So David, which of your statements are we supposed to believe? The first one that said it was "a private matter" and you weren't going to give any details?; the second one when you said you "don't benefit from any offshore funds"?; the third one when you said there are "none" from which you will benefit in the future?; or today's one where you admit to having had an offshore fund and you made profit on it, (but conveniently below the CGT threshold)?
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
To be fair, its only those bitter people that pay taxes and who are not affluent ex-public schoolboy politicians that are the ones bitching about his family wealth being in an offshore in a tax haven
So David, which of your statements are we supposed to believe? The first one that said it was "a private matter" and you weren't going to give any details?; the second one when you said you "don't benefit from any offshore funds"?; the third one when you said there are "none" from which you will benefit in the future?; or today's one where you admit to having had an offshore fund and you made profit on it, (but conveniently below the CGT threshold)?
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
The squirming you are enjoying so much is largely coming from the fact that a man is powerless to stop the media from savaging his dead dad (much of which would be considered libel if not for the fact he is not alive as you cannot libel the dead). Why stop there, why not dig up Thatcher's corpse and force her family to watch a bunch of Welsh miners urinate on it?
So David, which of your statements are we supposed to believe? The first one that said it was "a private matter" and you weren't going to give any details?; the second one when you said you "don't benefit from any offshore funds"?; the third one when you said there are "none" from which you will benefit in the future?; or today's one where you admit to having had an offshore fund and you made profit on it, (but conveniently below the CGT threshold)?
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
The squirming you are enjoying so much is largely coming from the fact that a man is powerless to stop the media from savaging his dead dad (much of which would be considered libel if not for the fact he is not alive as you cannot libel the dead). Why stop there, why not dig up Thatcher's corpse and force her family to watch a bunch of Welsh miners urinate on it?
You're right, of course. It's utterly abhorrent for the media to try to score points by lying about the dead father of a politician. No-one is responsible for their father's actions. So the Daily Mail should not have been allowed to make up and publish such tawdry nonsense about Ralph Miliband.
But this story has almost nothing to do with Ian Cameron even though the Prime Minster has used an offshore fund set up by him. It doesn't matter at all who set up the fund; but it matters enormously that the architect of austerity who told us "we're all in this together" has stashed funds offshore, out of reach of the HMRC. And it has everything to do with the Prime Minister's honesty, reputation, judgment and credibility. All of which have taken a fearful battering in the last few days. Hilariously.
My view is this:
"He has taken money and he, as far as I can see, is putting that into some very dodgy tax-avoiding schemes. Some of these schemes, we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong".
That's a pretty fair assessment, verbatim, from David Cameron, about Jimmy Carr. It seems to fit the Prime Minister in this instance very well.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
You pretty much dominate every thread with your pompous bullying style. This post above absolutely epitomises your M.O. I think you should consider apologising.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
You pretty much dominate every thread with your pompous bullying style. This post above absolutely epitomises your M.O. I think you should consider apologising.
You really need to get over your sad and borderline creepy obsession with me.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
If you have enough money to invest you don't give it to fund managers, most of whom run their funds outside the UK to minimise costs. Instead you go wholesale and create an investment fund and employ your own manager to run it for you at a price you agree rather than the percentage a fund manager chooses to cream off the top.
So, if the article is correct it describes nothing more than a fund set up offshore to minimise the fund's tax liability and later moved to Ireland which purposely attracted fund management with similarly attractive tax breaks for investment funds. If you accept that DC is not a crook for being borne into a wealthy family, the wealth will be invested somewhere. As long as a UK resident pays tax on the income taken it's irrelevant where the fund is set up in order to minimise the tax it pays, it's as much an investment decision where it is established as what stocks and shares it buys.
Anyone with a pension will find probably find that their fund benefits from being administered in the Irish tax haven where the fund pays less tax and therefore gives a better return for your pension.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
You pretty much dominate every thread with your pompous bullying style. This post above absolutely epitomises your M.O. I think you should consider apologising.
You really need to get over your sad and borderline creepy obsession with me.
You really are quite a horrible individual. I don't intend to respond how you want me to.
Blairmore Holdings' prospectus in 2006 contains the nasty statement "the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits". That kind of statement would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to avoid paying tax in the UK. Even if it's published the same year you're elected as Leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron obviously took the decision that what was financially convenient for him not to pay UK taxes on those investments at that time; even if it was morally repugnant in the eyes of the electorate.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
You pretty much dominate every thread with your pompous bullying style. This post above absolutely epitomises your M.O. I think you should consider apologising.
You really need to get over your sad and borderline creepy obsession with me.
You really are quite a horrible individual. I don't intend to respond how you want me to.
The thing is you give out a lot worse so if I am 'quite horrible' I can't imagine how you would describe your own conduct. You only ever seem to come into these threads to personally attack me nowadays. Sad.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
It is becoming increasingly clear how little you understand about investments in general. Holding shares in an overseas company is not the same thing as 'stashing funds offshore'. Anyone who has a pension will have holdings in some overseas holding. The only people who think any part of this is dodgy are people who share a similar level of ignorance over how this kind of thing actually works.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
You pretty much dominate every thread with your pompous bullying style. This post above absolutely epitomises your M.O. I think you should consider apologising.
You really need to get over your sad and borderline creepy obsession with me.
You really are quite a horrible individual. I don't intend to respond how you want me to.
The thing is you give out a lot worse so if I am 'quite horrible' I can't imagine how you would describe your own conduct. You only ever seem to come into these threads to personally attack me nowadays. Sad.
Blairmore Holdings' prospectus in 2006 contains the nasty statement "the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits". That kind of statement would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to avoid paying tax in the UK. Even if it's published the same year you're elected as Leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron obviously took the decision that what was financially convenient for him not to pay UK taxes on those investments at that time; even if it was morally repugnant in the eyes of the electorate.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
I am enjoying this!
Your pension fund is not subject to UK corporation tax or income tax on its profits and is probably administered in Ireland, is that nasty?
You are getting confused between the investments being taxed and the individual being taxed on his interest in the investments.
If you want to pay UK tax on your investments that's fine, but if you are responsible for getting the best deal for others why would you not choose to use Ireland's commercial facilities.
I've got no axe to grind for Cameron but it could be he has tried to keep it private is because he would anticipate the hysterical reaction your post illustrates.
As and when there is evidence he has received remittances from the fund he has not declared for UK tax this is a non issue.
So David, which of your statements are we supposed to believe? The first one that said it was "a private matter" and you weren't going to give any details?; the second one when you said you "don't benefit from any offshore funds"?; the third one when you said there are "none" from which you will benefit in the future?; or today's one where you admit to having had an offshore fund and you made profit on it, (but conveniently below the CGT threshold)?
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
The squirming you are enjoying so much is largely coming from the fact that a man is powerless to stop the media from savaging his dead dad (much of which would be considered libel if not for the fact he is not alive as you cannot libel the dead). Why stop there, why not dig up Thatcher's corpse and force her family to watch a bunch of Welsh miners urinate on it?
Blairmore Holdings' prospectus in 2006 contains the nasty statement "the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits". That kind of statement would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to avoid paying tax in the UK. Even if it's published the same year you're elected as Leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron obviously took the decision that what was financially convenient for him not to pay UK taxes on those investments at that time; even if it was morally repugnant in the eyes of the electorate.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
I am enjoying this!
You are right, it is great fun. And there is still a lack of clarity. For example, the thing about moving to Ireland and avoiding UK corporation tax. For what purpose? It seems to confuse the tax liabilities on any profits made by the fund manager company for their own benefit with any income or capital gain earned for the fund unit holders. I think it is fair to say that when it's admin expenses, salaries and fees have been paid there would have been precious little taxable profit left. I'll reiterate again that on the investments themselves there would be no potential UK tax liability until such time that units in the fund were sold. (As Cameron Jnr. now appears to have done a few years back. I don't blame him for selling the funds performance has been rubbish.) It is still unclear to me whether Cameron Snr. was an investor in the fund or the administrator/manager of it. Perhaps both? But so far has there been any evidence that he actually had any beneficial interest in the underlying investments? Or did he just get a commission/fee for suckering other people, maybe even his own son, into buying into the fund. The Sky headline fails to help. Sky appears to not understand the difference between owning the investment management company itself (shares) with owning units in the fund the company manages on behalf of others. It is no wonder that Joe Public don't know what's going on. The PM should have been upfront straight away.
Irony on the bbc. The BBC are running with this story. A few minutes later they go onto their business section where they remind us to organise our ISA allowance worth 15 grand before the deadline. And also where to find the best interest rates.
So David, which of your statements are we supposed to believe? The first one that said it was "a private matter" and you weren't going to give any details?; the second one when you said you "don't benefit from any offshore funds"?; the third one when you said there are "none" from which you will benefit in the future?; or today's one where you admit to having had an offshore fund and you made profit on it, (but conveniently below the CGT threshold)?
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
The squirming you are enjoying so much is largely coming from the fact that a man is powerless to stop the media from savaging his dead dad (much of which would be considered libel if not for the fact he is not alive as you cannot libel the dead). Why stop there, why not dig up Thatcher's corpse and force her family to watch a bunch of Welsh miners urinate on it?
Blairmore Holdings' prospectus in 2006 contains the nasty statement "the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits". That kind of statement would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to avoid paying tax in the UK. Even if it's published the same year you're elected as Leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron obviously took the decision that what was financially convenient for him not to pay UK taxes on those investments at that time; even if it was morally repugnant in the eyes of the electorate.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
I am enjoying this!
You are right, it is great fun. And there is still a lack of clarity. For example, the thing about moving to Ireland and avoiding UK corporation tax. For what purpose? It seems to confuse the tax liabilities on any profits made by the fund manager company for their own benefit with any income or capital gain earned for the fund unit holders. I think it is fair to say that when it's admin expenses, salaries and fees have been paid there would have been precious little taxable profit left. I'll reiterate again that on the investments themselves there would be no potential UK tax liability until such time that units in the fund were sold. (As Cameron Jnr. now appears to have done a few years back. I don't blame him for selling the funds performance has been rubbish.) It is still unclear to me whether Cameron Snr. was an investor in the fund or the administrator/manager of it. Perhaps both? But so far has there been any evidence that he actually had any beneficial interest in the underlying investments? Or did he just get a commission/fee for suckering other people, maybe even his own son, into buying into the fund. The Sky headline fails to help. Sky appears to not understand the difference between owning the investment management company itself (shares) with owning units in the fund the company manages on behalf of others. It is no wonder that Joe Public don't know what's going on. The PM should have been upfront straight away.
Absolutely right. It's one things stashing dough in funds that are invested in tax-swerving companies like Google and Amazon. It's quite another to be defensive and dissembling about it. He's made some financially efficient, but politically bankrupt decisions in this regard in the past. I can't wait to see how much of the brown stuff he's going to get covered in, in the days to come.
Blairmore Holdings' prospectus in 2006 contains the nasty statement "the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits". That kind of statement would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to avoid paying tax in the UK. Even if it's published the same year you're elected as Leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron obviously took the decision that what was financially convenient for him not to pay UK taxes on those investments at that time; even if it was morally repugnant in the eyes of the electorate.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
I am enjoying this!
You are right, it is great fun. And there is still a lack of clarity. For example, the thing about moving to Ireland and avoiding UK corporation tax. For what purpose? It seems to confuse the tax liabilities on any profits made by the fund manager company for their own benefit with any income or capital gain earned for the fund unit holders. I think it is fair to say that when it's admin expenses, salaries and fees have been paid there would have been precious little taxable profit left. I'll reiterate again that on the investments themselves there would be no potential UK tax liability until such time that units in the fund were sold. (As Cameron Jnr. now appears to have done a few years back. I don't blame him for selling the funds performance has been rubbish.) It is still unclear to me whether Cameron Snr. was an investor in the fund or the administrator/manager of it. Perhaps both? But so far has there been any evidence that he actually had any beneficial interest in the underlying investments? Or did he just get a commission/fee for suckering other people, maybe even his own son, into buying into the fund. The Sky headline fails to help. Sky appears to not understand the difference between owning the investment management company itself (shares) with owning units in the fund the company manages on behalf of others. It is no wonder that Joe Public don't know what's going on. The PM should have been upfront straight away.
Absolutely right. It's one things stashing dough in funds that are invested in tax-swerving companies like Google and Amazon. It's quite another to be defensive and dissembling about it. He's made some financially efficient, but politically bankrupt decisions in this regard in the past. I can't wait to see how much of the brown stuff he's going to get covered in, in the days to come.
I expect investigative journalists will be beavering away as we speak. The interesting thing is that, given his professional history, it is inconceivable that Cameron Snr. would have left only the money reported in his estate. £2.7mn was it? Mostly left to his wife. So one assumption someone could make is that there must, too, be some form of family trust.
The city is considered a tax haven by many European jurisdictions. Even more so when the mainstream corporation tax rate goes down to 17% in a few years.
I'd be interested to know how Gideon's family has used trust structures to protect themselves from inheritance tax. Be very surprised if there's nothing there for Viscount Osborne.
Personally I have no issue with people arranging their affairs to pay the lesser amount of tax. Which of us would choose to structure something inefficiently to guarantee the highest amount of tax possible was paid (real tax geeks will be aware of the precedent in The Duke of Westminster tax case, I looked up the date, it was in 1936)
This holds true for genuine transactions, I do have an issue though with artificial situations where lower tax is paid through contrivances.
Offshore trusts prior to the rule changes which prevent substantial amounts of avoidance/abuse never seemed right (which for discretionary trusts I think were grandfathered so those fortunate enough to have entered into the arrangement before the changes mean the benefits are retained, duke of Westminster maybe and his London properties)
Non-domicile rules still don't seem right.
Profit diversion and overcharging for brand don't seem right.
Anyway, I hope Osborne and Johnson also get liberally covered in piles of brown.
@IAgree thanks for the LOL, I assume it's still to complicated for you to understand. Let me simplify it for you.
An investment fund manufactures money, just like a factory manufactures goods. In principle the reasons for an offshore investment are no different to the reasons for an offshore manufacturing base, it's cheaper and you pay lower taxes which contributes to reducing operating costs.
It's no more immoral to import foreign goods than import foreign money. In both cases you pay tax on it in the UK one way or another. Only if you conceal it from the taxman is it an issue.
Unless you want a law that says you can only buy goods made in the UK by UK companies you can't sustain an argument against offshore investment funds.
Wealth changes things in that if you are rich enough you can set up your own shoe company in China instead of buying shoes from a high street store, like you can set up your own investment company in Ireland and cut out the middle men instead of using a retail outlet like Hargreaves Lansdowne.
The bulk of the executives and directors were sham appointments (including a part-time Bishop) for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that it was not a UK company and that the investment decisions were not being made in the UK. The undeniable fact is that the investment decisions were being made by people based in the UK and therefore the company should have been treated as a UK company for tax purposes.
Comments
If number four is the whole truth, why didn't you issue that statement on Sunday? Whatever the truth is, come out with it immediately and stick to it.
What other revelations will be next?
I don't think any of this will stick. But it's a lot of fun to see this tawdry, discredited Prime Minster squirming about!
But this story has almost nothing to do with Ian Cameron even though the Prime Minster has used an offshore fund set up by him. It doesn't matter at all who set up the fund; but it matters enormously that the architect of austerity who told us "we're all in this together" has stashed funds offshore, out of reach of the HMRC. And it has everything to do with the Prime Minister's honesty, reputation, judgment and credibility. All of which have taken a fearful battering in the last few days. Hilariously.
My view is this:
"He has taken money and he, as far as I can see, is putting that into some very dodgy tax-avoiding schemes. Some of these schemes, we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong".
That's a pretty fair assessment, verbatim, from David Cameron, about Jimmy Carr. It seems to fit the Prime Minister in this instance very well.
If you want to educate yourself before you make any further incorrect pronouncements, here is an opinion from an expert and a QC on these matters.
For me, DC's massive waste of money on EU leafleting is much worse.
So, if the article is correct it describes nothing more than a fund set up offshore to minimise the fund's tax liability and later moved to Ireland which purposely attracted fund management with similarly attractive tax breaks for investment funds. If you accept that DC is not a crook for being borne into a wealthy family, the wealth will be invested somewhere. As long as a UK resident pays tax on the income taken it's irrelevant where the fund is set up in order to minimise the tax it pays, it's as much an investment decision where it is established as what stocks and shares it buys.
Anyone with a pension will find probably find that their fund benefits from being administered in the Irish tax haven where the fund pays less tax and therefore gives a better return for your pension.
Blairmore Holdings moved from the Bahamas to the EU in 2012. Not to the UK, where corporation tax is 20%, but to the Republic of Ireland, where it is 12.5%. That kind of tax position would seem very attractive to you if you wanted to continue investing in a fund with a low corporate tax liability rate. Even if the move takes place the same year you become Prime Minister. I wonder if some, most or none of his £300k inheritance came from cashed stashed in that fund.
This is a hilarious story. The self-styled financially competent, trustworthy and credible Prime Minister issuing statement after statement (we're up to five now, with the latest one being that he'll publish his tax returns, "soon") in a desperate attempt to get himself out of his own mess.
I am enjoying this!
You are getting confused between the investments being taxed and the individual being taxed on his interest in the investments.
If you want to pay UK tax on your investments that's fine, but if you are responsible for getting the best deal for others why would you not choose to use Ireland's commercial facilities.
I've got no axe to grind for Cameron but it could be he has tried to keep it private is because he would anticipate the hysterical reaction your post illustrates.
As and when there is evidence he has received remittances from the fund he has not declared for UK tax this is a non issue.
For example, the thing about moving to Ireland and avoiding UK corporation tax.
For what purpose? It seems to confuse the tax liabilities on any profits made by the fund manager company for their own benefit with any income or capital gain earned for the fund unit holders. I think it is fair to say that when it's admin expenses, salaries and fees have been paid there would have been precious little taxable profit left.
I'll reiterate again that on the investments themselves there would be no potential UK tax liability until such time that units in the fund were sold. (As Cameron Jnr. now appears to have done a few years back. I don't blame him for selling the funds performance has been rubbish.)
It is still unclear to me whether Cameron Snr. was an investor in the fund or the administrator/manager of it. Perhaps both? But so far has there been any evidence that he actually had any beneficial interest in the underlying investments? Or did he just get a commission/fee for suckering other people, maybe even his own son, into buying into the fund.
The Sky headline fails to help. Sky appears to not understand the difference between owning the investment management company itself (shares) with owning units in the fund the company manages on behalf of others. It is no wonder that Joe Public don't know what's going on. The PM should have been upfront straight away.
Where is the irony?
Next to the irony board
Under the Wayne Rooney
I'd be interested to know how Gideon's family has used trust structures to protect themselves from inheritance tax. Be very surprised if there's nothing there for Viscount Osborne.
Personally I have no issue with people arranging their affairs to pay the lesser amount of tax. Which of us would choose to structure something inefficiently to guarantee the highest amount of tax possible was paid (real tax geeks will be aware of the precedent in The Duke of Westminster tax case, I looked up the date, it was in 1936)
This holds true for genuine transactions, I do have an issue though with artificial situations where lower tax is paid through contrivances.
Offshore trusts prior to the rule changes which prevent substantial amounts of avoidance/abuse never seemed right (which for discretionary trusts I think were grandfathered so those fortunate enough to have entered into the arrangement before the changes mean the benefits are retained, duke of Westminster maybe and his London properties)
Non-domicile rules still don't seem right.
Profit diversion and overcharging for brand don't seem right.
Anyway, I hope Osborne and Johnson also get liberally covered in piles of brown.
An investment fund manufactures money, just like a factory manufactures goods. In principle the reasons for an offshore investment are no different to the reasons for an offshore manufacturing base, it's cheaper and you pay lower taxes which contributes to reducing operating costs.
It's no more immoral to import foreign goods than import foreign money. In both cases you pay tax on it in the UK one way or another. Only if you conceal it from the taxman is it an issue.
Unless you want a law that says you can only buy goods made in the UK by UK companies you can't sustain an argument against offshore investment funds.
Wealth changes things in that if you are rich enough you can set up your own shoe company in China instead of buying shoes from a high street store, like you can set up your own investment company in Ireland and cut out the middle men instead of using a retail outlet like Hargreaves Lansdowne.
Do you get it yet?