Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[El Cid]

As much as people don't like it, it looks so far that Blairemore and Cameron's involvement was all 100% legal.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax

 

Dont we expect more than just legal, from the leader of our country? He has not followed the rules of the Houses of Parliament.

[ricgem2002]

At least he's admitted something, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of:

 

'If you could legally pay less tax, would you?'

 

As much as people don't like it, it looks so far that Blairemore and Cameron's involvement was all 100% legal.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax

 

do you think that if joe blogs did the same it would be acceptable to the taxman regarding him paying the tax on his wages?

[Bob Arctor]

The recurrent phrase in this morning's papers is "finally admits". Not a good look.

[Quik]

At least he's admitted something, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of:

 

'If you could legally pay less tax, would you?'

 

As much as people don't like it, it looks so far that Blairemore and Cameron's involvement was all 100% legal.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax

 

I think it will take more than a tax dodging specialist lawyer saying 'everyones at it' to dig CMD out of this particular hole.

[nightrider]

So I cant own anything overseas then?

 

I can't own the company that I'm a shareholder and director on in the Bahamas - even though I pay my dividends and CG tax?

 

I cant own and sell my shares in New York - even though I pay the CG tax?

 

I can't own and sell a house in France - even though I pay the tresurey it's dues?

 

Cobblers.

 

Of course you can. The issue here is that normally the fund would be liable for tax in the UK, even if based in Panama, because the management was UK based. The allegation is that fraud was committed to make it appear the fund was liable for tax in Panama instead, thus paying no tax in the UK.

[L00b]

Of course you can. The issue here is that normally the fund would be liable for tax in the UK, even if based in Panama, because the management was UK based. The allegation is that fraud was committed to make it appear the fund was liable for tax in Panama instead, thus paying no tax in the UK.

I'm sorry but could someone please explain to me under which piece of legislation does a foreign-incorporated and -domiciled company become liable to UK tax law?

 

This "UK-based management" would be subject to UK income tax law anyway due to their being resident in the UK, wherever the company they manage is based. That is, unless their management income is taxed at source (by the company they manage from the UK) AND there is a dual-taxation agreement in place between the UK and the jurisdiction in which the company is based (in which case the UK gets only the difference between what tax is paid in that jurisdiction and what tax should be paid on the full amount in the UK, IF more tax is due in the UK than in that jurisdiction for the same income).

 

I would understand the (alleged) fraud case based on IC giving a Panama PO BOX address instead of his UK address to obfuscate HMRC inquiries (IF that is what happened, and AFAIK that is not proven or even shown so far). But that is sod all to do with the fund domiciliation itself. And with DC.

 

What would land DC in genuine hot water would be if he also gave a Panama PO BOX address. But since he claims that he cashed the units and paid the CG to HMRC before going into No.10, I very much doubt that he gave a Panama PO BOX address beforehand: HMRC would have looked into -and found out about- that at the time of the relevant tax return, and been all over his tax affairs like the clap.

Edited April 8, 2016 by L00b

[Quik]

It would seem daddy not only claimed to live in a post box in the bahamas but also acted as a paid consultant to the uk firm which was acting as a management agent to the fund he definately wasn't controlling from the UK.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

[Berberis]

Although many try to avoid taxes, I believe death duty should be a good one to tax higher, because inheriting large funds makes a meritocracy less likely, and children need a goal in life.

 

But it's my money, I can do with it what I like or I should be able to. Its wrong to take it back, like it was never yours in the first place.

[nightrider]

I'm sorry but could someone please explain to me under which piece of legislation does a foreign-incorporated and -domiciled company become liable to UK tax law?

 

T

 

Details here about the allegation:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas

 

"After reviewing the files, Richard Brooks, a Private Eye journalist and former HMRC tax inspector, said: “If HMRC had seen the papers they would have had some very serious questions. The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control.

 

“This means where the key business decisions are taken. The evidence here suggests in this period they weren’t taken outside the UK, in which case it is hard to see how the company was not managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK at the time.” "

[Obelix]

Of course you can. The issue here is that normally the fund would be liable for tax in the UK, even if based in Panama, because the management was UK based. The allegation is that fraud was committed to make it appear the fund was liable for tax in Panama instead, thus paying no tax in the UK.

 

No it wouldn't. That's a ludicrous state of affairs. If I were to work in the UK for a French company, as I have before, does that really mean that the French company then ahs to pay UK corporation tax? Because that appears to be what you are saying.

 

Let me take you on a little example - both in real life...

 

I opened a company in the Bahamas in the late 1990's. The reason being was that we saw a business opportunity to purchase blocks of minutes from the new Southern Cross fibre cable that was opening between Australia and the USA. The reason it was based in the Bahamas was because the controlling/owning company for it based in the Bahamas as well.

 

So this company buys large allocations of minutes and sells this capacity on to ISP's or companies etc that need access, effectively acting as a broker. It's registered in Nassau, the directors are British, German and two USAians.

 

It takes money in from companies, occasionally it get approached by obvious and no so obvious shell companies that are probably laundering cash and tells them to get lost. Most of the companies it deals with are established ISP's and some larger companies that want direct access. It makes money. It pays taxes on that and dividends to the shareholders. The shareholders pay tax on the dividend income as it arrives.

 

There is nothing illegal about that. Or immoral. It is a company doing genuine business, and tax is paid by the beneficiaries. You could argue that if it was based in the UK then it would pay more tax - yes it probably would - and the directors would get less dividend - and pay less dividend tax as a result. The total tax take would be about the same - moved from dividend tax to corporation tax.

 

Now if you want to see that in the case of a dodgy company, lets play the Google game.

 

We have three companies to do the double Irish Dutch sandwich..

 

Google Irish holdings - HQ and controlled in Bermunda

Google Eire - passed in Dublin

Google Nederlands - Based in the Netherlands.

 

Google sells advertising in Australia. The company buying the advertising contracts with Google Eire

 

Tax in Ireland is 12.5 percent. Now the IP rights that the Eire company have are licenced from Googlne Nederlands. So a royalty payment is made to them. That's a tax deduction. So you pay less tax by deductiong the royalty from the profit.

 

Now Google Nederlands pays the money to yet another Irish company, Google Irish holdings.... registered in the Bahamas, with no withholding tax on inter-EU transactions. It's all within the EU so its moving from one subsidiary to another.

 

The last subsidiary despite being "in" Ireland then pays no tax because it is controlled outside Ireland in Bermuda.

 

So the net effect is a transaction in Australia, is controlled in the EU, where a low tax rate of 12.5% is dropped further and then booked out to a region where there is no tax at all and made as profit and then from there booked in as income to the US arm.

 

That's what shell companies are really used for. All this fluff and flannel about an investment fund is distracting people from where the real monies are being "disappeared"