Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Blairmore Holdings pretty obviously does exist for the sole purpose of avoiding tax...
Panama Papers
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Blairmore Holdings pretty obviously does exist for the sole purpose of avoiding tax...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,873
- Location
- UK
As I understand it, Blairmore avoids paying local tax from being held in a low or no-tax regime. If it were UK based it would pay corporation tax and tax on profits. Investors therefore receive much higher returns, even if they still pay income on dividends and capital gains tax on withdrawal (within the personal limits).
Last edited:
Blairmore Holdings avoids paying tax. That doesn't mean people that invest in Blairmore are avoiding paying tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,851
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Sorry but why?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers
Everything he did was legal, and it's not as if it's a huge sum of money anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I wouldn't call for his resignation. But I'd expect frank honesty, and a re-commitment to the transparency measures he had backed away from initially.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Even if it does he didn't set it up, he didn't work for it, he didn't run it. He bought some shares, they appreciated, he sold them, and paid full UK tax on this activity.
What his father did or didn't do hardly seems relevant unless you want to be held to account for everything your deceased family members may have done?!
The sums of money involved are so trivial it makes it even more of a farce - a whopping £18k capital gain in 13 years. On which tax was paid. It's tragic how quickly this bandwagon has started rolling, it really shows how desperate people were to find something - anything - to cling to. They'd have been better off waiting for something with some substance, rather than this farce, if they genuinely disliked the guy enough to want him to resign.
Bingo.
And investing money in foreign businesses has been illegal or immoral since... when?
Can't say I appreciate the way the company was run, essentially faking an operation in the Bahamas in order to avoid paying Corporation Tax in the UK. We absolutely should be taking action to shut down such schemes. But there isn't really anything wrong with investing in them, provided correct taxes are paid on any earnings.
Well it didn't work for UK residents as they were liable for tax on their earnings and when they sold up they had to pay tax on any profit. It also looks like Blairmore invested in global equities and was originally managed by Panmure Gordon. It doesn't sound like an EBT at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
I don't know, ask David Cameron.
[TW]Fox;29371084 said:
That's such a straw man
You want to go to the British public and argue that "It's not so bad, £18,000 isn't even that much money!" then go right ahead mate, be my guest. I know exactly what sort of reception you'll get.
Your point being?
What he says in that clip (paraphrased a little) is that moving money offshore in order to avoid tax, and then not paying tax on that money, is morally wrong. David Cameron apparently did pay tax on his stake in Blairmore. Where's the contradiction?
To change the question; how much tax did David Cameron dodge? According to the PM, the answer to that question is none. With Jimmy Carr, we have a good idea as to how much he (deliberately) avoided paying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,873
- Location
- UK
Yeah but the fund doesn't pay tax as it earns profits offshore, DC only paid tax as the dividends and then on gains in the capital. So it is moving money offshore to avoid paying UK tax.
I think it more interesting he didn't declare his fundholding in the Register of Members' Financial Interests for the 5 years before he sold them. Without the Panama papers it would never have come to light, and worse that he wouldn't admit to them until pushed.
I think it more interesting he didn't declare his fundholding in the Register of Members' Financial Interests for the 5 years before he sold them. Without the Panama papers it would never have come to light, and worse that he wouldn't admit to them until pushed.
Who criticised Gary Barlow et al first...Glass houses and all that. Still, with hindsight Cameron probably wishing he'd kept his gob shut now
Corbyn's having a bad day too
Can't believe no one picked up on the way he said: "put it away".
Instead they are all too busy arguing if was he out of line for... gah that's typical twitter 'conversations'.
If it's found that Dave did tax dodge (lets face it, he's trickle truthing the public now, in another 5 days something else will come out about him whilst he's busy trying to shut the barn doors), can I have what ever amount he dodged by?
That's such a straw man
You want to go to the British public and argue that "It's not so bad, £18,000 isn't even that much money!" then go right ahead mate, be my guest. I know exactly what sort of reception you'll get.
What relevance is that? In terms of investments like this, it's hardly a huge windfall is it. 1300 quid profit per year of investment. He'd have made more money getting a BTL
Hardly multi million dollar ill gotten gains is it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Sure, under normal, plain sailing circumstances, such amounts and tax planning would be a storm in a teacup over in a jiffy. However...
Look at this from the current electorate's point of view, assessing the credibility of their prime minister: 'we are all in this together', austerity, strivers vs skivers, let's go after every tax penny that counts -- no wiggle room, let's open up, let's be transparent about our interests.
Then this: 'Well, tis was a tiny amount, which was under the radar for registration of members' interests anyway; I no longer benefit from it; dad did it; and it's the past now.'
It's bad PR. And trust on taxation issues is hard to win back on technicalities, given our fairly aggressive media.
Look at this from the current electorate's point of view, assessing the credibility of their prime minister: 'we are all in this together', austerity, strivers vs skivers, let's go after every tax penny that counts -- no wiggle room, let's open up, let's be transparent about our interests.
Then this: 'Well, tis was a tiny amount, which was under the radar for registration of members' interests anyway; I no longer benefit from it; dad did it; and it's the past now.'
It's bad PR. And trust on taxation issues is hard to win back on technicalities, given our fairly aggressive media.
[TW]Fox;29371182 said:What relevance is that? In terms of investments like this, it's hardly a huge windfall is it. 1300 quid profit per year of investment. He'd have made more money getting a BTL
Hardly multi million dollar ill gotten gains is it?
Doesn't matter if it's 1p, he looks like a fool because in the past he lectured people publicly on tax avoidance.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron
Why on earth would he do that?
[TW]Fox;29371232 said:
This is the fundamental problem with this nonsense, people don't seem to understand the difference between a unit trust type investment and an EBT. They see trust in the word and think it is the same thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
They shouldn't have to. If you have to explain to people that 'this type of trust is morally okay, but this type of trust is morally wrong even though they're incredibly similar' you've already lost. Cameron's credibility is shot, I don't see him lasting much past the EU ref.
They aren't even similar, you have to explain if people are too stupid to know the difference. It's like lynching someone that works in paediatrics because you think they are a kiddy fiddler