Greed of the Super Rich, Lizzie in Trouble.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Would appear that their Charlie is investing in these off shore tax avoidance schemes as well

Quote TheGuardian

"Prince Charles's estate made big profit on stake in friend's offshore firm"

Again: no. The Estate is not "Price Charles's"- he being only a life tenant- and investment policies/decisions of its trustees would rarely be even known to the beneficiary. It's not al that different from someone who has a pension scheme- no beneficiary is likely to know in what its funds are invested. I don't (for mine); and I bet that you don't (for yours).

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2017 at 18:17 ----------

 

I wonder if you might care to tell the forum who makes tax laws

Ever heard of Parliament?

[I1L2T3]

Both legal ways of avoiding tax.

And there are plenty of things that are slightly more difficult to access than an ISA, but still perfectly legal.

Aggressive tax avoidance is a phrase the government made up to cast those who use it's own rules against it in a bad light.

There is not 'aggressive' avoidance. There is avoidance and there is evasion. If they don't like a particular form of avoidance, they can and do change the law to make it evasion.

For example EIS and SEIS investment, great tax relief on those.

http://businessadvice.co.uk/tax-admin/efficiency/what-are-the-seis-and-eis-

 

Nope, nice try but it doesn’t work like that. Your argument is a dog whistle.

 

In its simplest term people taking out ISAs is a wholly expected response to government policy. Much of what is classed as aggressive avoidance is quite the opposite.

 

Taking out an ISA is quite simply not the same as aggressively avoiding tax.

 

If we as a country are going to have a proper discussion about this then the distinction needs to be clear.

[area 51]

They gave him the refund because he claimed that it was a business cost. Simple. They don't have to get anything in return. It's not a refund out of corporation tax, it's a vat refund, which his company had first paid and then got back (or more likely never actually paid).

They don't get a choice though, it's not like they can decline and decide to keep the VAT payment.

Now if it turns out that it's not a business expense, then he's committing fraud and HMRC can prosecute...

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2017 at 08:30 ----------

 

 

Of course you can avoid tax. Increase your pension contributions and put some money in an ISA. Buy a bike on the bike to work scheme, sign up for childcare vouchers, swap pay for holidays.

All these things reduce the amount of tax you have to pay.

 

I have to disagree with you that having money in an ISA which I have done is the same.I was advised to put my money in an ISA but they never mentioned that I would be better putting it in an offshore tax haven.This is purely the domain of the seriously wealthy.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Only Ten Million, where is the Billions she's got.

 

Most of it squirrelled away I would imagine. Although as the Monarch I honestly believe she is exempt from tax. But she has been paying "some" tax to keep the surfs quiet I believe.

 

Angel1.

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2017 at 21:55 ----------

 

Again: no. The Estate is not "Price Charles's"- he being only a life tenant- and investment policies/decisions of its trustees would rarely be even known to the beneficiary. It's not al that different from someone who has a pension scheme- no beneficiary is likely to know in what its funds are invested. I don't (for mine); and I bet that you don't (for yours).

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2017 at 18:17 ----------

 

Ever heard of Parliament?

 

Here you are Jeffrey, you failed with the wealth of Lizzie, now it seems you have failed with prince chuck.

 

"A record high while his salary goes past £20m for the first time

Clarence House has revealed his salary topped £20m for the first time

The total assets of his estate reached £1,021,724,000 this year

He owns a £35million commercial warehouse in Milton Keynes, let to B&Q

In London his assets include 23 houses and The Oval cricket ground."

 

"The Prince of Wales’s private estate has invested millions of pounds in offshore funds and companies, including a Bermuda-registered business run by one of his best friends, according to documents in the Paradise Papers leak."

 

One thing in chucks favour, he does pay "some" tax on his personal assets.

 

Angel1

[Cyclone]

I have to disagree with you that having money in an ISA which I have done is the same.I was advised to put my money in an ISA but they never mentioned that I would be better putting it in an offshore tax haven.This is purely the domain of the seriously wealthy.

 

In what way do you disagree that they are both legal forms of avoiding paying tax?

Edited November 9, 2017 by Cyclone

[Supertramp]

I have to disagree with you that having money in an ISA which I have done is the same.I was advised to put my money in an ISA but they never mentioned that I would be better putting it in an offshore tax haven.This is purely the domain of the seriously wealthy.

 

Not really, you can invest offshore with a minimum investment of £100 and then £25 a month regular contributions with HL who I have my ISA with.

[Bob Arctor]

Both legal ways of avoiding tax.

And there are plenty of things that are slightly more difficult to access than an ISA, but still perfectly legal.

Aggressive tax avoidance is a phrase the government made up to cast those who use it's own rules against it in a bad light.

There is not 'aggressive' avoidance. There is avoidance and there is evasion. If they don't like a particular form of avoidance, they can and do change the law to make it evasion.

For example EIS and SEIS investment, great tax relief on those.

http://businessadvice.co.uk/tax-admin/efficiency/what-are-the-seis-and-eis-startup-tax-breaks/

 

---------- Post added 08-11-2017 at 15:21 ----------

 

 

I'm not sure I follow the question.

 

Presumably HMRC would like to know about schemes in order to validate the legality.

 

Aggressive tax avoidance is exploiting unintended loopholes in tax regulations to avoid paying tax that the government intended that you should pay. You know this. An ISA is using an intended vehicle to not pay tax as an encouragement to save, which is seen by government as a useful and virtuous thing to do. You know this also.

 

The government intends that all companies pay 19% tax on profits, regardless of the size of the company. They believe in a level playing field for large multinationals and SMEs. Therefore they are entitled to cry 'foul' when large companies use their small office in Luxembourg to artificially bring their corporation tax rate down to <5%. You know all of this, we have to question why you pretend otherwise.

[Cyclone]

Exploiting poorly written legislation in ways that the legislatures didn't intend, but which are not illegal.

Of course nobody can read minds, so the government decides after the fact that it wasn't "intended"

 

Clearly the government doesn't intend that all companies pay 19%, there are so many schemes available to legally avoid tax. If there intent was to simply have all companies pay 19% on UK profits then taxation could be massively simplified.

 

I agree that offshoring profits is a problem, but we aren't discussing that in this thread.

We're discussing private individuals using offshore investments which don't attract UK tax unless or until the money is repatriated to the account holder in the UK.

 

Nice try though to shift the topic from private investment to companies offshoring profit.

[I1L2T3]

In what way do you disagree that they are both legal forms of avoiding paying tax?

 

There’s the dog whistle

 

it’s irrelevant and it obscures the argument

[Cyclone]

What is the argument, perhaps someone could restate it for me?

 

It's entirely legal for UK residents to invest in offshore funds, not in question. It's not aggressive tax avoidance, it's not misusing the legislation, or abusing it, it's quite clearly a think that is permitted, were it not permitted you'd drive away wealth from the country at a prodigious rate!