[Closed] The Panama Papers.

i agree the majority wont but there are a lot of businesses out there (legal and law, any form of LLP etc.) that run this way, IR35 etc. has cracked down on the one person LTDs i am just making the point that plenty of people do this sort of thing who are not multi millionaires - forgot to mention entrepreneurs allowance for the sale of a business - there's loads of legal ways around paying tax.

Personally if I was Cameroon, I'd walk and take the money (if he has as much as everyone accuses) with me. Wether he's a goody or a bady why put up with this s..t from people. It'll be the same for Corbean when he makes it in, like the leader of any party, crap will be published true or not because some people hate you for what you represent. Why would anyone be a politician these days.

I starting to feel sorry for some of these MP and that cannot be right!

The specifics of this case are rather more nuanced...

1. The UK is financially in a very very poor place: look at the national debt and the current account deficit, and then also look at the costs of looking after and ageing and unhealthy nation (obesity)
2. The UK government provides services for the electorate in return for taxes
3.These taxes are particularly needed right now as a) we're skint, b) we have more need of them than ever before (so it's a very bad time to be skint)
4. A large amount of this desperately needed tax is being deliberately avoided by people. They know what their legal obligations are, they know people worse off than them desperately need it, but they avoid it...
5. Our Prime Minister says he understands all this and he is going to do something about it. Sound like progress to me....
6.And then we find out his own father was playing these games. The liklihood of our PM not gaining from these games is highly unlikely
7. This looks like a major conflict of interest. The very very big problem looks unlikely to be resolved... NHS carries on struggling, pensions continue to get cut etc etc etc
8. The obvious way for this conflict of interest is for someone else to be in charge of solving this particular problem

There's more to this than attacking a politician because we don't like him....

It is tax avoidance, why do you think people do it ?

Sometimes going Ltd is the only way to get the work. I don't know to be fair what extent of contractors are doing it for this reason but going PAYE on a fixed term contract isn't always an option...

PAYE also means you're stuck with one client at a time, Ltd allows you to work for one client 4 days a week, say, and another client on the 5th (or 6th and 7th if you want)

There's more to this than attacking a politician because we don't like him....

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-phillips/david-cameron-taxes_b_9622288.html ]Sums it up for me[/url]

Broess is right we have a tax avoidance culture

Can someone explain where the illegality/immorality lies with Blairmore? Which tax has been avoided?

Do yu really think they were unsuccessful in the aim?

assuming everything is done legally (I.e avoidance not evasion) where is the lost tax to the UK exchequer?

INheritance tax seems to be one area as the "assets" are held by opaque companies - its independent on paper- but in reality you gave it to your kids

.And then we find out his own father was playing these games

Expecting Dave to sort this out is like thinking Mike ashley is the man to sort out zero hours contracts ad workers conditions at the hands of exploitative owners

Grnated Dave will do a much better PR job of his task.

The obvious way for this conflict of interest is for someone else to be in charge of solving this particular problem

But everyone has a conflict of interest as we all either benefit from receiving or minimizing taxes. Even lefties like Tony Benn set out to minimise their tax. The state needs to do a better carrot and stick job.

The UK is financially in a very very poor place: look at the national debt

Who is the national debt owed to?

What are the bets a significant percentage of the national debt is owed to offshore interests, or at least those involved in offshore finance?

4. A large amount of this desperately needed tax is being deliberately avoided by people. They know what their legal obligations are, they know people worse off than them desperately need it, but they avoid it...

Unless you mean evasion, which is entirely different.

I'm sure they do know their legal obligations, and avoiding tax is legal by definition.

Unless you mean evasion, which is entirely different.

No, it's not entirely different: avoidance and evasion can both land you with a tax bill and a fine.

Imagine how fast the laws would change if all the disgusting plebs starting doing it, your wages payed to an off-shore holding company.

Except PAYE is designed to prevent it and is not optional for most. Effectively your employer is a government tax collection agent, they even get to pay for the accounting process, hence why they (large employers/gang masters) for the most part are in the inner circle and get treated with kid gloves.

I predict, in typical British being seen to be doing something style, small time tax evaders will be publically hammered, while it will be business as usual for the old boys.

I reckon you're bang on there. They hope.

This mob have made a lot of noise about combatting tax avoidance, but have actually DONE pretty much **** all! Apart from some headline grabbing token gestures.

But this is the least of Dave's worries. What's also going to come out here, as all this info is digested, is the enormous sums of dirty money making its way, via Panama, into The City and the ridiculous London property market.all that money that those Tory Party diners haven't been asking any questions about. Would anyone seriously believe that The City is any more ethical than Panama? Or that they just wear better suits?

A British Virgin Island Registered Business is £1000, you probably don't need much property or money to make a saving.

The only reason average Jo doesn't take advantage is because the advisors wont get out of bed for less than 5% of 100k.

But everyone has a conflict of interest

Secondly it is pretty hard to think of anyone more tarnished than Dave hence your "we all do it appeal".
We dont and even if we do his family are the Olympians of tax avoidance

Your "defence" is a weak attack on everyone else rather a defence of his probity

Not everyone has engaged in tax avoidance. I have never done anything

No. No and No

Arms for terror? Afghan Opium? Romanian kids?

Yes, Yes and Yes
But only because the Queen ordered me to and she controls everything, everyone knows that 😉

Excellent, can probably get you a tidy job in government... can you wear a suit and talk guff?

Play down the Queen thing though, it's probably best not too many folk get wise to that 😉

I am disappointed that,after all these years, you need to ask about my ability to talk guff
I can wear a suit but I look like I have a court appearance to go to.

@mefty no reply as surprise surprise I have had better things to do. The fact is Apple dodges taxes everywhere, if it paid corporate tax in the US (40% I believe vs our 25%) that would be one thing but it doesn't. It pays pretty much zero everywhere. I would change the law to make them pay tax in the UK on UK sales and the associated very large profits, that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules. If faced with a choice of paying UK tax at 25% or US taxes at 40% I think you'd find them willing and able to pay UK tax on UK sales and profits.

Imagine how fast the laws would change if all the disgusting plebs starting doing it, your wages payed to an off-shore holding company.

"What price for cash ?" Cash in hand plumbers, electricians, odd jobs, builders, car repairs etc

Anyone who has setup and runs a business enjoys substantial tax benefits vs those who work PAYE, so are the business people tax evaders ?

In my view people here are really missing the point. We have in full view billions and billions of tax being evaded by companies in full view year in year out and its getting worse and we are doing nothing about it allowing companies to play off one government (be that Ireland, Luxembourg etc) against others to deprive everyone of the taxesa that should be paid.

At least today Obama stood up and stopped the tax inversion Pfizer was doing with a much smaller Irish company. These are 100% tax avoidance deals where Pfizer moves its hq to Ireland in order to avoid US taxes.

I understand people are angry at what they believe is "rampant" tax evasion by "the rich" but imho its a drop in the very large ocean of coporate tax evasion.

Inheritance tax, "reprehensable" to avoid by setting up an offshore trust but "salt of the earth" if the money or assets are gifted 7 years or more before death ?

This debate is completely along political lines, people are ignorin the scale of evasion right in front of their eyes with their vision clouded by what they suspect is going on behind closed doors.
.

that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules

Anyone who has setup and runs a business enjoys substantial tax benefits vs those who work PAYE, so are the business people tax evaders ?

No.

I understand people are angry at what they believe is "rampant" tax evasion by "the rich" but imho its a drop in the very large ocean of coporate tax evasion

Shirley corporate tax avoidance and tax havens are all part of the same issue

I can see no one saying that they are happy with that, there have been many threads about the subject on here

Just last month.....
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/googles-tax-bill

The concern is that a PM who has gained immeasurably from his father actively stashing cash off shore, whilst hammering the least well off in society is gonna do sweet fanny adams about it

Not everyone has engaged in tax avoidance. I have never done anything

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Pensions aren't tax avoidance, they are tax deffering, you get taxed when you take the income (although currently 25% can be taken tax free, although I don't expect that to last).

EDIT to my above post:

EDIT: This along with your Ireland/Luxembourg (which I assume you add in for some kind of perceived "balance") obsession, is another one you continuously drop into threads. You realise how much less of this goes on these days don't you? In fact, IIRC, the UK's "black" economy is the lowest in the OECD. Of course, the "black" economy is not solely down to the tradespeople who seem to be on your hate-radar.

Personally, I have not been paid in cash for...I dunno, I can't actually remember...I do get offered it sometimes though - in an attempt to get me to give a discount for evading tax - all at my risk of course. 🙂

To give an example, I'm currently working on a massive site - judging from the car park, there must be 100-ish various different guys and girls on site. All of them, not directly employed by their contractor will have a flat 20% deducted from their invoices under CIS and will have to ask the tax man for any overpaid tax back at the end of the year - because that is how a large section of the construction community works these days. That's how approx 90% of my invoices are paid every year.

Of course, there is always the argument that a mixed market economy such as we have, needs a bit of "black" cash flowing around - to grease the cogs, so to speak. I'm not sure of the rights and wrongs of that myself, but there you go. A guy down the pub told me while I was buying a round - paid for by card, as I hadn't taken any cash that week.

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

Next!

I dunno, I imagine he'll say the same thing again on the next page.

[quote=ransos ]
Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

Even if the bike isn't used to cycle to work ?

One bloke on here has bought 4 bikes on the C2W scheme. Piss take or prefectly legit ?

Even if the bike isn't used to cycle to work ?

Then the instrument is not being used for its intended purpose.

Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

So it's the EU to the rescue...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/britain-under-pressure-opposition-tax-haven-blacklist

Avoiding tax. Exactly.

Well, no. The HMRC has never required me to disclose details of my workplace pension.

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Are people who earn under the personal allowance Tax Avoiders too?

The concern is that a PM who has gained immeasurably from his father actively stashing cash off shore, whilst [b]ham[/b]mering the least well off in society is gonna do sweet fanny adams about it

I see what you did there, and approve

Well, no. The HMRC has never required me to disclose details of my workplace pension.

Probably because your work declare it all for you. As to how joined up it all is, no idea.

I would change the law to make them pay tax in the UK on UK sales and the associated very large profits, that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules.

Jolly good, what about all those tedious Double Tax Conventions that impose exactly the same obligations on us thus taking away your ability to do this? You probably want to rip those up and destroy one of the most internationalist economies in the world. That is the fundamental problem with many Brexiters, they don't understand our other international obligations.

On evasion vs avoidance, evasion requires there to be a lack of disclosure, i.e. if the taxing authority was aware then you would have been taxed.

Avoidance is very difficult to define. Whilst the term is defined for specific provisions of tax law, there is no overarching legal term of art. What I would say is that it is all very well saying it is what was intended, how do you judge that other than through the law itself. For every tax avoider, there is your innocent trader whose tax inspector gets the wrong end of the stick and who, if he/she is given too much power can bankrupt that trader even when no at fault. This happens - giving too many powers to tax inspectors has similar civil liberty issues to the ones that get all the media attention.

On Cameron, just a few points:

(i) It is not a trust it is a company;
(ii) It is not a private fund for the Camerons, his father was a money manager who looked after other people's money;
(iii) there is substanitial anti avoidance law for offshore funds of this type and whilst initially when set up it would have had significant advantages, many will have gone in the interim;
(iv) it was transferred to Dublin in 2012 when Smith and Williamson it under their wing and it became a UCITS for EU directive purposes.
(v) All this has been known and in the public domain for years.

mefty don't go coming on here with your so called facts - what is the rabbit pitch fork wielding mob supposed to do now? You'll be telling us that the multi-millionaire previous leader of the Labour party engaged in some interesting property tax planning next...

(i) It is not a trust it is a company;
(ii) It is not a private fund for the Camerons, his father was a money manager who looked after other people's money;
(iii) there is substanitial anti avoidance law for offshore funds of this type and whilst initially when set up it would have had significant advantages, many will have gone in the interim;
(iv) it was transferred to Dublin in 2012 when Smith and Williamson it under their wing and it became a UCITS for EU directive purposes.
(v) All this has been known and in the public domain for years.

i) no ones said its a trust (apart from jambs)
ii) so camerons inheritence was simply profit from a man who helped people avoid paying UK tax
iii) and how much tax was denied to HMRC?
iv) as the company's own internal doccuments show (see the telegraph) it was moved to Dublin because they knew it would be a problem for cameron jr, once he was PM
v) while its known that Ian cameron had >than 10k offshore in Jersey, some of which dave inherited, it wasnt known how much he had in Panama

rabbit pitch fork

For dubble da laydeeez

(i) Someone else alluded to it.
(ii) Perhaps, without knwing who the investors were we have no idea;
(iii) See ii
(iv) It says a source close to the company, no documentary evidence and it conflicts with the info [url= http://www.trustnetoffshore.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=NWBH&univ=DC ]here[/url]
(v) We know a will was registered in Jersey, no information on beneficiaries, and certainly no information on how much he has invested in his managed fund in Panama (actually the Bahamas for residence purposes) if anything.

I was thinking more

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]