of the richest 1%. The kinda people who own newspapers!
And one final point. To argue as Apple do that all these corporations and high net worth individuals are compliant and pay all taxes due where they are due is completely disingenuous and is actually a massive vote winner for Labour in the next election!
Apple pay corporation tax of 3-4% on their non US profits, and they are one of the leaders in the field. That's about 20-25% of a normal tax take. This is no place to list the technical details of how they do it - suffice it to say that the likes of the OECD and EU are looking to improve matters because it's a simple solution... a quick win.
Not only are millions in the UK losing on average a grand a year in benefits but the billionaires are stating they pay what's due.
So the only way to change that is regime change with many, many unintended consequences. Let us make no mistake, the UK can be listed as one of the biggest global tax havens when one includes Jersey The Isle of Man and all the other islands.
These leaks are fairly big and they confirm that this global issue is systemic.
The chairman of the stock exchange of the Cayman Islands on newsnight right now, what a bell end
Sorry cabbles he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Half of London owned by the Russian mafia and Kirsty asks the Bermuda guy if he’s ashamed that undesireables are attracted to his country.
@PragueAddick - If Lewis Hamilton had leased a plane in the UK he would have not been liable for VAT. He didn’t have to go to the IofM. It’s got nothing to do with tax havens. It’s the same as if a company leases a company car instead of buying it. The only issue was personal use and paying tax for that use. He used his own lease company because he could afford to set one up and avoid paying a leasing company to do it for him. Panorama chose to confuse all the different aspects to look like he was cheating the UK of tax - just bollox. The VAT came from the I of M tax authority, how is it anything to do with avoiding UK tax.
Blame the rich for the NHS crisis and blame immigrants for the housing crisis. Same meat different gravy.
Finally I offer you a simple acid test for the dodginess of a given act of tax avoidance. The more a "professional" needs to be paid in fees to set the scheme up, the less likely that it is in accordance with the tax law as Parliament intended it to be enacted. The more, therefore, it stinks.
A simple acid test? Really? Why stop there?
Why not say "the more you have to pay a lawyer to defend you the guiltier you are"? Or, "the more you pay a psychiatrist the more likely you are to be a fucked up paedophile nonce case"? Or, you'll like this one, "the more you have to pay an advertising agency the more the product youre trying to sell is likely a piece of shit that can't sell itself"?
Not so simple after all to link a price someone pays to the "dodginess" or otherwise of a professional service, is it?
But anyway, out of interest, how much did you pay for the advice you took to implement your own piece of tax avoidance planning back in the day, old fruit?
I can't wait for the "Prague Papers" to be released - probably by the News Shopper!
The chairman of the stock exchange of the Cayman Islands on newsnight right now, what a bell end
Sorry cabbles he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Half of London owned by the Russian mafia and Kirsty asks the Bermuda guy if he’s ashamed that undesireables are attracted to his country.
@PragueAddick - If Lewis Hamilton had leased a plane in the UK he would have not been liable for VAT. He didn’t have to go to the IofM. It’s got nothing to do with tax havens. It’s the same as if a company leases a company car instead of buying it. The only issue was personal use and paying tax for that use. He used his own lease company because he could afford to set one up and avoid paying a leasing company to do it for him. Panorama chose to confuse all the different aspects to look like he was cheating the UK of tax - just bollox. The VAT came from the I of M tax authority, how is it anything to do with avoiding UK tax.
Blame the rich for the NHS crisis and blame immigrants for the housing crisis. Same meat different gravy.
But he seemed to dismiss her questions as being irrelevant
I’m sure the Russian mafia are filling their boots over here in numerous ways, but he appeared (to me anyway) as if to defend what everyone knows is probably one of the hubs of money laundering. I lose count of the amount of crime documentaries I’ve watched that highlighted Cayman and other similar places as the place to go to wash away your dirty money
The brash style of his interview was a joke
You won’t (IMO) be chairman of the Cayman Islands Stock exchange unless you are bent, or in bed with crime
The chairman of the stock exchange of the Cayman Islands on newsnight right now, what a bell end
Sorry cabbles he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Half of London owned by the Russian mafia and Kirsty asks the Bermuda guy if he’s ashamed that undesireables are attracted to his country.
@PragueAddick - If Lewis Hamilton had leased a plane in the UK he would have not been liable for VAT. He didn’t have to go to the IofM. It’s got nothing to do with tax havens. It’s the same as if a company leases a company car instead of buying it. The only issue was personal use and paying tax for that use. He used his own lease company because he could afford to set one up and avoid paying a leasing company to do it for him. Panorama chose to confuse all the different aspects to look like he was cheating the UK of tax - just bollox. The VAT came from the I of M tax authority, how is it anything to do with avoiding UK tax.
Blame the rich for the NHS crisis and blame immigrants for the housing crisis. Same meat different gravy.
But he seemed to dismiss her questions as being irrelevant
I’m sure the Russian mafia are filling their boots over here in numerous ways, but he appeared (to me anyway) as if to defend what everyone knows is probably one of the hubs of money laundering. I lose count of the amount of crime documentaries I’ve watched that highlighted Cayman and other similar places as the place to go to wash away your dirty money
The brash style of his interview was a joke
You won’t (IMO) be chairman of the Cayman Islands Stock exchange unless you are bent, or in bed with crime
Yeah but this stuff goes on within the EU - let alone in so-called tax havens. Take Cyprus as an example. There are maybe 5k Russians living in Cyprus. Why? Well for a relatively paltry €300,000 a Russian (or absolutely anyone else) gets Cyprus Residency status for themselves plus family. This eases their access to the whole EU. For a slightly more onerous investment of €2mn they can buy full fat Cyprus citizenship. And can wander the EU at their whim. This latter option means you don't actually have to visit Cyprus ever again if you don't want to. The €300k/2mn is not even a fee. They get to keep their money, it must just be invested in a nice holiday villa or commercial property.
Is there anyone who thinks very many of these fine upstanding Russians came by their money entirely legitimately?
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Not something that a nurse really has to worry about. But, all she or he needs to do is to set up an offshore company in Bermuda, the Isle Of Man or Mauritius, send a £1m over there and pretend that it's a loan (or even "given away") and "job done" - no tax to pay. Just one very big problem with that suggestion though.
And our Government is as culpable as any other in allowing these schemes to be set up.
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Of course, point 3 is precisely the reason many people from various countries around the world choose to place their hard-earned in a British Overseas Territory.....
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Ooo, I think I've touched a nerve there!
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Exactly.
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Exactly.
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
From the HMRC site....
"You can usually reclaim the VAT paid on goods and services purchased for use in your business.
If a purchase is also for personal or private use, you can only reclaim the business proportion of the VAT."
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
So rather than pay tax to HMRC which supports a democratic process to allocate resources to health, education and other areas, these people can assuage their guilt by setting up a foundation to donate direct to a special cause.
Always keeping back the odd $10M for the kids and a rainy day
So that's a justification for avoidance which is a direct cause of austerity.
No need to say much more... just wait for the next set of opinion polls... and the next Johnson mistake.
And when the NHS goes through a winter crisis due to a lack of (EU) staff and bed blocking patients who should be in social care, the electorate will know where to look - it really won't take much for Labour to point them in the right direction.
The corruptness and lack of morality demonstrated by those providing and reaping the benefits from tax evasion schemes to limit their contribution to society is truly mind blowing.
Your statement makes the assumption that only tax raised and spent by governments contributes to society.
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
Is that a classic, definitive, straw man argument?
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
By way of full disclosure, I also have holdings in a fund based in Luxembourg, some US stock and, I'm sure a number of holdings in offshore-based funds. One of these is Lindsell Train Global Equity, which, if memory serves is also held by @PragueAddick!
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
Lol!
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Ooo, I think I've touched a nerve there!
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
Toodle pip!
Not really. I have always followed the maxim on here that if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it, which means among other things having a ready response if anyone cries "hypocrite". So I'm happy to provide far more disclosure than is anyone else's business, in that spirit.
What has the "dividend versus salary" issue got to do with my case? You can't pay into a bog standard UK SIPP, based on dividends, can you? I think you assumed my case was the same as some others you know of, without having the facts available. Never a good look for a figures person.
If you want to argue that, say, the Google 'double Irish" scheme has any other significant goal than tax avoidance, I am sure we are all waiting to hear about it.
The cries of outrage about these leaks and the work done on them, from those on here who seek to defend complex tax avoidance are the real raw nerves exposed. To me it's all part of the good old British deference to the moneyed classes. The Little people cannot be allowed to know what the Big People are doing because they might not Understand how this is all done for the Greater Good. Therefore the journalists should have scorn or worse poured on them and should ideally be silenced. I know where that leads.
From HMRC website: You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Exactly.
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
From the HMRC site....
"You can usually reclaim the VAT paid on goods and services purchased for use in your business.
If a purchase is also for personal or private use, you can only reclaim the business proportion of the VAT."
That is the issue.
Oh dear. I don't need to read quotes from the HMRC website to understand how this "works", thanks all the same.
It's owned by a company. Is the company using it for personal use? I doubt it. It's a chartering company, so my guess is that LH is paying the company for his personal use. Although as he probably uses it very rarely in the UK there wouldn't be any uk VAT to pay on that private use anyway! Of course, it's his company, but the overall net position is no different to if he just chartered a jet when he needed one, except the benefit to him here is that he both (indirectly) owns and (directly) uses the asset when he wants and so can sell it when he no longer wants it. A bit like buying a house instead of renting it.
Seriously, there is nothing to see on that particularly one. Just a journalist either not getting or understanding half the story and trying to fling a "celebrity" name out there to attract attention, or else knowing the full story and choosing to only "report" the bits they know will attract the desired attention.
If that's the best they can come up with its a shame as there are plenty of people out there outright evading tax.
Well me old fruit, anyone in advertising will tell you that advertising a piece of shit might get people to try it once, but that'll be it, and the agency would look stupid for trying. The top agencies want to work on stuff that deserves a place in society, be it Guinness, a price comparison site, or a bunch of footie fans standing in a local election. Anyway...
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
Ooo, I think I've touched a nerve there!
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
Toodle pip!
What has the "dividend versus salary" issue got to do with my case?
I think he is perhaps implying that you would potentially be paying yourself low salary / higher dividends as it is a way of avoiding paying more tax compared to just being paid a salary.
Comments
It's entirely unacceptable if a businessman has financial interests in more than one club in the same league. As Roland Duchatelet knows.
I agree with you about Panorama. There is however a long and well documented history to this. The old Panorama ratings went down and down and it disappeared from our screens for a while. I am afraid that it is a Panorama for a country where huge numbers read the Daily Mail. At least it still exists, unlike World in Action.
Anyway looks like tonight's Panorama concentrates on the corporates. Maybe we can see more eye to eye on ths one.
Hopefully something comes of it otherwise Panorama has just told all those not currently doing it, how to!
I know a few on here have highlighted they know of individuals who have been able to take advantage of the personal tax system over here to pay as minimal a tax as possible, but every time that happens that’s having a knock on effect to valuable public services. Think of every single person who relies on universal credit (because they need it), or a disabled person that needs access to services. How many public services suffer because funds are diverted.
This system needs to be challenged
We saw for example that the Isle of Man, which was supposed to have cleaned up its act, has not.That is an example in the programme of why @Dippenhall should not be so confident that On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority.
As usual, Journalists have lifted the lid. It is now up to HMRC to stop harassing people like @LenGlover and focus on cases where serious amounts of tax money can be reclaimed in one go. Unfortunately HMRC cannot be trusted to do that. As @golfaddick admits above, HMRC waves through all kinds of dubious stuff. He still doesn't understand that that is not the same as Parliament, acting on behalf of the People agreeing that such schemes are OK. We need the political will to agree that the avoidance of tax on this scale is a huge societal problem. It is trans-national but the UK has a major responsibility because most of the tax havens still have the Union Jack on their flags. Get serious about collecting the tax Parliament intended first, and only then resume the phoney debate about lowering or increasing taxes on the general populace.
Finally I offer you a simple acid test for the dodginess of a given act of tax avoidance. The more a "professional" needs to be paid in fees to set the scheme up, the less likely that it is in accordance with the tax law as Parliament intended it to be enacted. The more, therefore, it stinks.
Global tax base erosion by high net worth individuals and corporate avoidance are estimated to be worth between 4-10% of the tax take. One estimate in a release associated with this latest leaks talks of $500Bn per annum of global tax avoidance. That's an awful lot of public services, especially in less developed countries.
Obviously a stronger EU with a more unified approach could cut through all of this so as to avoid the need for austerity in any part of the EU economy.
Perhaps that's why some like @Dippenhall are happy to post nonsense about the EU and the imminent collapse of Italy and the Euro. There's a theme across the Mail, Express and UKIP etc.
Given that many tax havens have no register of beneficial owners one wonders how "tax havens are no longer places where you can hide money". People place money there to avoid tax, publicity and the potential confiscation of assets by HMRC... and spouses!
Which people? The richest 1% of the richest 1%. The kinda people who own newspapers!
And one final point. To argue as Apple do that all these corporations and high net worth individuals are compliant and pay all taxes due where they are due is completely disingenuous and is actually a massive vote winner for Labour in the next election!
Apple pay corporation tax of 3-4% on their non US profits, and they are one of the leaders in the field. That's about 20-25% of a normal tax take. This is no place to list the technical details of how they do it - suffice it to say that the likes of the OECD and EU are looking to improve matters because it's a simple solution... a quick win.
Not only are millions in the UK losing on average a grand a year in benefits but the billionaires are stating they pay what's due.
So the only way to change that is regime change with many, many unintended consequences. Let us make no mistake, the UK can be listed as one of the biggest global tax havens when one includes Jersey The Isle of Man and all the other islands.
These leaks are fairly big and they confirm that this global issue is systemic.
@PragueAddick - If Lewis Hamilton had leased a plane in the UK he would have not been liable for VAT. He didn’t have to go to the IofM. It’s got nothing to do with tax havens. It’s the same as if a company leases a company car instead of buying it. The only issue was personal use and paying tax for that use. He used his own lease company because he could afford to set one up and avoid paying a leasing company to do it for him. Panorama chose to confuse all the different aspects to look like he was cheating the UK of tax - just bollox. The VAT came from the I of M tax authority, how is it anything to do with avoiding UK tax.
Blame the rich for the NHS crisis and blame immigrants for the housing crisis. Same meat different gravy.
Why not say "the more you have to pay a lawyer to defend you the guiltier you are"? Or, "the more you pay a psychiatrist the more likely you are to be a fucked up paedophile nonce case"? Or, you'll like this one, "the more you have to pay an advertising agency the more the product youre trying to sell is likely a piece of shit that can't sell itself"?
Not so simple after all to link a price someone pays to the "dodginess" or otherwise of a professional service, is it?
But anyway, out of interest, how much did you pay for the advice you took to implement your own piece of tax avoidance planning back in the day, old fruit?
I can't wait for the "Prague Papers" to be released - probably by the News Shopper!
I’m sure the Russian mafia are filling their boots over here in numerous ways, but he appeared (to me anyway) as if to defend what everyone knows is probably one of the hubs of money laundering. I lose count of the amount of crime documentaries I’ve watched that highlighted Cayman and other similar places as the place to go to wash away your dirty money
The brash style of his interview was a joke
You won’t (IMO) be chairman of the Cayman Islands Stock exchange unless you are bent, or in bed with crime
Is there anyone who thinks very many of these fine upstanding Russians came by their money entirely legitimately?
You want to discuss my tax affairs? Some people, usually the very rich, might tell you to fuck off and mind your own (clients') business. But I'm not in that category, so no problem. You are referring to the fact that I used my (existing) UK company to invoice my Czech company for consultancy services. You make the mistake of assuming that I did so to avoid tax. That is not the case. The goals were:
1. Have money to pay myself a UK salary (taxable) and therefore to set up a modest private pension scheme which possibility at the time simply didn't exist in the Czech Rep.
2. To find a way of charging necessary expenses to the Czech company which the Czech TO might not have considered to be admissable (travel and client entertainment)
3. To have the reassurance that some of my revenue was returned to what at the time I considered to be a more safe and stable financial environment (and currency).
The Czech TO lost some corporate tax revenue, however most of the time it was paid at pretty much the same rate, in the UK, with whom it had a double tax treaty. My modest salary was taxable too. It's a pity that the UK doesn't allow UK citizens who are non -resident to do something as sensible as have a personal private pension scheme, leading me to go through this hoop.
As I recall, I paid no extra fees whatsoever to my Teddington based accountant, a very conservative chap, beyond the normal annual fees for the company's reporting. That's probably because he realised I wasn't actually avoiding tax and pocketing money that he could take a cut of. Remembering that, was exactly what prompted me to post my remark.
Next?
You can reclaim the VAT paid on the goods you’ve imported as input tax. You will need the import VAT certificate (form C79) to show that you’ve paid the import VAT.
So you import the plane pay the VAT and then it’s offset against the company’s output VAT. Its EU rules.
Only loser is IofM tax authorities. But as it gets enough tax revenue from other forms of corporate tax and doesn’t have a huge public sector budget it doesn’t need the VAT.
Hamilton is not a UK taxpayer which some might argue is morally and ethically wrong. Same people might also argue that it’s morally and ethically wrong to use language more associated with racist hate and illinformed prejudice to justify your outrage.
Not something that a nurse really has to worry about. But, all she or he needs to do is to set up an offshore company in Bermuda, the Isle Of Man or Mauritius, send a £1m over there and pretend that it's a loan (or even "given away") and "job done" - no tax to pay. Just one very big problem with that suggestion though.
And our Government is as culpable as any other in allowing these schemes to be set up.
You now seem to be suggesting that businesses may have other reasons for structuring themselves the way they do other than solely to avoid tax, but with a consequence of becoming more tax efficient in the process (eg dividend vs salary?)
That can't be right, surely? I thought if they were paying "so called professionals" lots of money it stank? Why, you said so yourself!
Anyway, must go, this VAT and tax avoidance scam I'm working on involving a Czech advertising company and the Cayman Islands isn't going to just plan, market and implement itself you know .....
Toodle pip!
Difficult to see how you can "avoid" VAT by paying over £3 million of it in the first place .... But hey, it must be true because I saw it on the telly!
The Paraduse Papers haven’t been used to expose how much has been paid to charities or establish foundations. No mention of how their investments have created companies that provide jobs. No exposure of the content of Wills leaving everything to charity. No mention of Ashcroft funding the Belize orphanage to take kids off the street and HIV children abandoned by society.
Doesn’t fit the agenda does it.
"You can usually reclaim the VAT paid on goods and services purchased for use in your business.
If a purchase is also for personal or private use, you can only reclaim the business proportion of the VAT."
That is the issue.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/876200/Paradise-Papers-Labour-Party-tax-John-McDonnell-Peter-Bone
Always keeping back the odd $10M for the kids and a rainy day
So that's a justification for avoidance which is a direct cause of austerity.
No need to say much more... just wait for the next set of opinion polls... and the next Johnson mistake.
And when the NHS goes through a winter crisis due to a lack of (EU) staff and bed blocking patients who should be in social care, the electorate will know where to look - it really won't take much for Labour to point them in the right direction.
I happen to have shares in an Isle of Man property company - listed on the LSE, a FTSE250 constituent and a REIT. It's called Redefine International. 16 of its UK properties are rented out to......
The UK Govt.
Receipts from our Govt, account for 4.6% of its gross rental income. The buildings include some occupied by HMRC.
Nothing to see here.
You do know what a REIT is and how they came about, don't you?
Thought not.
What has the "dividend versus salary" issue got to do with my case? You can't pay into a bog standard UK SIPP, based on dividends, can you? I think you assumed my case was the same as some others you know of, without having the facts available. Never a good look for a figures person.
If you want to argue that, say, the Google 'double Irish" scheme has any other significant goal than tax avoidance, I am sure we are all waiting to hear about it.
The cries of outrage about these leaks and the work done on them, from those on here who seek to defend complex tax avoidance are the real raw nerves exposed. To me it's all part of the good old British deference to the moneyed classes. The Little people cannot be allowed to know what the Big People are doing because they might not Understand how this is all done for the Greater Good. Therefore the journalists should have scorn or worse poured on them and should ideally be silenced. I know where that leads.
It's owned by a company. Is the company using it for personal use? I doubt it. It's a chartering company, so my guess is that LH is paying the company for his personal use. Although as he probably uses it very rarely in the UK there wouldn't be any uk VAT to pay on that private use anyway! Of course, it's his company, but the overall net position is no different to if he just chartered a jet when he needed one, except the benefit to him here is that he both (indirectly) owns and (directly) uses the asset when he wants and so can sell it when he no longer wants it. A bit like buying a house instead of renting it.
Seriously, there is nothing to see on that particularly one. Just a journalist either not getting or understanding half the story and trying to fling a "celebrity" name out there to attract attention, or else knowing the full story and choosing to only "report" the bits they know will attract the desired attention.
If that's the best they can come up with its a shame as there are plenty of people out there outright evading tax.