Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

What it boils down to is where the person is tax resident. Applies to companies also in similar forms. This is why many of the super rich take care to get their tax residence sorted. F1 drivers and Monaco spring to mind. That said, many also are happy to live in places like the UK because the tax regime is not punitive and they want to live in a particular place for other reasons than just tax.

This is true.
But, where a person lives, and where they keep their money are not necessarily the same. As shown.

Agree - but if you read the first part of my post above you'll see that is the main point anti-tax haven legislation is designed to address. It is extra-territorial.

I can explain further if you want.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Agree - but if you read the first part of my post above you'll see that is the main point anti-tax haven legislation is designed to address. It is extra-territorial.

I can explain further if you want.

No need to explain. A one word answer is sufficient. Panama.

mamba80

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Agree - but if you read the first part of my post above you'll see that is the main point anti-tax haven legislation is designed to address. It is extra-territorial.

I can explain further if you want.

No need to explain. A one word answer is sufficient. Panama.

OECD only recently published a report on this, its probably years away from being law in a majority of countries, lets alone enforced and prosecutions made, even where there are laws, hmrc seems to go for the easier cases.... all of course welcome but have they the expertise/man power to pursue 'cross border cases?

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... tax-fraud/

ballysmate

So a quick recap before the thread lurches on
There have been leaks about people stuffing money off shore. No-one has suggested DC has done this, but his father did as far back as 1980. What Cameron Snr did was legal. Cameron Snr died and DC inherited some of this legally made money.
Is that it? That's the basis of the furore? People don't like what his father did when DC was 13/14 years old?
Since coming into power, the Tories have done more than previous administrations to close tax loopholes.

BTW like Stevo, I don't give a toss how much the PM or ex Pms of whatever stripe can and do claim for duties or even suits.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

So a quick recap before the thread lurches on
There have been leaks about people stuffing money off shore. No-one has suggested DC has done this, but his father did as far back as 1980. What Cameron Snr did was legal. Cameron Snr died and DC inherited some of this legally made money.
Is that it? That's the basis of the furore? People don't like what his father did when DC was 13/14 years old?
Since coming into power, the Tories have done more than previous administrations to close tax loopholes.

BTW like Stevo, I don't give a toss how much the PM or ex Pms of whatever stripe can and do claim for duties or even suits.

But that is not the whole story. The story is still unravelling, as well as the answers.....
For example, if DC's wife is working for a company based in Panama then it could be claimed that his family is benefitting from the tax dodge.

ballysmate

She apparently works as a creative consultant for Smythsons. which is owned through a holding company in Luxembourg. Anything illegal there?

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

She apparently works as a creative consultant for Smythsons. which is owned through a holding company in Luxembourg. Anything illegal there?

Nothing 'illegal'' about any of it, just immoral. When people use holding companies and it is rigged so that it is entirely down to the individual to decide how much tax he/she will pay, there is something very wrong about that.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

She apparently works as a creative consultant for Smythsons. which is owned through a holding company in Luxembourg. Anything illegal there?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, slavery was once legal.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Agree - but if you read the first part of my post above you'll see that is the main point anti-tax haven legislation is designed to address. It is extra-territorial.

I can explain further if you want.

No need to explain. A one word answer is sufficient. Panama.

It wouldn't be no. The existence of laws and sanctions does not stop people from breaking them (in tax and in any other area of life) - but as the Panama leak shows, it catches up with many eventually.

The explanation was also meant to address mamba's point that the rules aren't there - patently not the case.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

She apparently works as a creative consultant for Smythsons. which is owned through a holding company in Luxembourg. Anything illegal there?

Nothing 'illegal'' about any of it, just immoral. When people use holding companies and it is rigged so that it is entirely down to the individual to decide how much tax he/she will pay, there is something very wrong about that.

That is based on the rather simplistic assumption that large taxpayers with complex affairs - whether it be rich individuals or corporate groups - have no choice about how to structure their business and tax affairs - which clearly they do. It could be as simple as where to base a commercial operation or how to fund that operation and there is nothing wrong with that, either legally or morally.

Countries implicitly recognise this, hence the existence of tax competition between countries to attract investment and encourage economic activity. You only need to look at the way corporate tax rates have gone over the years (even in your Nordic utopias) to see that.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

She apparently works as a creative consultant for Smythsons. which is owned through a holding company in Luxembourg. Anything illegal there?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, slavery was once legal.

It is unlikely that owning shares via a Luxembourg company, or being owned by a company in Luxembourg will become illegal. It is what people do with the structures that matter.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Agree - but if you read the first part of my post above you'll see that is the main point anti-tax haven legislation is designed to address. It is extra-territorial.

I can explain further if you want.

No need to explain. A one word answer is sufficient. Panama.

OECD only recently published a report on this, its probably years away from being law in a majority of countries, lets alone enforced and prosecutions made, even where there are laws, hmrc seems to go for the easier cases.... all of course welcome but have they the expertise/man power to pursue 'cross border cases?

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... tax-fraud/

On the website on your link, this is where this individual gets some of his funding. Says it all really in terms of where his agenda and sympathies lie...

Sources of funding

The main sources of funding for my income, some, but by no means all of which, is reflected in the content of this blog, is the Friends Provident Foundation. Their funding has been partly matched by a private trust. More details are available here.

In the recent past I have been funded by:

1.The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust in the form of grant to undertake research on and to promote tax reform for the relief of poverty;

2.The Trade Union Congress, who I advise on taxation issues;

3. Unite, who I advise on taxation issues;

4. The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum;

5. The Joffe Charitable Trust who have provided me with a grant to work on the relationship between accounting and taxation;

6. PCS (the Public and Commercial Services Union) mainly for work on the tax gap;

7. The International Centre for Tax and Development for work on unitary tax and accounting jointly with Prof Prem Sikka;

8.Occasional consultancy work for NGOs and other organisations including groupings in the EU Parliament (both Socialists and Democrats and Greens) and universities on taxation and accounting issues;

9.Fees for broadcasting and journalism.
- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/abou ... jIWrk.dpuf

mamba80

and your point is ?????? debate requires opinions that might be different from yours steve0 lol! is he wrong?

Do some wealthy people inc world leaders (inc their parents) try to dodge paying taxes ? and pretty much get away with it.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

and your point is ?????? debate requires opinions that might be different from yours steve0 lol! is he wrong?

Do some wealthy people inc world leaders (inc their parents) try to dodge paying taxes ? and pretty much get away with it.

That he is biased because of who receives his funding from. As an accountant I'm well aware that numbers and statistics are like people, if you torture them enough they will tell you what you want to hear

I'll dig out a few facts of my own when I have time...I'm busy torturing numbers as it's our year end reporting season and this is where all my good and completely legitimate work in the year feeds through to improved shareholder returns - and maybe bonuses for high value add employees

pblakeney

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ca ... &ocid=iehp

ballysmate

From the link.

“In the subsequent negotiations, we were able to secure a sensible way forward which ensures that trusts which generate tax consequences have to report their ownership to HMRC.”

So I assume as no-one has alleged illegal practice, this was complied with. If not, offenders should be punished. So if HMRC did know, are the grounds for people's ire the fact that nobody told the public about their individual financial dealings? Well I haven't published mine either.

And part of the quote from the Dutch MEP

“Some member states saw it as an underhand way for the UK to get an advantage.”

If this is the case, nice one Dave!

rick_chasey

Just 'cos it's legal doesn't mean it's beneficial to broader society to do it.

Nor does it mean it should be done. All it means is they can't be punished by the state for it.

Post GFC and the need for tax revenues to reduce state deficits has put the role of tax havens into sharp focus.

On a basic level it does seem unfair that the poor and middle have their income squeezed by taxes and cuts to state aid while the gov't simultaneously campaigns to keep tax havens which are only accessible to the rich.

That you can't argue with.

What to do about it is trickier. I think rules on transparency would help a lot. But then you would be expected to make the same argument about broader surveillance of communications.

rick_chasey

I also object to the argument that "is anyone accusing X in Panama of being illegal" because no one is in a position to know that or not.

HMRC could stand next to someone who has laundered money and holds money in Panama who says "I am totally innocent and have no money in Panama" and the HMRC rep standing next to him would not be able to say "actually no".

So it's a moot argument.

Garry H

Just wait until the yanks get their hands on this. They're not big on individuals/companies facilitating the movement of money from sanctioned parties.

rick_chasey

Garry H wrote:

Just wait until the yanks get their hands on this. They're not big on individuals/companies facilitating the movement of money from sanctioned parties.

The reason you haven't seen many Americans on it is because they have Deleware which is a lot easier for them...

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

From the link.

“In the subsequent negotiations, we were able to secure a sensible way forward which ensures that trusts which generate tax consequences have to report their ownership to HMRC.”

So I assume as no-one has alleged illegal practice, this was complied with. If not, offenders should be punished. So if HMRC did know, are the grounds for people's ire the fact that nobody told the public about their individual financial dealings? Well I haven't published mine either.

And part of the quote from the Dutch MEP

“Some member states saw it as an underhand way for the UK to get an advantage.”

If this is the case, nice one Dave!

The PSC (Persons with Significant Control) legislation came into force yesterday in the UK. That is on top of all the other rules that govern disclosure in tax and general legal matters, which are pretty extensive.

Anyone who thinks that there are not substantial rules around these things in this country has not read the rules (which I have to as part of my job...). The key to this is not what rules we have, it is the disclosures that tax havens are prepared to make to other jurisdictions. Many have concluded information sharing agreements: some have not. As many of these are sovereign states, they cannot be forced to do so, but generally there are retaliatory measures that are taken like imposition of withholding taxes on outbound payments.

See below: British territories classed as tax havens (i.e. those over which the UK government have control/influence) have signed these information sharing agreements with the UK three years ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22374923
So what are people moaning about?

orraloon

Not Belize then?

Oh yeah, Belize of the Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Baron Ashcroft, deputy chairman of the Tory party and serial tax avoider fame. He who it was said would declare his tax status as permanent UK resident but then didn't, while still retaining his place in the House of Lords.

We're all in this together, after all.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Not Belize then?

Oh yeah, Belize of the Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Baron Ashcroft, deputy chairman of the Tory party and serial tax avoider fame. He who it was said would declare his tax status as permanent UK resident but then didn't, while still retaining his place in the House of Lords.

We're all in this together, after all.

Yes, Belize:
http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/taxinformationexchangeagreementstieasbelize.htm
Any other nit picking exceptions you want to try for without researching?

rick_chasey

Stevo. I sense you wouldn't be in favour of closing tax havens. If so, why not?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo. I sense you wouldn't be in favour of closing tax havens. If so, why not?

Not the case Rick, they benefit me neither personally nor in terms of my job as we don't use structures like that, although indirectly, tax competition between countries to attract investment can work in my favour on the corporate front. So overall not too bothered.

However I recognise the right of sovereign and independently governed territories to set tax rates that they feel are appropriate for their circumstances. There are some fairly mainstream countries which have tax rates that now are at levels that many might consider tax haven territory. Where do you draw the line?
https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

Also, how do you propose to 'close' a sovereign territory?

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Not Belize then?

Oh yeah, Belize of the Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Baron Ashcroft, deputy chairman of the Tory party and serial tax avoider fame. He who it was said would declare his tax status as permanent UK resident but then didn't, while still retaining his place in the House of Lords.

We're all in this together, after all.

Yes, Belize:
http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/taxinformationexchangeagreementstieasbelize.htm
Any other nit picking exceptions you want to try for without researching?

As I said elsewhere, where else can one poke gently a Tory?

Imagine the fun you'd be having if say Ellie Reeves (no me neither, had to look it up) as Labour NEC deputy chair was a tax dodging wee nyaff like Ashcroft?

Anyways, if you're so busy saving tax for people, how come you're on here so much?

Stevo_666

I put it down ro a mixture of efficient time management and enjoying taunting lefties. So thanks for joining in and better luck with your next try

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I put it down ro a mixture of efficient time management and enjoying taunting lefties. So thanks for joining in and better luck with your next try

year end you should be flat out.......

taunt? i dont think so, not answering the salient points/ questions would be a more accurate des.

anyhow, what inward investment does a tax haven get? does it benefit the indigenous population?
does all this so called transparency actually make a difference to limiting evasion? or is it lip service?
seems there is no shortage of the worlds wealthy lining up to put cash into them and leaks aside, do we know anymore about this than we did in decades past.

pblakeney

mamba80

When the PM is at (and a liar) , you have to wonder why anyone should give a shit about the UK but i do, disgusting really and a complete let down for the once great one nation Tory party.

Leaders should be respected, the sort of people who you d follow into no mans land and he falls far short, he has led us all along with a series of half truths and out right lies, i suspect a resignation and a small windfall for my fav charity eh steve0 !!!!