its not me dragging this up again, its the bbc, honest

so is he just trying to keep his hard earned cash

is he happy to buy an election but not to contribute to the government he helped set up (sort of)
ashcroft avoids uk tax

his ‘scam’ is hardly omplicated im sure plenty of other brits with oversees investments did exactly the same thing as him and transfered it to their kids names

is it right, should the law be changed

and does he try to look like jeffery archer or is that just me

I don’t think rich people become/stay rich by doing what may seem to be “right”

scaredypants – Member

I don’t think rich people become/stay rich by doing what may seem to be “right”

They shouldn’t have the choice, all these tax loopholes really need to be closed.

So that’s 6 million in taxes nicely avoided, how many benefit cheats is that worth? Although of course what he has done is perfectly legal. It does sometimes seem that immorality is encouraged at the top of society while poverty has been effectively criminalised.

MSP – I’m not defending him

I definitely think that political parties should not be allowed to controlled or funded by people who are not UK residents or by companies that are not UK registered. If the bloke wants to be non-dom, he should **** off out of this.

(I also clearly don’t understand trust funds – why do they need to exist at all ?)

i think the entire purpose of a trust fund is to avoid tax, right?

i think the entire purpose of a trust fund is to avoid tax, right?

No, its like a savings account for your kids, which wont pay out unles
various conditions are met, like over 18, going to uni etc. As the article points out, in the UK they’re subject to inheritance tax if they’re substantial enough.

A friend at uni had one, paid him a gaurenteed wage between the ages of 18 and 25. After that it’s passed onto his kids untill it runs out.

Its 17mill, its not to pay for his kids education, its a vehicle for avoiding tax.

Ashcroft is a corrupt liar – why is this a surprise?

He stated he would pay UK tax if given a peerage and has not.

He lied to Hague and Cameron

Cameron is beholden to him

“You can judge a man by the company he keeps”

TinaS – As the article points out, in the UK they’re subject to inheritance tax if they’re substantial enough

the article implies that, until 6th april (this year?), the fund was very much a way of avoiding paying tax. Also, therefore, seems that this is no longer the case (but I suspect it’s more complex than just that)

Can we not just shhoot the poor and eat their babies and let fine upstanding memebers of society be?
Is anyone really surprised that theire is not lengths to what thi sindividuall will not go to avoid paying taxes in the country whose election he has just had a great effect – single biggest donor ever to a political party. No wonder thay are after benefits scroungers as what did they do for big Society

Shameful behaviour!

He should be stripped of his peerage and Cameron should have a word and suggest he pays the tax!

Spongebob – unfortunately this is both Camerons strength and weakness – he is very loyal to his cronies. He is also beholden to Ashcroft for the bankrolling of the party and his own election as leader.

So Ashcroft will get away with it and we won’t see a change to the law to prevent non doms being peers or members of the government as was previous Tory Policy

Spongebob – Member

Shameful behaviour!

He should be stripped of his peerage and Cameron should have a word and suggest he pays the tax!

couldnt agree more sadly i suspect that castiron dave is more in thrall to the money men than even blair/brown were

It does seem to be odd to make a big issue of this as if he made the gift after he was treated as domiciled in the UK, it would likely have qualified for 100% Business Property Relief so no tax charge would have arisen.

It does seem to be odd to make a big issue of this

Hilarious.

Still sticking up for tax dodgers mefty ?

What was it hague said when ashcroft promised to pay full UK tax best part of ten years ago – this will cost him 17 million a year or something?

He still hasn’t paid it has he and he still is looking for ways to avoid it.

A corrupt liar.

EL – In this instance I don’t think he has dodged any tax because no tax charge would have arisen if the transfer had taken place the following day because 100% Business Property Relief would have been available.

TJ – Hague never put a precise number on it – and on this

So Ashcroft will get away with it and we won’t see a change to the law to prevent non doms being peers or members of the government as was previous Tory Policy

The law already exists as mentioned in the referenced article (the link does not seem to work anymore, but the Guardian version mentions it) and the law is in line with Tory policy, but incorrect facts never get in your way do they?

so, mefty – genuinely, ‘cos I don’t know the rules – what’s stopping him from taking dom status ?

He is treated as if he is domiciled now as he continues to sit in the Lords by virtue of Section 41 of Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. 5 peers resigned rather than give up their non-dom status.

so he gains no benefit from not having taken full domiciliary status AND has foolishly failed to claim 100% thing wotsit relief

man’s clearly an idiot 😕

don’t suppose anyone was watching BBC1 at 8.30 – looks a bit like this was pulled

It would appear the BBC may have dropped a b?llock on this one – see here.

Ah……..the wonders of being able to afford the best lawyers.

unfortunately this is both Camerons strength and weakness – he is very loyal to his cronies. He is also beholden to Ashcroft for the bankrolling of the party and his own election as leader.

Hmmmm…

so, you didn’t notice the Labour Party leadership electoral college results from Saturday then TJ? 🙄

I missed the tax-dodging billionaires ratty ………where were they ?

Oh, sorry Ernie – did Lakshmi Mittal not bother coming this year?

Strange that, I thought he was one of the true enlightened Labour supporters… 😉

did Lord Sugar bother visiting this year?

You were talking about the ‘Labour Party leadership electoral college’ ratty………what’s Lord Sugar’s connection with it ?

Oh, But Ernie – I would have though SirAlan’s donation of 400k to the party prior to the election would have at least got him an invitation to dinner at the Labour party conference? I mean, Saturday night was the big event

Maybe Charlie objected? I mean, we all know, what Charlie Whelan wants, Charlie Whelan Gets… Now, where were we, ah, yes –

beholden to ______ for the bankrolling of the party and his own election as leader.

“Thanks comrade Charlie, now, what do you want me to do next” 😉

I would have though SirAlan’s donation of 400k to the party prior to the election would have at least got him an invitation to dinner at the Labour party conference?

Maybe it did ?

If you find out, let me know would you ?

“The peoples’ flag is deepest red, and that is why we went for Ed…

Ah, right, I see from your edited post that Alan Sugar chose the leader of the Labour Party.

That electoral college was a waste of time then eh ?

Sorry Ernie, see, I must be getting all confused in my old age…

You see for a minute there I though Sir Alan and Lakshmi Mittal were billionaires who funded the Labour party, receiving honours and policy concessions in the process,

however I made a mistake, they funded New Labour – ie the brown blair combo party, sorry, I’d forgotten that the electoral college on Saturday was to decide the leader of a different party, Old labour, where the donkey jacket is still king

I must be getting all confused in my old age…

You certainly are mate.

You started off rabbiting about “the Labour Party leadership electoral college results from Saturday”. And ended up saying that you were talking about Sir Alan and Lakshmi Mittal.

Still …… you zigzagging all over the place changing the subject is nothing new, so perhaps it’s not connected with getting old after all.

Ernie, special lover, You’re the one who raised the distinct lack of tax dodging billionaires at this years Labour party conference, amazing how times change isn’t it.

Personally I was more concerned about how someone who only won 9.978% of party members first preference votes managed to become leader, and whether brother Ed is beholden to the unions for the bankrolling of the party and his own election as leader.

which given TJ’s attack on Cameron for being beholden to someone else for the same thing, I found quite interesting…

Ernie, special lover,

I don’t much care for homoerotic speak ratty, so I’ll thank you for keeping your flirtatious comments to yourself.

What were you saying ?

So labrat, you are attacking the Labour party for doing the right wing tory thing of having wealthy backers and also attacking the Labour party for all of a sudden coming over left wing for electing Ed Milliband.

I find this whole union thing hilarious. Honestly what kind of threat are they to the UK? What could they possibly do that is worse than bringing the entire financial system of this country to it’s knee’s like the those in the city of London did?

Answer please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-11423777
anyone else reckon the beeb are about to get anally violated by an ashcroft-sized fist?

BBC news were so enjoying themselves yesterday trailing their panorama programme as a news item. IM rather enjoying the hubristic fall.

So this is actually tax avoidance rather than evasion then. Like* fat, middle class, IT managers avoiding tax on expensive mountain bikes to “ride to work” when they’ve already got 5 bikes in the garage.

* OK, magnified about 100000000 times 😉

BBC news were so enjoying themselves yesterday trailing their panorama programme as a news item. IM <tuts> rather enjoying the hubristic fall

Aye, but “Ashcroft in total vindication of transparent & above-board dealings SHOKKA”? I can’t see it myself.

Allthepies – yeah, same priniciple I think