And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares? Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
I'm not sure how publishing your tax affairs can possibly prove to anyone that you are not hiding anything.
If you are then it won't be featuring on there anyway.
Well, it is possible. Here's an example. Chosen at random. :-)
Gordon Brown was very fond of claiming expenses for a gardener and cleaner at his Scottish residence. Money he was later forced to pay back because it was deemed excessive. Now, of course, if your employer paid across such sums to you, you'd be obliged to put it on your tax return as a benefit in kind. It would be interesting to see if Gordon honestly included these sums on his tax return wouldn't it?
Only one way to find out. Anything to bury that gold-flogging nick-griffin-eyed badger-from-wind-in-the-willows-impersonating bullying wanksock is fine by me. Pretty sure Blair "accidentally" shredded all his expenses. His legacy has crashed faster and further than Jimmy saville's
Not sure him having one eye has anything to do with it. Lovely that you group people by the disability.
And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares? Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
Given the ISA limit is what, 15k a year now? I doubt she'd need to.
And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares? Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
Given the ISA limit is what, 15k a year now? I doubt she'd need to.
£15,240. Rising to £20k next tax year. But if you put money in an ISA, it has to stay there or it loses its tax free wrapper. ISA accounts are not really for day-to-day spending and don't come with cheque books, debit cards or on-line bill-paying facilities. So, if she's really not earning any interest, at all, anywhere, outside of a tax wrapper, she's using the wrong bank. Which is not a good indication of her financial acumen.
And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares? Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
Given the ISA limit is what, 15k a year now? I doubt she'd need to.
£15,240. Rising to £20k next tax year. But if you put money in an ISA, it has to stay there or it loses its tax free wrapper. ISA accounts are not really for day-to-day spending and don't come with cheque books, debit cards or on-line bill-paying facilities. So, if she's really not earning any interest, at all, anywhere, outside of a tax wrapper, she's using the wrong bank. Which is not a good indication of her financial acumen.
But up until this April interest on those type of accounts was taxed at source unless you specifically requested an exemption, so why would she need to declare it twice?
And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares? Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
Given the ISA limit is what, 15k a year now? I doubt she'd need to.
£15,240. Rising to £20k next tax year. But if you put money in an ISA, it has to stay there or it loses its tax free wrapper. ISA accounts are not really for day-to-day spending and don't come with cheque books, debit cards or on-line bill-paying facilities. So, if she's really not earning any interest, at all, anywhere, outside of a tax wrapper, she's using the wrong bank. Which is not a good indication of her financial acumen.
But up until this April interest on those type of accounts was taxed at source unless you specifically requested an exemption, so why would she need to declare it twice?
Ah right. Never having had the good fortune to earn that kind of money, I didn't realise that. And what are the rules on interest on joint accounts (never having had one of those either)? Given that she's married there are numerous ways that she and her husband could be allocating their wages to their bills and savings, depending on their attitude to money.
Ah right. Never having had the good fortune to earn that kind of money, I didn't realise that. And what are the rules on interest on joint accounts (never having had one of those either)? Given that she's married there are numerous ways that she and her husband could be allocating their wages to their bills and savings, depending on their attitude to money.
Well, HMRC used to be fairly relaxed about it and you could allocate the interest on joint accounts in the most tax efficient way. But, I think, no longer. On joint accounts the interest is split 50/50 for tax purposes. So, in theory a non-taxpayer could apply to have their share of the interest paid gross and the other partner, if a higher rate taxpayer would have the basic amount deducted at source and put the amount on their tax return so that the difference between higher and lower rates of tax can be collected and your tax return coding adjusted accordingly. Hope that helps! BTW, for the new tax year just started it's all change again. Interest on bank accounts will be paid away without deduction of income tax. For most people no additional tax will be payable. But that's not the case for high earners.
Basic-rate (20%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £1,000 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before). Higher-rate (40%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £500 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before). Additional-rate (45%) taxpayers: £0 – they do not get an allowance.
So, yet again, this Govt. appears to be hitting the rich to benefit everyone else, contrary to normal perception.
Ah right. Never having had the good fortune to earn that kind of money, I didn't realise that. And what are the rules on interest on joint accounts (never having had one of those either)? Given that she's married there are numerous ways that she and her husband could be allocating their wages to their bills and savings, depending on their attitude to money.
Well, HMRC used to be fairly relaxed about it and you could allocate the interest on joint accounts in the most tax efficient way. But, I think, no longer. On joint accounts the interest is split 50/50 for tax purposes. So, in theory a non-taxpayer could apply to have their share of the interest paid gross and the other partner, if a higher rate taxpayer would have the basic amount deducted at source and put the amount on their tax return so that the difference between higher and lower rates of tax can be collected and your tax return coding adjusted accordingly. Hope that helps! BTW, for the new tax year just started it's all change again. Interest on bank accounts will be paid away without deduction of income tax. For most people no additional tax will be payable. But that's not the case for high earners.
Basic-rate (20%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £1,000 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before). Higher-rate (40%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £500 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before). Additional-rate (45%) taxpayers: £0 – they do not get an allowance.
So, yet again, this Govt. appears to be hitting the rich to benefit everyone else, contrary to normal perception.
Good point, quite a few poor people that are basic rate tax payers are currently earning £1k interest on their £30k savings pot and stand to benefit from this change. They'll be ever so pleased.
Or, realistically, are we looking at the Tory heartland of wealthy pensioners being the beneficiary as they are most likely to have high wealth and lower income?
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
Corporation Tax is on company profits, not dividends.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over £5,000 Basic rate (and non-taxpayers) 7.5% Higher rate 32.5% Additional rate 38.1%
Plus the 17% on the Company profits before dividends.
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
I can understand why you feel that way, but it is a bit more complicated than that. I'll welcome Fiish or Off It to explain this, but my understanding is this:
- Their company takes in the income, as you point out - paying corporation tax in full. - They take out their dividends, which are at a lower tax rate than a PAYE employee's income - but it is still taxed (See The rates)
In return for their lower tax, they then forego not only paid holiday and absence - but all the other protections offered to a PAYE employee.
Not to mention, if they find HMRC labelling them a PAYE employee in disguise (via IR35) then you're liable for full (i.e PAYE rates) tax being backdated; although I don't think HMRC regularly employ the full powers they have regarding IR35 - it is still a major concern of contractors who use a Ltd company to facilitate their work.
Lastly, as a contractor - some clients simple don't want to deal with you unless you're a Ltd company - at least in the software development world. This means you either stick to permanent work (which certainly doesn't suit anyone) or go in to contracting and generally get advised to go the Ltd company route.
As for the rest of your post - I agree that it doesn't quite seem fair that essentially money begets money. If you're backed with the right wealth you can then afford to employ the services of professionals who know the rules well enough to ensure your cash is safe and making a good return. Yes, these are options available to everyone - but it is ironic that they are rendered inaccessible to those who could really do with some financial help.
Eh to be honest I'm totally bored of trying to explain tax rates to people when this is all publicly available, if you can use Google and have 20 minutes it isn't difficult. If people want to believe that minimum wage people are taxed 90% and all Tories are only taxed 2% because all their money is stashed off shore then so be it.
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
I suppose there are good reasons why you believe this. But it's simply not true to say minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. The complexity of the tax system with its mishmash of direct and indirect taxes offset by various allowances and benefits makes analysis difficult but I found this from a report undertaken two years ago. I don't expect things have changed a great deal since. The report splits earnings up into deciles. So, the first figure is the actual gross household earnings, the second how much that is topped up/reduced by with tax allowances/benefits, taken into account.
The analysis goes on to provide "real" tax rates: For basic rate tax payers it's 11.7%, for higher rate taxpayers 22.8% and for additional rate tax payers 39.9%
In a nutshell, the top 40% of earners are net payers with the bottom 60% net beneficiaries. The cut-off point was at a household gross income of around £35,000.
Numerous factors are involved, encompassing individuals’ many, two-way transactions with the state. Say a household’s gross income was £39,000. It would enjoy benefits worth just under £12,000, while contributing almost £13,000 into various tax pools, making it a net contributor by about £1,000. Its disposable income would be about £27,000. The taxes and other forms of “paying in” used in the calculations include direct taxes such as income tax, National Insurance and council tax, as well as more than 15 “indirect” forms of tax covering everything from VAT, alcohol duties, stamp duty on housing transactions and television and vehicle licensing. The figures are derived from government data about household spending habits, collated by the Office for National Statistics.
I hope that helps. Although it's probably worth mentioning that the report was prepared by a firm called Smith & Williamson....
I used to work in asset management tax for one of the big 4 accounting firms and now as tax director for a large insurance group where my division looks after many £bn of pension funds on behalf of policyholders.
I have liked a number of the comments from @Fiiish above because they are good explanations of how the global tax and regulatory system works.
There are several non-tax reasons to have the management and control of a company or fund outside the UK. These mostly revolve around the regulatory requirements for assets and the structure of the fund.
Cash funds are often based in Ireland because that territory has good a good network of international treaties which mean income is not subject to withholding tax from those jurisdictions and the regulatory requirements and costs have been historically low. Ireland does not levy tax on the way out (withholding tax)
The Bahamas structure used by Ian Cameron did have a number of elements that look dubious by today's standards particularly when looking at tax mitigation.
The FT's article explains this more succinctly than I can;
Neither this, nor his families inheritance tax planning gets into Amber on the tax planning scale.
I dislike Cameron and would have loved there to be a juicy offshore trust structure, I am amazed Osborne doesn't have one and think it's likely his disclosure has been fudged to ensure its not apparent. Probably he isn't yet a beneficiary and so it's not in his annual taxable income. If it were structured pre the rule changes a few years ago, it would not be I taxable income anyway. His disclosure is bullshit.
Boris, as a non-cabinet member will not yet be required to disclose, I imagine he has worse.
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
Corporation Tax is on company profits, not dividends.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over £5,000 Basic rate (and non-taxpayers) 7.5% Higher rate 32.5% Additional rate 38.1%
Plus the 17% on the Company profits before dividends.
I am baffled by these numbers? Yes CT is on profits but the point of these companies is that the profit becomes the dividend. They are not set up to re-invest excess funds but too launder income at lowest tax rates.
From Price Waterhouse website: The normal rate of corporation tax is 20% for the year beginning 1 April 2015. This rate will fall to 19% for the year beginning 1 April 2017, and to 17% for the year beginning 1 April 2020.
Potential higher rate tax payers set up a company, offsetting spurious expenses and then pay 17% Corporation Tax on their "dividend" while minimum wage earners pay a proportionally huge amount of tax. They transfer assets offshore and set up trusts to benefit their families. All this while their unregulated earnings, often approved by our pension funds, climb regardless of the stagnating economy. Justify this Dave.
Corporation Tax is on company profits, not dividends.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over £5,000 Basic rate (and non-taxpayers) 7.5% Higher rate 32.5% Additional rate 38.1%
Plus the 17% on the Company profits before dividends.
I am baffled by these numbers? Yes CT is on profits but the point of these companies is that the profit becomes the dividend. They are not set up to re-invest excess funds but too launder income at lowest tax rates.
From Price Waterhouse website: The normal rate of corporation tax is 20% for the year beginning 1 April 2015. This rate will fall to 19% for the year beginning 1 April 2017, and to 17% for the year beginning 1 April 2020.
Yes, but the dividends are then taxed at the rates shown above - the ones you're confused by - in a form of double taxation; i.e the same funds get taxed twice. It's confusing as the two taxes are levied on the two different entities; the company that made the money (via Corporation Tax), and then the individual who has gained the income (via Dividends Tax).
Consider this example, it's entirely made up so the figures may not be 100% - but it should give you the gist:
I am a director of company X, and company X made £10,000 in profit.
I'd like to cash out my £10,000 profit, so first of I pay my 20% Corporation Tax: so £2000. This leaves my post-tax profit as £8,000; and, in the words of Queen, I want it all - so I opt to pay myself the full 100% of £8,000 in dividends. The first £5,000 is exempt, but I need to pay Dividends Tax on anything beyond that sum (much like a PAYE employee doesn't pay tax on their personal allowance (i.e £11k)). So I pay the dividends tax on the £3,000 - and this breaks my income down to £7,775; in other words I've paid roughly 22.5%.
Sounds a bit confusing when it's written that way, so let's break it down step by step:
£10,000 - minus Corporation Tax at 20% = £8,000 (Combined Tax: £2k / Income: £0)
£8,000 - minus £5k Dividends Tax exemption = £3,000 (Combined Tax: £2k / Income £5k)
£3,000 - minus Dividends Tax at 7.5% = £2,775 (Combined Tax: £2,225 / Income £7,775)
Ultimately I've paid a total of £2,225, or 22.5%, tax on the £10k, albeit both via the company and myself as an individual. Interestingly, in this example I would end up worse off than a PAYE employee; as an employee would be under the £11k tax free Personal Allowance.
Alas, whilst that may explain the issue of double taxation it's still very simple, and there's actually a problem with it: MP's and similar people earn money via their actual jobs too. So an MP has a salary of roughly £75,000 - making them a higher rate tax payer. Furthermore, they're earning more than £10,000 via their investments and side gigs. With that in mind, let's calculate what an MP on a higher tax rate with - for instance £25,000 in dividends - would be paying:
£25,000 - minus Corporation Tax at 20% = £20,000 (Combined Tax: £5k / Income: £0)
£20,000 - minus £5k Dividends Tax exemption = £15,000 (Combined Tax: £5k / Income £5k)
£15,000 - minus Dividends Tax at 32.5% = £11,125 (Combined Tax: £9,875 / Income £16,125)
Taxes paid on £25,000 = £9,875 (39.5%) Equivalent taxes were the £25,000 subject to the same taxes as their PAYE MP's salary: £10,000 (40%)
As you can see, when Corporation Tax and Dividends Tax are combined - actually the difference between an MP earning £75,000 and having a shareholding worth £25,000, vs an MP simply earning £100,000 comes down to £125, or a difference in tax of 0.5%.
That's not to say people don't do things such as paying themselves minimum wage/£11k so they pay no income tax on their salary, before supplementing it with dividends payments - but as you can see, these are double taxed and do factor in to your tax banding. So it's may be tax efficient but it isn't as bad as may first appear - and in the case of MPs, they can't resort to minimum wage tricks as they have a parliamentary salary, and their tax affairs via shareholdings may be similar to their PAYE salary tax rate.
Completely obvious disclaimer: essentially my entire knowledge on tax affairs is summarised in this post, as a PAYE employee who has been offered contractual work before, I've done a fair amount of investigation. I'm also currently setting my own company up and trying to make sense of it again; albeit before I get some proper advice from one of those accountant geniuses that eat, think and dream this stuff! Nutters...
Well, now had a quick look at Corbyn's tax return. I would recommend it to everyone. It is the perfect demonstration of an utterly chaotic individual. First, he couldn't find it! This despite the fact that you are supposed to keep tax records for a minimum of 22 months after the tax year to which they relate. He had to ask HMRC for a copy! Second, he filled it in manually. I'm guessing he doesn't have the competence to do it on-line. Third, he appears not to understand that you are supposed to put a cross in either yes or no in some of the sections. There's a whole page of them where he managed just one cross. I'd have dropped him straight into the investigations branch if I'd been at HMRC. Fourth, his handwriting is difficult to decipher. He did not have the courtesy to use block caps to make the HMRC's staff task easier. Fifth, he filed late and had to pay a £100 penalty. Sixth, he made no gift-aided charitable donations during the year. (Feck me Jeremy, even I do that you tight git!) And finally, he is not organised enough to earn any interest on his bank accounts.
Well, now had a quick look at Corbyn's tax return. I would recommend it to everyone. It is the perfect demonstration of an utterly chaotic individual. First, he couldn't find it! This despite the fact that you are supposed to keep tax records for a minimum of 22 months after the tax year to which they relate. He had to ask HMRC for a copy! Second, he filled it in manually. I'm guessing he doesn't have the competence to do it on-line. Third, he appears not to understand that you are supposed to put a cross in either yes or no in some of the sections. There's a whole page of them where he managed just one cross. I'd have dropped him straight into the investigations branch if I'd been at HMRC. Fourth, his handwriting is difficult to decipher. He did not have the courtesy to use block caps to make the HMRC's staff task easier. Fifth, he filed late and had to pay a £100 penalty. Sixth, he made no gift-aided charitable donations during the year. (Feck me Jeremy, even I do that you tight git!) And finally, he is not organised enough to earn any interest on his bank accounts.
If half the effort went into checking the finances of the really wealthy individuals, who spend fortunes dodging paying UK tax as was spent on a few middle earners from Westminster, then something good may have come out this whole pointless revelation.
Still, as long as HMRC get a backdated cheque for £180 from Jezza, all is well in the World.
Anything untoward in Corbyn's tax affairs is far more like to small and as a consequence of poor administration on his part than any desire to fiddle. The bloke probably hasn't got an accountant. I doubt that screwing every last penny out of the system ranks too high on Corbyn's list of priorities.
Anything untoward in Corbyn's tax affairs is far more like to small and as a consequence of poor administration on his part than any desire to fiddle. The bloke probably hasn't got an accountant. I doubt that screwing every last penny out of the system ranks too high on Corbyn's list of priorities.
Oh well, that's okay then. You're right, he hasn't got an accountant. Now he's leader of Her Majesty's opposition in parliament, where he'll be earning more and have more opportunites for "speaking engagements", he might like to consider getting one. Because he's clearly not up to doing it himself.
But, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Where is the cut-off point? As far as we can tell the PM has not withheld tax due to HMRC. But, according to The Sun article Corbyn has.
Now that a leftie leader apperas to be a little less whiter than white, it's all okay and only a mistake, he didn't mean it and all that other sundry bollocks.
Anything untoward in Corbyn's tax affairs is far more like to small and as a consequence of poor administration on his part than any desire to fiddle. The bloke probably hasn't got an accountant. I doubt that screwing every last penny out of the system ranks too high on Corbyn's list of priorities.
Well it should do. He's the Leader of Her Majesty's opposition.
Comments
snp.org/nicola_sturgeon_publishes_tax_return
And we are expected to believe that someone pulling in a salary in excess of £100k has earned not a single penny by way of interest on bank accounts or dividends in shares?
Where does she put her money while it's waiting to be spent? Under the bed?
So, in theory a non-taxpayer could apply to have their share of the interest paid gross and the other partner, if a higher rate taxpayer would have the basic amount deducted at source and put the amount on their tax return so that the difference between higher and lower rates of tax can be collected and your tax return coding adjusted accordingly.
Hope that helps!
BTW, for the new tax year just started it's all change again. Interest on bank accounts will be paid away without deduction of income tax. For most people no additional tax will be payable. But that's not the case for high earners.
Basic-rate (20%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £1,000 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before).
Higher-rate (40%) taxpayers – will be able to earn £500 interest with no tax (so a max tax saving of £200 compared with before).
Additional-rate (45%) taxpayers: £0 – they do not get an allowance.
So, yet again, this Govt. appears to be hitting the rich to benefit everyone else, contrary to normal perception.
Or, realistically, are we looking at the Tory heartland of wealthy pensioners being the beneficiary as they are most likely to have high wealth and lower income?
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over £5,000
Basic rate (and non-taxpayers) 7.5%
Higher rate 32.5%
Additional rate 38.1%
Plus the 17% on the Company profits before dividends.
- Their company takes in the income, as you point out - paying corporation tax in full.
- They take out their dividends, which are at a lower tax rate than a PAYE employee's income - but it is still taxed (See The rates)
In return for their lower tax, they then forego not only paid holiday and absence - but all the other protections offered to a PAYE employee.
Not to mention, if they find HMRC labelling them a PAYE employee in disguise (via IR35) then you're liable for full (i.e PAYE rates) tax being backdated; although I don't think HMRC regularly employ the full powers they have regarding IR35 - it is still a major concern of contractors who use a Ltd company to facilitate their work.
Lastly, as a contractor - some clients simple don't want to deal with you unless you're a Ltd company - at least in the software development world. This means you either stick to permanent work (which certainly doesn't suit anyone) or go in to contracting and generally get advised to go the Ltd company route.
As for the rest of your post - I agree that it doesn't quite seem fair that essentially money begets money. If you're backed with the right wealth you can then afford to employ the services of professionals who know the rules well enough to ensure your cash is safe and making a good return. Yes, these are options available to everyone - but it is ironic that they are rendered inaccessible to those who could really do with some financial help.
The report splits earnings up into deciles.
So, the first figure is the actual gross household earnings, the second how much that is topped up/reduced by with tax allowances/benefits, taken into account.
£10,300 + £9,540
£15,500 + £11,240
£18,800 + £10,240
£21,700 + £8,880
£27,500 + £5,560
£32,800 + £3,590
£38,800 - £1,820
£47,800 - £7,120
£60,200 - £13,510
£101,300 - £28,410
The analysis goes on to provide "real" tax rates:
For basic rate tax payers it's 11.7%, for higher rate taxpayers 22.8% and for additional rate tax payers 39.9%
In a nutshell, the top 40% of earners are net payers with the bottom 60% net beneficiaries. The cut-off point was at a household gross income of around £35,000.
Numerous factors are involved, encompassing individuals’ many, two-way transactions with the state. Say a household’s gross income was £39,000. It would enjoy benefits worth just under £12,000, while contributing almost £13,000 into various tax pools, making it a net contributor by about £1,000. Its disposable income would be about £27,000.
The taxes and other forms of “paying in” used in the calculations include direct taxes such as income tax, National Insurance and council tax, as well as more than 15 “indirect” forms of tax covering everything from VAT, alcohol duties, stamp duty on housing transactions and television and vehicle licensing. The figures are derived from government data about household spending habits, collated by the Office for National Statistics.
I hope that helps. Although it's probably worth mentioning that the report was prepared by a firm called Smith & Williamson....
I have liked a number of the comments from @Fiiish above because they are good explanations of how the global tax and regulatory system works.
There are several non-tax reasons to have the management and control of a company or fund outside the UK. These mostly revolve around the regulatory requirements for assets and the structure of the fund.
Cash funds are often based in Ireland because that territory has good a good network of international treaties which mean income is not subject to withholding tax from those jurisdictions and the regulatory requirements and costs have been historically low. Ireland does not levy tax on the way out (withholding tax)
The Bahamas structure used by Ian Cameron did have a number of elements that look dubious by today's standards particularly when looking at tax mitigation.
The FT's article explains this more succinctly than I can;
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01f5b790-fd9f-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html#axzz45XRTGCEg
Neither this, nor his families inheritance tax planning gets into Amber on the tax planning scale.
I dislike Cameron and would have loved there to be a juicy offshore trust structure, I am amazed Osborne doesn't have one and think it's likely his disclosure has been fudged to ensure its not apparent. Probably he isn't yet a beneficiary and so it's not in his annual taxable income. If it were structured pre the rule changes a few years ago, it would not be I taxable income anyway. His disclosure is bullshit.
Boris, as a non-cabinet member will not yet be required to disclose, I imagine he has worse.
From Price Waterhouse website: The normal rate of corporation tax is 20% for the year beginning 1 April 2015. This rate will fall to 19% for the year beginning 1 April 2017, and to 17% for the year beginning 1 April 2020.
Consider this example, it's entirely made up so the figures may not be 100% - but it should give you the gist: Alas, whilst that may explain the issue of double taxation it's still very simple, and there's actually a problem with it: MP's and similar people earn money via their actual jobs too. So an MP has a salary of roughly £75,000 - making them a higher rate tax payer. Furthermore, they're earning more than £10,000 via their investments and side gigs. With that in mind, let's calculate what an MP on a higher tax rate with - for instance £25,000 in dividends - would be paying: As you can see, when Corporation Tax and Dividends Tax are combined - actually the difference between an MP earning £75,000 and having a shareholding worth £25,000, vs an MP simply earning £100,000 comes down to £125, or a difference in tax of 0.5%.
That's not to say people don't do things such as paying themselves minimum wage/£11k so they pay no income tax on their salary, before supplementing it with dividends payments - but as you can see, these are double taxed and do factor in to your tax banding. So it's may be tax efficient but it isn't as bad as may first appear - and in the case of MPs, they can't resort to minimum wage tricks as they have a parliamentary salary, and their tax affairs via shareholdings may be similar to their PAYE salary tax rate.
Completely obvious disclaimer: essentially my entire knowledge on tax affairs is summarised in this post, as a PAYE employee who has been offered contractual work before, I've done a fair amount of investigation. I'm also currently setting my own company up and trying to make sense of it again; albeit before I get some proper advice from one of those accountant geniuses that eat, think and dream this stuff! Nutters...
I would recommend it to everyone. It is the perfect demonstration of an utterly chaotic individual.
First, he couldn't find it! This despite the fact that you are supposed to keep tax records for a minimum of 22 months after the tax year to which they relate. He had to ask HMRC for a copy!
Second, he filled it in manually. I'm guessing he doesn't have the competence to do it on-line.
Third, he appears not to understand that you are supposed to put a cross in either yes or no in some of the sections. There's a whole page of them where he managed just one cross. I'd have dropped him straight into the investigations branch if I'd been at HMRC.
Fourth, his handwriting is difficult to decipher. He did not have the courtesy to use block caps to make the HMRC's staff task easier.
Fifth, he filed late and had to pay a £100 penalty.
Sixth, he made no gift-aided charitable donations during the year. (Feck me Jeremy, even I do that you tight git!)
And finally, he is not organised enough to earn any interest on his bank accounts.
Is this someone you'd want running the country?
Update: The Sun are now claiming that there is a disparity between what Corbyn's put on his tax return and his House of Commons members interests return. It seems Jeremy might be not just a tax avoider but a full-blown evader.
thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7067902/Question-mark-over-Jeremy-Corbyns-tax-affairs-after-he-failed-to-declare-450-earnings-to-taxman.html
If half the effort went into checking the finances of the really wealthy individuals, who spend fortunes dodging paying UK tax as was spent on a few middle earners from Westminster, then something good may have come out this whole pointless revelation.
Still, as long as HMRC get a backdated cheque for £180 from Jezza, all is well in the World.
But, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Where is the cut-off point? As far as we can tell the PM has not withheld tax due to HMRC. But, according to The Sun article Corbyn has.
Now that a leftie leader apperas to be a little less whiter than white, it's all okay and only a mistake, he didn't mean it and all that other sundry bollocks.