Panama Papers

[scorza]

Because by avoiding tax you are not evading the law. How many times does this need to be said?

How about some actual case law?

James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde KC DL presiding in Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754


Thomas James Chesshyre Tomlin, Baron Tomlin PC presiding in IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936)


The law has to apply equally and fairly regardless of status, wealth, pauper or fat cat banker, otherwise there is nothing to stop the State dipping its fingers into anyone's wallet any time it likes.

World is a lot different now. In those days sure you could send your money to Panama, but you'd never get it back. We need to retreat from these disastrous global free trade deals. Here's Hillary and Obama pushing a trade deal with Panama through in 2011 despite knowing full well it'd make it easier to hide money from the authorities.

http://www.ibtimes.com/panama-paper...eal-amid-warnings-it-would-make-money-2348076

 

[Freakbro]

Absolutely nothing illegal has taken place.

Err, rubbish, plenty of illegal activities have taken place, just maybe not everyone involved was doing something illegal

What gets me, is all the focus seems to be on the customers, what about the 'law' company facilitating all this laundering?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Which is why you word the coupon so that fat boy can't do that! Clearly the person who posted that on reddit doesn't really understand contract law. If you were to refuse the reward then the greedy one would well within his rights to sue, and you would likly lose, see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]

Woods. Trees. Cannot see.

 

[Freakbro]

It seems the amazing defence today from the company in question, Mossack Fonseca, is (paraphrasing) 'there are lots of places worse than us'

Awesome

 

[Stumble Bum]

PMQs should be interesting tomorrow...

The house of commons is in recess. The next pmq's will be on the 13th. Not sure this story will have the same effect in 8 days time

Will be amusing seeing Corbyn try to get the better of Cameron. He is completely out of his depth staring down at his script that he reads off.

 

[datalol-jack]

Always on holiday when the storm hits, eh?

I wouldn't let it go just yet. This latest revelation ties quite nicely into the whole fairness theme IDS has unleashed with his exit from the DWP, whatever you think of the man and his motives; whose story, in broad strokes, is borne out by Laws' recent coalition days account, also out already.

A clever parliamentarian, not necessarily Corbyn or his #2, could make some capital with this still. Though if the opposition misses again, they might as well just make faces at the PM for the duration of the session and flip a few reverse v-s at him, for all the good it'll do them being there. I'm sure Dave'll appreciate having a few more thug life videos to his credit on YT.

 

[StriderX]

It seems the amazing defence today from the company in question, Mossack Fonseca, is (paraphrasing) 'there are lots of places worse than us'

Awesome

It actually is, though really.

It implies publicly that there are companies in existence that exist purely to launder money, and i can only assume whoever leaked their files wanted to find out exactly who these companies are.

 

[Pudney]

You really are blind to anything that is a contradiction to your narrative, aren't you? He paid less than 2% tax. That is wholly effective. *AND* he had to settle for £500k. That's settle. Which means he actually saved more than that.

Please explain my narrative to me seeing as you seem to understand it so well.

 

[Rroff]

Will be amusing seeing Corbyn try to get the better of Cameron. He is completely out of his depth staring down at his script that he reads off.

While I applaud his persistence in some ways its horrific how he just gets up to be knocked down again.

Walked right past him a few days ago - thought for a moment the white haired, scruffy old man who looked like he was in the final stages of terminal illness coming the other way looked a bit like Jeremy Corbyn and then dismissed it - few minutes later some acquaintances on facebook tagged themselves in a photo with him on the train nearby.

EDIT: Ah there was a Labour event in Weymouth wondered what on earth he was doing down here in the South West.

 

[dowie]

Absolutely nothing illegal has taken place. It is up to Governments to legislate - in so far as they may. One could contend that there is a moral issue in not providing tax to the same painful extent as the working masses who have less possibility to "Save". Many people prefer to control their own outgoings rather than leave it to an incompetent bureaucrats/politicians to blatantly waste - UK's overseas aid is a wonderful example of waste. It was Leona Helmsley who put it so succinctly "Taxes are for the little people" -proportionately!

bit premature to be making that assertion

it would seem to be rather unlikely that nothing illegal has taken place, avoidance schemes don't have to be completely hidden from sight since they're still technically abiding by the law... this panama stuff seems to be more geared towards evasion

 

[wildman]

And in return how many times does it need to be said "We know it's legal, it's still not right." ?

This analogy says it best (yoinked from someone on reddit):

I open a shop. I sell pasties. I decide to run a campaign in the local free paper that says "Bring this coupon to Jestar's Pasties and get a free pasty!"
Most people bring their coupon and get a free pasty.
However some schmuck decided to run around and pick up as many copies of the paper as they can. He walks into my pasty shop with over one thousand coupons.
Now, the letter of the law (aka, the coupon/advert) says he is entitled to a free pasty for every coupon he provides.
Does it make him any less of a codpiece? No. That's obviously not in the spirit of the advert.

I'd personally blame you for not making your T's & C's clear enough in as much by stating limited to 1 coupon per customer. Thus if he wanted to he could legally take you to court for failing to actually meet you contractual obligation under the conditions laid out in your coupon offer. Is that right or even moral.... no but he can do it because you screwed up by not making it air tight.

Moral of the story make it so that people can't take the **** and then they can't try it on. Same goes for HMRC, if they don't want people legally using avoidance to limit their tax liabilities then they need to legislate accordingly. Yeah it might not be moral, but the bottom line is moral outrage against something that is perfectly legal is like taking a waz into the wind, i,.e pointless

 

[ThePirateHulk]

I'd personally blame you for not making your T's & C's clear enough in as much by stating limited to 1 coupon per customer. Thus if he wanted to he could legally take you to court for failing to actually meet you contractual obligation under the conditions laid out in your coupon offer. Is that right or even moral.... no but he can do it because you screwed up by not making it air tight.

Moral of the story make it so that people can't take the **** and then they can't try it on. Same goes for HMRC, if they don't want people legally using avoidance to limit their tax liabilities then they need to legislate accordingly. Yeah it might not be moral, but the bottom line is moral outrage against something that is perfectly legal is like taking a waz into the wind, i,.e pointless

What do you do when the people who are taking the **** are the ones who write the laws and/or have the cash to lobby governments?

What do you do when the organisations that design the technicalities of the system are the very same organisations that assist the wealthy in using these technicalities to avoid tax.

The apathy of the population is what allows cretins like that to take advantage of the system and rob society blind. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, not much we can do about it" is just not good enough IMHO.

It's an abhorrently corrupt system from top to bottom...but hey, let's pick on the unemployed and disabled first. They can't hit back.

 

[Efour]

SOMEONE... In laymans terms.... If you don't declare your OFFSHORE holdings/Income to the IR/IRS/Tax Authority of your country, yet make money from them, you are avoiding paying income tax and breaking the law correct? Yes or No ?

I think the UK is the only place where some people are saying its legal to do so and im starting to wonder how it can be...

 

[eldergeek]

So basically everyone rich is on there? No surprises at all really.

Which begs the question - now can we have that revolution I've been itching for?

 

[RDM]

Which begs the question - now can we have that revolution I've been itching for?

Depends, what have you done to help bring it about?

 

[eldergeek]

Depends, what have you done to help bring it about?

Well. There's the thing. Can't stockpile guns for my "first up against the wall" policy; Won't vote socialist workers party because they're just as useless as labour - won't vote conservative because...Well...**** the conservatives.

At the moment? Pretty much done what I can to further the cause of encryption on the internet, spread discord and dissension where I can, and generally be a malcontent that advocates redistribution of wealth and/or abolishing our capitalist regime.

 

[The Running Man]

I'd personally blame you for not making your T's & C's clear enough in as much by stating limited to 1 coupon per customer. Thus if he wanted to he could legally take you to court for failing to actually meet you contractual obligation under the conditions laid out in your coupon offer. Is that right or even moral.... no but he can do it because you screwed up by not making it air tight.

Moral of the story make it so that people can't take the **** and then they can't try it on. Same goes for HMRC, if they don't want people legally using avoidance to limit their tax liabilities then they need to legislate accordingly. Yeah it might not be moral, but the bottom line is moral outrage against something that is perfectly legal is like taking a waz into the wind, i,.e pointless

Think there are two issues...one is that the government say they are clamping down on these issues, so it's a bit of a black eye credibility wise to be caught up in it?

Secondly, the HMRC can't keep up with the loop holes that gwt exploited.

For me, the public should tur. Their backs collectively on all these foreigners like lewis Hamilton or jendom button and accept that they are no longer British but actually residents of the cote azure or where ever.

 

[UTmaniac]

I blame Mr Cameron Snr and others for the state of the NHS and the roads etc., all those high rate tax payers who are not paying the tax that they should be. I also blame Wiggle.

 

[The Running Man]

Part of the issue is that the average man pays 99-100% of the tax they are required to. At source from their pay.

only those who should be paying more can afford to set themselves up as a company, give themselves shares and profit from lax off shore taxation.

It is literally a crime of the rich, except, those doing cash in hand jobs etc.

 

[Kemik]

Part of the issue is that the average man pays 99-100% of the tax they are required to. At source from their pay.

only those who should be paying more can afford to set themselves up as a company, give themselves shares and profit from lax off shore taxation.

It is literally a crime of the rich, except, those doing cash in hand jobs etc.

How are you defining "pay as much as they are required to"? If they aren't paying what they are required to then they are evading tax and I'm sure HMRC will have its back side kicked into gear to peruse them on the limited resources it has.

SOMEONE... In laymans terms.... If you don't declare your OFFSHORE holdings/Income to the IR/IRS/Tax Authority of your country, yet make money from them, you are avoiding paying income tax and breaking the law correct? Yes or No ?

I think the UK is the only place where some people are saying its legal to do so and im starting to wonder how it can be...

It depends on:
1. Your residency status.
2. Where you are domiciled.
3. Where the income was made.

The US is different to almost every other country in that you are taxed on your worldwide income, even if you live abroad and never plan on going back. Hence why some people renounce their US citizenship.