Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

What do you make of this:

"The case against subsidising the Isle of Man to be a tax haven goes to the House of Commons". Nov 8th, 2017.

We shall see what becomes of it. Maybe some hard truths but no one has yet proved to me that 'it benefits them more than it benefits us'.
It all points to the contrary.

So it points to the arrangement benefitting us more than it benefits them?

Good, we can move on now

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyhow, I was talking him not you. MYOFB.

Aaaaahahahahahahaha.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do your own research and tell us.

:roll:

F*cking convincing that.

Not my problem if doesn't know the answers to question he wants answering.

Anyhow, I was talking him not you. MYOFB.

your bog standard ans, come out with with a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, then get called out and the retort is "do your own research" or "your point is" lol.....

like VAT avoidance (whilst expect the the NHS to medivac you to an nhs trauma unit if you smash up your self at Silverstone) or billionaires wanting the UK tax payer to fix their island retreat, all indefensible... yet you still try.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyhow, I was talking him not you. MYOFB.

Aaaaahahahahahahaha.

Not my problem if you don't know what you're talking about on this thread

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do your own research and tell us.

:roll:

F*cking convincing that.

Not my problem if doesn't know the answers to question he wants answering.

Anyhow, I was talking him not you. MYOFB.

your bog standard ans, come out with with a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, then get called out and the retort is "do your own research" or "your point is" lol.....

like VAT avoidance (whilst expect the the NHS to medivac you to an nhs trauma unit if you smash up your self at Silverstone) or billionaires wanting the UK tax payer to fix their island retreat, all indefensible... yet you still try.

I refer you to my first post on this thread - again - as it appears you still haven't read it.

Your moral view on this matter doesn't trump the law.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What do you make of this:

"The case against subsidising the Isle of Man to be a tax haven goes to the House of Commons". Nov 8th, 2017.

We shall see what becomes of it. Maybe some hard truths but no one has yet proved to me that 'it benefits us more than it benefits them'.
It all points to the contrary.

So it points to the arrangement benefitting us more than it benefits them?

Good, we can move on now

I have corrected the grammatical error* so please tell me why the UK benefits financially from the IOM.

*Despite your attempt of distraction and the fact you knew exactly what I was trying to say.

pinno

I'm still waiting. I mean you are the tax expert and you have all the figures at your fingertips.

'But it's legal issue and this and that is legal...and it is not a moral issue...' Are you sure?

Some quick research of my own (thank you for the advice). I subscribed to the Financial Times (for £1 for one month). If I quoted the Guardian, the Tory tax boys would dismiss any links or quotes as leftie bollox.
The ramifications of the Panama Papers is huge.
The evidence so far completely contradicts the arguments about apparent legality.

This is all to do with Tax havens and all from the Financial Times:

UK shell companies linked to £80bn money laundering:

https://www.ft.com/content/11d83f24-c49 ... 86f39ef675

Paradise papers shake Britains off shore tax havens:

https://www.ft.com/content/38e99534-c48 ... 86f39ef675

Netherlands to investigate 4,000 corporate tax deals:

https://www.ft.com/content/df1156dc-c49 ... 86f39ef675

Apple:

"The leak of financial documents nicknamed the “Paradise Papers” has for the first time thrust the small British island of Jersey into the spotlight over its role in allegedly helping US technology giant Apple shape its overseas tax strategy.":

https://www.ft.com/content/3327c766-c32 ... 2b2cb39656

If the latter is true, Jersey is a great place innit? A vessel for reducing Apple's tax bill (and obviously reducing the potential revenue for HMRC). Thank 'mates'. Thumbs up Jersey, well done. Again, if it is true, why does Jersey benefit us more than it benefits them?
From Murphy's Tax Research blog, you're going to have to swing his figures in excess of £1.5bn to qualify your statement, (at least regarding the IOM).
Now I know your good at your job but your not that good.

From the FT:

"Another problem is that very few countries tax wealth directly (most taxes are on income or transactions). That means individuals are typically under no requirement to report their wealth to tax authorities. Putting that wealth offshore then makes it much easier to hide the income from the wealth, and much harder for tax authorities to track it down to demand the tax that is legally due. Between $8tn and $10tn of the world’s wealth, about one-tenth of the total, is estimated to be kept in offshore jurisdictions. Gabriel Zucman and his colleagues show that this is largely the wealth of the very rich."

What percentage of that $10trn should be in the British public purse?
Tax havens wouldn't be called 'tax havens' if they didn't provide some sort of benefit to people. They also would not be so popular if they didn't either.
Seems like the "leniency of the British government"

is allowing people to legally participate in tax evasion - Now there's a thing.
Is it beyond your comprehension that these tax havens are anything but totally transparent or totally legal?
Or does your professional duty of confidence expressly forbid you from presenting the facts and reality?

FishFish

We do have the safeguard of tax on a remittance basis meaning when it comes back to the UK. This is one of the issues that the USA are addressing in their tax reforms to get off shore money (e.g from the likes of Apple) back to the States where it will be useful but without the disincentive of taxing it when it returns.

Hiding money overseas is largely not a tax issue these days. The Lichenstein disclosure was dramatic but did not really get all that much more tax revenue - maybe a timing difference. Inheritance, divorce and the fact you live abroad are reasons for individuals to have offshore funds.

An interesting but only slightly related tax case is Gains-Cooper.

Matthewfalle

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The crown is merely a figurehead.

They do not want to be part of the uk

Struggling now to spell it out more clearly.....

kingstongraham

https://www.gov.im/categories/tax-vat-a ... standards/

"The Isle of Man, by virtue of its unique Customs and Excise Agreement with the United Kingdom and European law, is treated as part of the UK and European Union (EU) for Customs, Excise and Value Added Tax (VAT) purposes."

Clear as day?

"Being located in the Isle of Man also allows businesses to potentially minimise their taxation footprint and provides full access to EU markets, whilst remaining outside the EU for most non Customs and Excise regimes."

We'll merge this one with the Brexit thread too before long.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyhow, I was talking him not you. MYOFB.

Aaaaahahahahahahaha.

Not my problem if you don't know what you're talking about on this thread

I must admit that I cannot say this more clearly.

kingstongraham

If the UK leaves the customs union, will the IOM?

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The crown is merely a figurehead.

They do not want to be part of the uk

Struggling now to spell it out more clearly.....

I'll refer my answer to Kingstongraham's response.

Why are you so vehemently defending the 'honour' of these tax havens? If they are architects to reducing the Apple corporation's tax bill by whatever means fair or foul, Jersey is hardly doing us any favours. Unless of course you are a shareholder.

pinno

Still waiting Stevo's reply to my questions. I would like a categorical response without playing the man rather than the ball, without deflection or throwing the question back.

Until then, I can only presume he's spouting:

Wheelspinner

Pinno wrote:

Unless of course you are a shareholder.

GRRRRRR, don't remind me. I did some advisory work for Apple back in 2000, and at the time was not permitted to buy stock because of my position at the consultancy. The shares at the time were $3 USD. They've since peaked over $700. It was also one of the few times in my life when I actually had spare cash to invest.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The crown is merely a figurehead.

They do not want to be part of the uk

Struggling now to spell it out more clearly.....

I'll refer my answer to Kingstongraham's response.

Why are you so vehemently defending the 'honour' of these tax havens? If they are architects to reducing the Apple corporation's tax bill by whatever means fair or foul, Jersey is hardly doing us any favours. Unless of course you are a shareholder.

Apple isn't a drop in the ocean (or should we say Channel) - if the didn't use J or G they would just use somewhere else, like Ireland........

J and G have always historically had a strong finance industry - this has developed because they are independent islands free of all the shenanigans that affect the uk and other countries: they are politically independent, strong independent legislature, culturally aware, legally progressive, a population that wants the finance and legal industries to work.

The Finanace industry there is o elf the most regulated in the world - transparency is all in law, all the high street banks are there and have full disclosure legislation with every entity it needs to have - there is no such thing as a secret offshore account there. All they are doing is providing a banking service the same as yours in Stranraer or whatever but for local people - your bank will talk to them and they will talk to your bank.

Every single structure the law firms do is open to everyone - it's not some secret shop where you knock twice and enter through a trap door. Just google "trust companies Jersey" and you'll see what I mean. A the people you see on the sites actually aren't very intelligent so don't get blinded by science.

Everyone I. The islands pay so Ta to the islands - why should they pay tax to the uk when they don't use anything the uk has? That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Defence budget is the islands - the MODfinances nothing at all. Nada. Health budget, education, overseas aid, etc etc -everything we have in the uk is the same there but financed themselves.

They are just islands with a finance industry that has chosen to make themselves more amenable to providing legal tax services - everything they do is examined by the Privy Council beforehand laws are enacted to make sure it's kosher. The EU regulates them, the US regulates them, the Treasury regulates them.

I really can't see why you are sitting there expecting them to support the uk when the uk doesn't support them in any way at all.

It smacks of jealousy and Rickgooism.....

Moonbiker

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The UK should just invade them bring them under proper control & standard UK laws

Or could the RAF use them as practice bombing targets.


Lvl all the building & fuck up the airport runways then private jets couldn't land so then they won't be much use to the criminals to hide there loot there.

Matthewfalle

Moonbiker wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The UK should just invade them bring them under proper control & standard UK laws

Or could the RAF use them as practice bombing targets.


Lvl all the building & fark up the airport runways then private jets couldn't land so then they won't be much use to the criminals to hide there loot there.

Errrr - yeah. Great idea. Brilliant. Biggly conference brilliant. Some of the best ideas I've heard for a long time.

MOonbiker? More like Moonchicken.....

Matthewfalle

I'm not sure if this has too many big words in it for Rick and Moonchicken but it's worth a go.

https://iea.org.uk/everybody-is-outrage ... t-they-do/

Matthewfalle

Moonbiker wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The UK should just invade them bring them under proper control & standard UK laws

e.

Actually, re-reading that it makes the, sound like some sort of anarchist enclave, with everyone just getting mashed and partying all the time. Bit like Edwyn's enclave but with nicer views and more sun.

Sounds quite good that though - do you reckon they tired of all the hedonistic partying and occasionally just yearn for a bacon roll and a cup of coffee instead of getting blasted off their tits on Columbian dancing powder every day?

haydenm

Matthewfalle wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The UK should just invade them bring them under proper control & standard UK laws

Or could the RAF use them as practice bombing targets.


Lvl all the building & fark up the airport runways then private jets couldn't land so then they won't be much use to the criminals to hide there loot there.

Errrr - yeah. Great idea. Brilliant. Biggly conference brilliant. Some of the best ideas I've heard for a long time.

MOonbiker? More like Moonchicken.....

Out of interest, is this a typo of the internationally mocked typo 'covfefe'?

Matthewfalle

HaydenM wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Because jersey and guernsey are not the i of m.

They are not part of the uk

The UK should just invade them bring them under proper control & standard UK laws

Or could the RAF use them as practice bombing targets.


Lvl all the building & fark up the airport runways then private jets couldn't land so then they won't be much use to the criminals to hide there loot there.

Errrr - yeah. Great idea. Brilliant. Biggly conference brilliant. Some of the best ideas I've heard for a long time.

MOonbiker? More like Moonchicken.....

Out of interest, is this a typo of the internationally mocked typo 'covfefe'?

No - it's so Moonchicken's fantastic idea (not to be confused with Garry's brilliant posts/ideas) can be discussed at a specially convened conference of CRIMINAL tax lawyers to ascertain its merit and worth.

haydenm

Fair enough, as you were

Moonbiker

Would cost alot less than the iraq invasion did & have more benefits.

kingstongraham

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government ... le-of-man/

haydenm

Moonbiker wrote:

Would cost alot less than the iraq invasion did & have more benefits.

From a cost benefit analysis I'm not so sure. Everything we do is linked to the price of oil somewhere along the line...

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

I'm still waiting. I mean you are the tax expert and you have all the figures at your fingertips.

'But it's legal issue and this and that is legal...and it is not a moral issue...' Are you sure?

Some quick research of my own (thank you for the advice). I subscribed to the Financial Times (for £1 for one month). If I quoted the Guardian, the Tory tax boys would dismiss any links or quotes as leftie bollox.
The ramifications of the Panama Papers is huge.
The evidence so far completely contradicts the arguments about apparent legality.

This is all to do with Tax havens and all from the Financial Times:

UK shell companies linked to £80bn money laundering:

https://www.ft.com/content/11d83f24-c49 ... 86f39ef675

Paradise papers shake Britains off shore tax havens:

https://www.ft.com/content/38e99534-c48 ... 86f39ef675

Netherlands to investigate 4,000 corporate tax deals:

https://www.ft.com/content/df1156dc-c49 ... 86f39ef675

Apple:

"The leak of financial documents nicknamed the “Paradise Papers” has for the first time thrust the small British island of Jersey into the spotlight over its role in allegedly helping US technology giant Apple shape its overseas tax strategy.":

https://www.ft.com/content/3327c766-c32 ... 2b2cb39656

If the latter is true, Jersey is a great place innit? A vessel for reducing Apple's tax bill (and obviously reducing the potential revenue for HMRC). Thank 'mates'. Thumbs up Jersey, well done. Again, if it is true, why does Jersey benefit us more than it benefits them?
From Murphy's Tax Research blog, you're going to have to swing his figures in excess of £1.5bn to qualify your statement, (at least regarding the IOM).
Now I know your good at your job but your not that good.

From the FT:

"Another problem is that very few countries tax wealth directly (most taxes are on income or transactions). That means individuals are typically under no requirement to report their wealth to tax authorities. Putting that wealth offshore then makes it much easier to hide the income from the wealth, and much harder for tax authorities to track it down to demand the tax that is legally due. Between $8tn and $10tn of the world’s wealth, about one-tenth of the total, is estimated to be kept in offshore jurisdictions. Gabriel Zucman and his colleagues show that this is largely the wealth of the very rich."

What percentage of that $10trn should be in the British public purse?
Tax havens wouldn't be called 'tax havens' if they didn't provide some sort of benefit to people. They also would not be so popular if they didn't either.
Seems like the "leniency of the British government"

is allowing people to legally participate in tax evasion - Now there's a thing.
Is it beyond your comprehension that these tax havens are anything but totally transparent or totally legal?
Or does your professional duty of confidence expressly forbid you from presenting the facts and reality?

You're making the case for the prosecution against the IOM, as it were - you gather and present your evidence to support your case, not ask the defence to go and look it up for you

I'm afraid I don't have that info to hand, so off you trot to find it. Otherwise you haven't got much of a case, have you?

Stevo_666

Going back to your point about how much should be in the 'public purse', here again the the HMRC report on how much tax is lost to tax avoidance and tax evasion annually:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf
See page 5 for a decent summary.

For the whole of the UK, tax avoidance accounts for £1.7bn and tax evasion £5.2bn. It's probably reasonable to assume that high end offshore schemes are a small proportion of this given all the other known types of avoidance and evasion (two very different things in case it needs saying again).

So the answer to your question, while impossible to answer accurately, is probably 'not a lot' in the overall scheme of national finances. And probably less than plain old people being a bit careless

Stevo_666

And on your point about Apple, it is the Ireland and the US who are the big losers in that structure. They are both fully aware of what Apple are doing/have done, but then again Apple is not breaking any US rules otherwise the IRS would have had them pay up by now. And in the case of Ireland, the Irish government is actually defending Apple's position on this matter.

So your point about Apple is what, exactly?

Matthewfalle

Moonbiker wrote:

Would cost alot less than the iraq invasion did & have more benefits.

What benefits would those be then?

Didn't think you'd come up with any. Another great suggestion though - keep on bringing them to the party, you're making a great addition to the debate.