Panama Papers

[RaohNS]

The law should be simply changed to say that evasion and avoidance are the same thing and that legislation needs to dictate: Any monies sent outside of the UK to a beneficiary company, trust, corporation or holding by all or any parties including proxy payers will be subject to recording of such by HMRC.

Make no mistake these loopholes are not there by accident.

On the subject of Corbyn, I think he needs to really attack, unfortunately while he doesn't lack conviction or principle he lacks a bit of fire. Even something as loaded as tax avoidance will not be done.

All of his 6 questions next week need to press that dish faced pigs skull ...ing Eton posh tax fiddling ****** to squirm

 

[Kemik]

Make no mistake these loopholes are not there by accident.

Perfect example of someone either not having a clue or not thinking things through. It's very easy to say "close these loopholes" but actually, the "loopholes" are normally designed to serve a purpose and can't be closed without materially impacting normal business.

It's fairly rare that loopholes are actually loopholes and where they are abused they are legislated against. E.g. there is an NIC allowance that was introduced recently to assist companies employing people. Contractors (one man bands) took advantage of this allowance to save themselves money. The Government now requires you to have an employee who isn't a Director. Contractors are now just employing their partners to get around it.

The law should be simply changed to say that evasion and avoidance are the same thing and that legislation needs to dictate:

If avoidance and evasion are the same thing then we all better lawyer up, because we all use tax avoidance. Do you have an ISA? That's tax avoidance. You are structuring your investments in a way to avoid tax. Why don't you invest in shares or savings without using an ISA?

Any monies sent outside of the UK to a beneficiary company, trust, corporation or holding by all or any parties including proxy payers will be subject to recording of such by HMRC.

So you want the Government to keep track of every transaction between an individual and a company or trust they own or a beneficiary of? That's a huge database. Do you need to report at the end of each tax year as part of the tax return? Income from the trusts/companies are already declared if you meet residency requirements.

 

[wildman]

The law should be simply changed to say that evasion and avoidance are the same thing and that legislation needs to dictate: Any monies sent outside of the UK to a beneficiary company, trust, corporation or holding by all or any parties including proxy payers will be subject to recording of such by HMRC.

Make no mistake these loopholes are not there by accident.

On the subject of Corbyn, I think he needs to really attack, unfortunately while he doesn't lack conviction or principle he lacks a bit of fire. Even something as loaded as tax avoidance will not be done.

All of his 6 questions next week need to press that dish faced pigs skull ...ing Eton posh tax fiddling ****** to squirm

the bold part = never going to happen. Putting your money into an ISA is legal tax avoidance as you get tax relief on the allowance you have, currently 15240/pa. Therefore you are by definition avoiding tax. Are you saying that all tax free savers should get clobbered for avoiding tax ? or are you knee jerking because you are mad/jel/annoyed that some rich toffs can afford good tax lawyers to reduce their tax liabilities further than you could ever dream of and you are just hacked off that you are in PAYE and have no choice but to cough up ?

 

[Tunney]

the bold part = never going to happen. Putting your money into an ISA is legal tax avoidance as you get tax relief on the allowance you have, currently 15240/pa. Therefore you are by definition avoiding tax. Are you saying that all tax free savers should get clobbered for avoiding tax ? or are you knee jerking because you are mad/jel/annoyed that some rich toffs can afford good tax lawyers to reduce their tax liabilities further than you could ever dream of and you are just hacked off that you are in PAYE and have no choice but to cough up ?

It's not that black and white. There are tax efficient schemes that have been approved by the government and there are schemes that have been ruled illegal. Inbetween lay schemes that haven't yet been ruled illegal and loopholes.

Banks have already been banned from using complex tax avoidance schemes. The rules could be extended even if it's not very realistic.

 

[doodah]

How ironic Obama is coming out with fighting words about tax avoidance despite championing the free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea in 2011, and being warned it would make the situation worse.

 

[scorza]

Former UN head Kofi Annan's son bought luxury London property via Panama.

 

[Cosimo]

Former UN head Kofi Annan's son bought luxury London property via Panama.

What do you think?

Lots of wealthy foreigners are buying up expensive properties in London. I thought that owning property through offshore companies is not illegal?

 

[platypus]

I'm not sure what we're supposed to be outraged at here, that a foreigner is buying property in London, or that he profited from it?

 

[RaohNS]

1) Perfect example of someone either not having a clue or not thinking things through. It's very easy to say "close these loopholes" but actually, the "loopholes" are normally designed to serve a purpose and can't be closed without materially impacting normal business.

2) It's fairly rare that loopholes are actually loopholes and where they are abused they are legislated against. E.g. there is an NIC allowance that was introduced recently to assist companies employing people. Contractors (one man bands) took advantage of this allowance to save themselves money. The Government now requires you to have an employee who isn't a Director. Contractors are now just employing their partners to get around it.



3) If avoidance and evasion are the same thing then we all better lawyer up, because we all use tax avoidance. Do you have an ISA? That's tax avoidance. You are structuring your investments in a way to avoid tax. Why don't you invest in shares or savings without using an ISA?



4) So you want the Government to keep track of every transaction between an individual and a company or trust they own or a beneficiary of? That's a huge database. Do you need to report at the end of each tax year as part of the tax return? Income from the trusts/companies are already declared if you meet residency requirements.

1) No it really is that easy. Its just words and then some exemptions needed. see next.

2) Partners who should be under the same such procedure as others. Prime example Lord Green I believe who owns next... Oh no sorry his wife owns it from Monaco.

3) And here is where you miss the point. I have an ISA... Your average Joe will have an ISA... One thing I cannot have because of design and lacking the fortune is a nice little shell company called Ha Ha Screw You Plebs Inc in the Cayman Isles set up to funnel my earnings away because I am in the position of being taxed at source. By the same argument why don't the government tax company earnings at source like they do for every pound I earn take 20p out of it?

4) You make this sound so difficult. Kt really isn't. Every bank transaction I have ever made in the last 6years is there for me, so is yours and the millions of others who are here. Every payment to a supermarket is recorded. HMRC record every intricacy of my earnings and those of smaller companies, surely as you say these payments and their source and motive can be recorded. As we both know a trust is a very very powerful entity often needing legal and even pseudo legal methods to crack open. If I had a Trust it can often only be accessed by outside interested parties under guidance of a court if it is not willingly declared.

 

[RaohNS]

the bold part = never going to happen. Putting your money into an ISA is legal tax avoidance as you get tax relief on the allowance you have, currently 15240/pa. Therefore you are by definition avoiding tax. Are you saying that all tax free savers should get clobbered for avoiding tax ? or are you knee jerking because you are mad/jel/annoyed that some rich toffs can afford good tax lawyers to reduce their tax liabilities further than you could ever dream of and you are just hacked off that you are in PAYE and have no choice but to cough up ?

An ISA is something everyone can have, a company holding or hiding (lets not beat about the bush as to which it is) is open only to those affluent enough to have them. People on tens of thousands... Nope, hundreds of thousands... Highly unlikely but million and multimillionaires it is very easy for them to do as is exceptionally clear.

You as with some other posters are missing the point tax lost on an ISA (from interest only remember and not the whole amount) is a zit compared to the billions of pounds that have been ubiquitously off shored for the purpose of non declaration of funds. This leak is starting to expose the sheer scale of it. 300,000 shell companies all with 7+ figure amounts? The losses to tax collection must be at least in the tens of billions.

We have bandied about that tax avoidance and evasion costs the treasury a conservative estimate of £120bn annually. Many places put it much higher (£200bn+) and yet we are bothers by the £4-£10bn in benefit fraud? Why when the Tories came in did they cut hundred of jobs from the department dealing with corporate tax avoidance but increased the sectors working on benefit fraud? Ideologically driven to punish the poor. Anecdotally a woman I worked with, her son was one of 600 people made redundant from HMRC and their evasion team in 2011.

 

[doodah]

Not sure what the issue is with Kenco Annan's son? Plus, damn his wife!

 

[jimjamuk]

An ISA is something everyone can have, a company holding or hiding (lets not beat about the bush as to which it is) is open only to those affluent enough to have them. People on tens of thousands... Nope, hundreds of thousands... Highly unlikely but million and multimillionaires it is very easy for them to do as is exceptionally clear.

You as with some other posters are missing the point tax lost on an ISA (from interest only remember and not the whole amount) is a zit compared to the billions of pounds that have been ubiquitously off shored for the purpose of non declaration of funds. This leak is starting to expose the sheer scale of it. 300,000 shell companies all with 7+ figure amounts? The losses to tax collection must be at least in the tens of billions.

We have bandied about that tax avoidance and evasion costs the treasury a conservative estimate of £120bn annually. Many places put it much higher (£200bn+) and yet we are bothers by the £4-£10bn in benefit fraud? Why when the Tories came in did they cut hundred of jobs from the department dealing with corporate tax avoidance but increased the sectors working on benefit fraud? Ideologically driven to punish the poor. Anecdotally a woman I worked with, her son was one of 600 people made redundant from HMRC and their evasion team in 2011.

The problem is that you make it all sound so easy to sort out so I'm afraid I'll echo the comment before that you don't have a clue. The best lawyers and accountants in the land struggle with the rules and laws and some are so vague different accountants have a different view on each. on top of that the cost of taking anyone through the courts to prove they are not playing by the rules can cost more than the money recovered so again pointless

 

[Kemik]

1) No it really is that easy. Its just words and then some exemptions needed. see next.

Just some words and exemptions? Well then, best get you signed up to work at the Office for Tax Simplification then if it is that easy. You can finally cut all of these tax bibles on my desk down from about 1.5ft to one, small simple book.

3) And here is where you miss the point. I have an ISA... Your average Joe will have an ISA... One thing I cannot have because of design and lacking the fortune is a nice little shell company called Ha Ha Screw You Plebs Inc in the Cayman Isles set up to funnel my earnings away because I am in the position of being taxed at source. By the same argument why don't the government tax company earnings at source like they do for every pound I earn take 20p out of it?

The Government does tax company earnings. What source would you be referring to? Companies' income source is its revenue. Are you suggesting a revenue tax that is then squared up 9 months later with their tax return?

HMRC can't take overseas companies unless they have a deemed permanent establishment in the UK. Again, that's a common tax law which is universally agreed to except for in the US.

4) You make this sound so difficult. Kt really isn't. Every bank transaction I have ever made in the last 6years is there for me, so is yours and the millions of others who are here. Every payment to a supermarket is recorded. HMRC record every intricacy of my earnings and those of smaller companies, surely as you say these payments and their source and motive can be recorded. As we both know a trust is a very very powerful entity often needing legal and even pseudo legal methods to crack open. If I had a Trust it can often only be accessed by outside interested parties under guidance of a court if it is not willingly declared.

Companies are legally required to record all transactions and keep the appropriate back up. HMRC can request those records at any time. There are also information exchange agreements setup between various countries, include recent additions of agreements with Switzerland and other tax havens.

 

[Bear]

Many places put it much higher (£200bn+) and yet we are bothers by the £4-£10bn in benefit fraud? Why when the Tories came in did they cut hundred of jobs from the department dealing with corporate tax avoidance but increased the sectors working on benefit fraud? Ideologically driven to punish the poor. Anecdotally a woman I worked with, her son was one of 600 people made redundant from HMRC and their evasion team in 2011.

Perhaps its because benefit fraud is stealing money you didn't earn and have obligated someone else to pay for it, where as tax avoidance is trying to legally keep money you earnt.

 

[jimjamuk]

It also costs a couple of hundred quid to start a Ltd company so not limited to the "rich" by any stretch of the mind. I expect an offshore company would cost more but I bet I went googling I could find something workable for a small company.

 

[Mynight]

It also costs a couple of hundred quid to start a Ltd company so not limited to the "rich" by any stretch of the mind. I expect an offshore company would cost more but I bet I went googling I could find something workable for a small company.

£15 for a LTD isn't it?

Offshore isn't hugely more depending on the country but does require more paperwork.

 

[RaohNS]

Just some words and exemptions? Well then, best get you signed up to work at the Office for Tax Simplification then if it is that easy. You can finally cut all of these tax bibles on my desk down from about 1.5ft to one, small simple book.

The Government does tax company earnings. What source would you be referring to? Companies' income source is its revenue. Are you suggesting a revenue tax that is then squared up 9 months later with their tax return?

HMRC can't take overseas companies unless they have a deemed permanent establishment in the UK. Again, that's a common tax law which is universally agreed to except for in the US.

Companies are legally required to record all transactions and keep the appropriate back up. HMRC can request those records at any time. There are also information exchange agreements setup between various countries, include recent additions of agreements with Switzerland and other tax havens.

Ok lets try and keep this within the context of even current law: Banks and law firms by law have to carry out due diligence on their clients "portfolio" plans or whatever to check there is no ya dodging. Clearly if these people are hoarding vast sums of wealth and money to deprive the exchequer of funds they would otherwise be obligated to pay then that in my eyes is evasion.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Laws can be made by just a single line that dictate entire swathes of law and legal obligations and practices. Allow an example: Children's Act 1989 (1)(I) upon separation there will be a presumption of shared care 50/50

If that sentence ever made it past the lines of feminists and women's rights groups not to mention a biased and corrupt judicial system and into the statute books it would do away with the need for swathes of procedure (that often aren't followed much like tax laws)

The government doesn't tax company earnings unless they are UK registered and therein is another side of the same coin. This same coin allows tens or hundreds of billions of pounds to be funneled elsewhere to avoid paying tax. The legality is what is up for dispute. Why not let Joe public with their shell companies decide what they want or shall we leave it to these poor politicians who only have their ISAs to make tax free earnings on? Me making £10 tax free earnings on my ISA is hardly the same universe as Ian Cameron dodging tax for 30years and the nation being deprived of millions.

The UK government can dictate to many of these tax havens though! If they start to prat around with dodgy tax methods or surreptitious behaviour the Government can intervene!

To your last point, if companies are legally obligated to do this why did you have an issue with it but now don't?

 

[platypus]

Perhaps its because benefit fraud is stealing money you didn't earn and have obligated someone else to pay for it, where as tax avoidance is trying to legally keep money you earnt.

Agree entirely with this, but more than a slight mockery of the whole thing is made when we're sweethearting deals with the likes of Vodafone and letting them off paying £6Bn in tax.

 

[RaohNS]

Perhaps its because benefit fraud is stealing money you didn't earn and have obligated someone else to pay for it, where as tax avoidance is trying to legally keep money you earnt.

So benefit fraud = deprives government of revenue
Tax Avoidance = depriving the government of massive sums of revenue (so much so we could have 2 NHS's

One is legal but the other you can have jail time for. Hmmm seems fair for the rich and the poor well... Let them eat cake

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

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.

I presume you haven't had many (ie probably no) business dealings with the HMRC then?

Certainly (in business transactions) I have been involved with them and they use the term "settle" a lot. It basically means pay this, and as long as fraud is not proven at a later date we can all move on.

E.g an agreement between the company that the company will pay £10k per annum to "settle" the potential benefit in kind for free drinks was one I had to pass payment for.
There are times when they will offer a settlement figure as a way to avoid a lengthy investigation that costs money to both parties. It is an estimate of the benefit they see, its not by definition a discount and could just as easily be a payment that is in excess of that owed.