Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[I1L2T3]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ian-camerons-part-in-blairmore-holdings-2016-4

 

This article has copies of the relevant documents.

 

Looks dodgy as hell to me.

 

Wow, so today we learned that DC was invested in the fund from 1997 to 2000. Your link contains extracts from the Blair more prospectus that make it clear that the fund aimed to appear as if it was non-UK resident to avoid paying UK tax. So during the time DC had investments in the fund it clearly was seeking to avoid UK taxes by lying about the address of a key director, and at that point DC can not have failed to know that was a lie.

 

DC was invested in that fund in the run-up to the 2010 election when he would have been helping form the Tory manifesto, and since gaining power he has been notoriously LAX about dealing with offshore tax issues.

 

This really doesn't look good at all.

 

From Paddy Power on Twitter:

#Cameron 11/2 from 20/1 to step down over #PanamaPapers after some large bets less than a mile from Downing Street..

Edited April 7, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Quik]

Wow, so today we learned that DC was invested in the fund from 1997 to 2000. Your link contains extracts from the Blair more prospectus that make it clear that the fund aimed to appear as if it was non-UK resident to avoid paying UK tax. So during the time DC had investments in the fund it clearly was seeking to avoid UK taxes by lying about the address of a key director, and at that point DC can not have failed to know that was a lie.

 

DC was invested in that fund in the run-up to the 2010 election when he would have been helping form the Tory manifesto, and since gaining power he has been notoriously LAX about dealing with offshore tax issues.

 

This really doesn't look good at all.

 

From Paddy Power on Twitter:

#Cameron 11/2 from 20/1 to step down over #PanamaPapers after some large bets less than a mile from Downing Street..

 

Indeed. As I said I'm no expert and i'm aware companies can be registered at any address they rent but my understanding is directors have to give their real address. I assume panama has no such rule but the UK does so by using a fake address in the panama registration it must surely break UK tax law that would require the real address (and domicile of the company in the UK) to be revealed.

[nightrider]

Wow, so today we learned that DC was invested in the fund from 1997 to 2000. Your link contains extracts from the Blair more prospectus that make it clear that the fund aimed to appear as if it was non-UK resident to avoid paying UK tax. So during the time DC had investments in the fund it clearly was seeking to avoid UK taxes by lying about the address of a key director, and at that point DC can not have failed to know that was a lie.

 

DC was invested in that fund in the run-up to the 2010 election when he would have been helping form the Tory manifesto, and since gaining power he has been notoriously LAX about dealing with offshore tax issues.

 

This really doesn't look good at all.

 

From Paddy Power on Twitter:

#Cameron 11/2 from 20/1 to step down over #PanamaPapers after some large bets less than a mile from Downing Street..

 

Not only that but already several days ago newspapers were alleging

the fund had "directors" who for example ran a local post office in Panama, and actually had nothing to do with the fund. Supposedly this was because if some kind of majority of people in charge were not based in the UK then the fund was exempt from tax. Allegedly the real decisions were in fact taken in London by UK based people.

[Obelix]

It was in the UK selling its services in the UK. Those services seem to include tax dodging as an aside. It was registered in a tax haven to dodge tax. That is rather against everything CMD has said on the matter as PM.

 

So it's overseas and doesnt pay much tax. So it pays out more in dividends as a result. So Cameron gets more more - and pays more tax as a result.

 

You realise this means that the UK took more tax rather than less if the fund was say based in the USA and paid federal companies tax yes?

[Quik]

So it's overseas and doesnt pay much tax. So it pays out more in dividends as a result. So Cameron gets more more - and pays more tax as a result.

 

You realise this means that the UK took more tax rather than less if the fund was say based in the USA and paid federal companies tax yes?

 

The problem is it wasn't overseas at all. Unless we believe our PM was fathered by an A5 envelope that actually lived in a Bermudan post box which seems a tad unlikely.

[Obelix]

You are making no sense at all now.

[Quik]

You are making no sense at all now.

 

Read the documents in the link in post #410

[Obelix]

Read the documents in the link in post #410

 

The ones that say

 

"There is no evidence that Ian Cameron used Blairmore Holdings Inc. to evade income tax."

 

Which kind of shoots you down in a ball of spite and bile doesnt it.

[Quik]

The ones that say

 

"There is no evidence that Ian Cameron used Blairmore Holdings Inc. to evade income tax."

 

Which kind of shoots you down in a ball of spite and bile doesnt it.

 

Do i have to draw a picture?

 

C starts a UK based company.

He registers a false address in a tax haven.

He then registers a company in a country that accepts false addresses - panama.

 

He then trades in the UK using the false company which pays no uk tax.

 

Which bit of this is fraudulent is confusing?

[RonJeremy]

Do i have to draw a picture?

 

C starts a UK based company.

He registers a false address in a tax haven.

He then registers a company in a country that accepts false addresses - panama.

 

He then trades in the UK using the false company which pays no uk tax.

 

Which bit of this is fraudulent is confusing?

 

Bit lost here... are you saying David Cameron set up a company fraudulently?