Tax Havens

No Corbyn has not done anything wrong but he did file his tax return late , big deal, not at all. By publicly publishing his tax return, I believe for 1 year?, that is what happened and will be reported. The openness so desired will mean scrutiny and any consequence that follows is part of that process if it is full disclosure.

The 'context' of how that scrutiny is then reported on is the question and using terms such as ' Dodgey '. ' Bodgey' is pathetic in my opinion, when neither Corbyn or Cameron have done anything illegal , unless further information is forth coming to prove differently.

I have given my views on Dave and his fathers tax dodging , I will say rather sweet he defending his father who left one son £200,000 more than his second son .

Duncan's comment like so many 'new money' People was typical of that sort of person, one hears it often, shows a shallow, selfish minded person who cannot understand there are people who care more for their fellow human being than for themselves , we call 'new money' people Jack

The context in which these tax returns were submitted for open scrutiny is what is important.

The issue surely is not about whether DC paid the appropriate taxes when selling his shares. It is about a disconnect between what he says in public and what he does in private, and about what could be considered to be a conflict of interest in that he made representations to the EU to protect offshore trusts.

Accountancy Age, and other media outlets, reported a few days ago:

"DAVID CAMERON continues to be the subject of extreme criticism regarding the Panama Leaks, after it was discovered that the prime minister went out of his way to protect offshore trusts from EU tax avoidance measures.

"........... An apparent supporter of tax transparency, in 2013 Cameron wrote to Herman Van Rompuy, European council president at the time, arguing that offshore trusts should be exempt from an EU clampdown on money laundering, creating a loophole that could be exploited by tax evaders."

Accountancy Age further reported on 11 April:

"According to the Financial Times, Blairmore issued an investment prospectus in 2006 making clear that the fund would not be subject to UK tax on its profits. It said: “The directors intend that the affairs of the fund should be managed and conducted so that it does not become resident in the UK for UK taxation purposes.”

In my view, it is quite possible to do something that many people would consider to be "wrong" without it being illegal. Making pronouncements as to the morality of others while not being exactly squeaky clean yourself, and making official representations on behalf of your country about issues in which you may be considered to have a personal interest may not necessarily be punishable by law but it would still be assumed by many people to be "wrong".

Eloethan you say "It is ridiculous to compare people who quite openly hold ISAs and pensions - as encouraged by the government - to people who hide their money away in tax havens or who use all sorts of devious schemes to avoid paying tax. " I agree, but then I didn't do that did I? I made the point that most people probably have money in offshore accounts, that is all. Please don't decide what I think or mean for me, that is plain wrong.

"lots of people who do offshore also give money to charities, and expect praise for it." I totally disagree and how do you know they "expect praise for it.", totally unreasonable assumption. Many, many people quietly give to charity and don't tell anyone so certainly do not expect praise.

I sometimes wonder if these daft comments say more about the person who makes them than anything else.

The right wing posters still have not answered my question , pity, I only ask for an explanation as to why people hold off shore accounts when they pay their tax in this country - allegedly

Nonnie did say as I do not have oversea investments or a pension I wouldn't understand, so I am asking for it to be explained , thank you

Annie I'm not right wing but have explained that many people have money in offshore accounts even though they don't know they do. I suspect many of the very rich also have their money invested in companies in the UK who invest it offshore and don't know it. My bosses in a huge company had KPMG do their tax every year and I doubt they had a clue what actually happened. DH has no idea where his saving are, he just signs what I give him to sign and he is far from dim, just trusts me to look after the money.

The point is, I think, that doing anything inside the law is OK, I have ISAs on which I pay no tax and it is tax avoidance. DC has been working for some time on getting laws changed to stop tax evasion but can only do it with international cooperation which takes a long time. Recent announcements about what the EU is doing are part of that. It is a shame that previous governments have done nothing about it but at least now something is being done.

It was interesting listening to a phone-in about IHT that one person commented that those who wanted it were the ones who had nothing to be taxed. Those who were against it had enough assets to pay IHT. Human nature, if it is legal to avoid tax people will do it.

I have never avoided paying tax Nonnie, I still do, pay tax, we all have choices and I could not avoid paying tax then declare concern for the homeless or anger at disabled people having their mobility allowance taken off them , I have many faults but hypocrisy is not one

nonnie With regard to your bosses, they are entirely responsible for their accounts and accounting practices. If they were clueless there is no excuse in law should their tax affairs be found wanting. I doubt they were as clueless as you thought they were.

I think I must resign as a Government Minister (other thread) as I once accidentally locked my DC in a car. I would hate that to get out, the press to have a field day and me to be judged as incompetent

White I worked with them so I knew them and therefore think I am the best person to have an opinion on how 'clueless' they were. I agree they were responsible, never said they were not and never said they did anything illegal! Once again I have to correct other's assumptions. It is getting very repetitive.

Annie once again you are back to your personal circumstance and once again you imply that I have said something I haven't. I have not suggested you "avoided paying tax". Tiresome and repetetive.

Nonnie, Investing in foreign companies, as most banks and pension schemes do, is not the same as having money in overseas accounts. I don't know the details of big companies' bank accounts, but I doubt very much whether (for example) Nissan pays its UK workers and suppliers from a Japanese bank. As far as I know, Nissan (and other big companies) pay their taxes in the relevant countries, although their accountants will work hard to pay the right amount (not too much and not too little). As we know, there are some big companies who seem to be pushing it to the limit, eg. Google. The point is that Nissan employees still have to pay tax, as do pension recipients.

Some people with money in so-called tax havens are British, make their money in the UK, but hold money in overseas accounts specifically to avoid UK tax. This isn't the same thing at all.

Holding ISAs isn't tax avoidance. ISAs were set up to be tax-free by the government to encourage people to save by giving a higher rate of interest. They were never intended to be subject to tax.

ISAs are tax avoidance, they are not tax evasion. They were set up to avoid tax, simple.

I do have experience of big companies bank accounts, enough said.

Were any of the following people participants in the phone-in?

www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

Nonnie, no they're not considered tax avoidance. They're tax minimisation, as is claiming legitimate business expenses on a tax return. ISAs were NEVER intended to be taxed, so there's no tax to avoid.

Duncan's comments were truly shocking- and so so wrong. Many of us have been successful in life and very comfortably off- through our very own efforts and hard word, and perhaps fortitude to some extent- and are proud to pay fair taxes.

Shame on him, truly.

Blimey * nonnie* didn't mean to rattle your cage. Like you I am speaking from experience and in my experience, company CEOs etc generally know exactly what is going on. If they don't I would consider them a risk.

People like Duncan matter very little in the scheme of things. He simply showed himself up as someone lacking judgement. Everyone will move on but he will always be judged from those comments, so he is his own worse enemy really.

Nonnie you said 'if people can avoid tax legally, they will ' all I did was say I would not avoid tax. So you were wrong , perhaps it hasn't a cured to you that I am a person , as for tiresome and repetitive , with respect - you too

I meant occurred

Annie 'with respect' (which usually means the opposite) you are the one making assumptions which are tiresome and repetitive, I have not and do not do such a thing. Yet again you take personally something which was not directed at you, a very narrow attitude.

White then we have different experiences, I worked in a very large organisation where the Directors delegated things they didn't need to be directly involved in. There were many such things they left to their trusted advisers. You may consider that to be a risk but I would consider a CEO who couldn't delegate to be a much bigger risk. Micro managing is not possible in a huge company.

ISAs are tax avoidance, they were always intended to be so. Tax avoidance, for those who don't understand, means not paying tax on something which otherwise would be taxable! Simple - other forms of saving are taxable. There are perfectly legal and honourable ways of avoiding tax e.g. buying tools of the trade is tax deductible and I doubt if anyone would object to that.

No I wasn't talking about micro managing that is not the issue when we are talking about risk to the exchequer. As long as there are adequate systems in place to avoid employee fraud and the CEO knows about them, then day to day managing should be left to the employees. What I am talking about is the bigger picture, and whether the CEOs are involved in avoidance or suppression or indeed evasion. That is the problem we need to tackle. This may well be with or without the knowledge of the external auditors, but undoubtedly it is a major issue.

Duh! Tax avoidance means not paying taxes for something on which taxes are due. Taxes were never intended to be paid on ISAs.