Cheers yer majesty !

In not sure if we’re on scandal overload at the moment.

No wonder people are angry enough to vote for trump, Brexit, lepenn etc
Ironically That lying Tory shit Ashcroft was a keen brexiter.

Will anything change though? I seriously doubt it.

Why wouldn’t you use a Cayman etc vehicle to run investments, its perfectly legitmate as the BBC quite rightiy say. Tax is paid when money is repatriated to the UK or elsewhere.

Anyone here read the Guardian or support Everton … tax efficient ownership structures

Blame the idiot politicians that allow loopholes like this to exist. It’s not illegal, can’t fault someone for trying to legally minimise their tax bill.

So why would you use a company based in the Caymans, over one on the UK?

@kimbers I think so the same capital gain doesn’t get taxed twice. For e.g. the fund holds the investments, you hold units/shares in the fund. If the fund itself (a corporate entity) was in the UK then the gains would be taxed. You as the investor would also be taxed when you sold your units/shares (assuming there was a gain).

I may be wrong. It doesn’t feel like even a moral issue – the person owning the units still gets taxed on the capital gains? It’s a bit like the furore over David Cameron’s dad – total non-issue.

That’s not to say there aren’t nefarious things going on with offshore funds, just that I’m not sure the Queen’s arrangement is one of them.

So your argument is they do it and they dont actually save any tax doing it 😯 that is the only point to them to reduce your tax burden. I would have thought we would all agree on that and only debate whether it was good or bad or whether we would all do it or some such

because you are incredibly wealthy , perhaps a millionaire or a billionaire and you want to make sure you pay less tax as a percentage of your massive income than a cleaner.

Its perfectly legal but its immoral and done by selfish **** and defended by the same

Ashcroft looked incredibly silly being followed to the toilets by the reporter. It’s not the use of the vehicles to avoid tax that’s being exposed it’s the failure to abide but the legal requirements when doing so, but I suspect yon knew that Jamby

@kimbers I think so the same capital gain doesn’t get taxed twice.For e.g. the fund holds the investments, you hold units/shares in the fund. If the fund itself (a corporate entity) was in the UK then the gains would be taxed. You as the investor would also be taxed when you sold your units/shares (assuming there was a gain).

But surely loads of things are taxed twice eg business rates, corp tax, salaries.

Why do people object to money going to the Exchequer, particularly when they already have so much?

Didn’t Ashcroft say he’d dropped his non-dom status,
Hague told us he’d be paying millions when he became a lord…. It was a lie

But surely loads of things are taxed twice eg business rates, corp tax, salaries.

good point!

because you are incredibly wealthy , perhaps a millionaire or a billionaire and you want to make sure you pay less tax as a percentage of your massive income than a cleaner.

We pay our cleaner in cash :-/

are all her customers this dishonest 😉

Why do people object to money going to the Exchequer, particularly when they already have so much?

They have so much partly because…..

Oh never mind.

Blame the idiot politicians that allow loopholes like this to exist.

Two problems with this.
Firstly just because something is legal doesnt mean it should be done.
Secondly there is the minor detail that the politicians arent making the decisions in a vacuum but instead get lobbied by the various companies. Or, in some cases, the politicians are the ones benefiting.

So why would you use a company based in the Caymans, over one on the UK?

Lots of reasons though with a fund, you would be looking at a unit trust setup in the UK rather than a company. The rules applying to onshore funds often take a bit of time to catch up with what is happening in the world of finance so perfectly sensible investment strategies using derivatives used to fall foul of the rules so instead you use a tax haven. A classic example, albeit in the corporate rather fund arena, of this was companies who borrowed in a foreign currency but swapped the proceeds in sterling so net net they had borrowed in sterling. However if they did this onshore they were made a taxable gain or loss on the swap, but the equal and opposite loss or gain on the loan was untaxed so on a post tax basis you weren’t hedged. Companies set up offshore borrowing vehicles who did both transactions and then lent the funds in Sterling to the UK company, problem solved. The rules were changed eventually but it took years to happen.

I have no idea what that means!

I have no idea what that means!

But neither would a lot of journalists but that doesn’t stop them creating a fuss, my experience is that offshore centres whilst used for tax avoidance, and the bad ones tax evasion, they are just as often used for cost saving, flexibility, speed, providing a neutral environment etc etc.

[video]https://youtu.be/mmR5aun7WqY[/video]

What he said.

my experience is that offshore centres whilst used for tax avoidance, and the bad ones tax evasion, they are just as often used for cost saving, flexibility, speed, providing a neutral environment etc etc.

So you reckon half the estimated >$10tn held offshore is because of tax evasion/avoidance.

Sounds worthy of making a fuss to me

DM on top form there cubist!

So you reckon half the estimated >$10tn held offshore is because of tax evasion/avoidance.

No, I think the vast majority will be in funds looking for tax neutrality because they have tax exempt investors, what is the source for that number?

DM on top form there cubist!

What he fails to mention is that Gary Barlow’s scheme didn’t work, which is the reason it became known about, so he may have tried to avoid tax but he failed like the vast majority of recent schemes.

$10tn from the Boston consulting group via BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

“I’m so honest that I funnel all my money through 18 shell companies in the Caymans, then distribute that between 17 trusts that are bonded to offshore investments that payout in tax neutral dividends to my office in Luxembourg, where I’ve never been.”

Thank you, here is a link to a BCG article on the subject and you will see that this covers alot of financial centres rather than just the classic tax havens – it is very much about the fund management industry hence the UK appears as a destination for offshore funds.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/22/amber-rudd-facing-calls-to-clarify-involvement-in-tax-havens

are all her customers this dishonest

Guilty as charged m’lud. I assume you have never asked “how much for cash mate?”.

Bottom line is that most people will try and get away with paying tax if they can.

From the Amber Rudd thread over >>>>>

Her involvement in business through her father’s dodgy dealings have been extensively covered by Private Eye and she has declined to answer all questions.
The attached article summarises but doesn’t carry the details uncovered by the Eye.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/revealed-amber-rudds-father-was-involved-in-business-she-ran-despite-being-declared-unfit

I have also commented in other posts.
Claims about her questionable financial dealings are nothing new.

Looks like a Money Tree to me. Shake it and build some council houses.

funds looking for tax neutrality because they have tax exempt investors,

How does one become a tax exempt Investor?

Coz I get taxed on the measly interest in get from my piss poor savings account !

How does one become a tax exempt Investor?

Turn yourself into a Pension fund or charity

Queen has money invested in a country where she is head of state shocker. I don’t get it, what am I supposed to be offended about?

Nice to see Margaret Hodge on the telly pontificating about how awful it is for the Queen to have these offshore investments. Of course, this won’t be the same Margaret Hodge whose family trust was, for years, held offshore.*

See also: The Guardian and the undoubted commercial advantages the Scott Trust’s offshore activities offer.

*Says she never personally benefited while it was offshore blah blah, although it could be argued that the years her family trust sat offshore it was accruing value which will no doubt benefit her and her children at some point.

Queen has money invested in a country where she is head of state shocker. I don’t get it, what am I supposed to be offended about?

You haven’t read the details then. She didn’t invest in a shopping centre in the Cayman Islands. The money was funnelled via there to buy various UK businesses.

Nothing illegal but one hoped for a ‘higher standard’ to be applied (and for it to be illegal).

Love this;

[video]https://youtu.be/SMBXARpIqME[/video]

Leku – Member
Nothing illegal but one hoped for a ‘higher standard’ to be applied (and for it to be illegal).

For it to be illegal is down to “her government”, which she has no say in.

quote, Lord Clyde, blah blah, paraphrase, don’t let the revenue nick your money that is rightfully yours where legally possible.

If you won big on the lottery, almost all of us would be straight down to a financial adviser and getting it invested offshore, else the interest from it would be massively hit, plus there are huge tax hits on inheritance and gifting. Inheritance tax in particular being an issue for syndicates if any of them die.

I didn’t see the programme yet. Any idea roughly how much the Queen has robbed the state of by hiding some of her affairs abroad? it is so much money to get upset about or is it just a little bit?

I’m more enjoying the fact that the Queen’s dosh was reinvested in businesses selling booze and rip-off tellies on HP to the little people. I wonder how many other investments in the rather lucrative sub-prime marketplace the Duchy of Lancaster has?

You haven’t read the details then. She didn’t invest in a shopping centre in the Cayman Islands. The money was funnelled via there to buy various UK businesses.

Nothing illegal but one hoped for a ‘higher standard’ to be applied (and for it to be illegal).

I still don’t get it. Put it in layman’s terms for me since I’m not a financier or tax dodger… let’s say I, at some point in the past, bought a house and a car and a fancy ride-on lawnmower on an island, and opened a bank account, coz, well, you know, I own the island and I like to go there a few weeks a year. Then I found out the lawnmower I bought was a rare example of an old John Deere that was now worth 50 times what I paid for it, so I decided to sell it and then put the money I made into a business on another island that I also own but is where I live most of the time. And the people of the island where I live most of the time want me to give them some money for selling my lawnmower and putting the proceeds into a business? Is that like what she’s done?

Interesting to look back on the Panama Papers thread:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jivehoney-and-tales-of-the-unexpected/page/26?replies=904#post-7691500

the wealthy minority running the country world to the benefit of themselves.

Let’s imagine for a moment that all of the following problems can be linked to offshore tax havens, most of which come under the jurisdiction of the British Crown

Illicit Arms Trafficking
ISIS/Daesh
The Refugee Crisis
Human Trafficking and organized Child Abuse
Environmental Catastrophe
Climate Change and the melting of the Polar Ice Caps

Worth having a go at making a positive change?

There’s even mention of BAE Systems and HSBC in there…

Further sources have revealed that Gerald Carroll’s Farnborough Aerospace Aerospace Centre in Hampshire England was “targeted” by BAE Systems and HSBC International within the framework of a systematic break-up embezzlement operation

Now surely this can’t have anything to do with the Queen?

It may be a while off but a social uprising is coming. Wealth disparity has hit breaking point and when its a (supposed) beacon of hope and trust that is found to take the piss (The Monarchy) it will only accelerate the process

All imo of course but the whole things unsustainable

Edit i’ll try to dig it out but John Paul Tudor Jones gave a talk on how it will happen