The Truth Behind Traingate

But it didn't "prove him a liar" Primrose65 it was an attempt that failed but only because of the vigilance of one documentary film maker and it took 7 months (are you really as dim as you seem or is it just deflection?)

Oh!

So I suspect however that you did not correctly read my post.

"Virgin Care's financial set-up is very complicated and active companies include Virgin Care Services Ltd, Virgin Care Ltd, VH Community Services Ltd, Virgin Care Corporate Services Ltd and several limited liability partnerships (LLPs). For example, the contract in Devon is with Virgin Care Ltd, whereas the contracts in Surrey and Staffordshire are with Virgin Care Services Ltd and the contracts in Croydon and Hastings area are with Virgin Care Provider Services Ltd. The primary Care contracts are with a number of different LLPs, including Virgin Care Coventry LLP, Virgin Care Leeds LLP and Virgin Care Liverpool LLP. In the year to end March 2016 there were at least 13 active LLPs.

Each limited company and LLP reports its turnover individually, however they are all subsidiaries of Virgin Care Ltd, which in turn is a subsidiary of the holding company Virgin Healthcare Holdings Ltd.

The combined turnover of the companies for the year ending March 2016 was over £215 million. According to the companies accounts not a single one of these companies paid tax in this year. The holding company Virgin Healthcare Holdings Ltd reported a loss of £1.4 million for this year and no tax was paid.


Virgin Care Ltd is registered in the UK, however, an analysis by Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant at Tax Research UK, found 13 holding companies, some of them offshore, between Virgin Care and its ultimate parent company, Virgin Group Holdings Ltd based in the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands. Virgin Group Holdings Ltd’s principal beneficiaries are Sir Richard Branson, reported to have a net worth of £2.7bn, and his family. According to Murphy’s analysis, this type of company structure makes it unlikely that Virgin Care will pay any tax in the UK in the foreseeable future."

On NHS for Sale website.

why did I put 2017? Duh

My last post was to primrose

trisher I think you are confused. I was quoting your post and I said I didn't understand how that explained your argument.

You are now throwing your own explanation back at me and calling me dim!

ww What didn't I correctly read?

My post

Legally avoiding paying tax is a game and it's a game that governments, including Labour ones, encourage because it actually has benefits for encouraging business and enterprise. Why would governments allow it if it were not beneficial in some way?

Tax evasion is a crime. Has anyone any evidence that Branson evades paying taxes he should, by law, be paying?

The information dj has given, if correct, is presumably all within the law or people would be charged with tax evasion.

People in those companies: directors, CEO or whoever is suppose to make sure tax demanded by governments is paid.

bags a game that business is willing to invest enormous amounts of money in.

I think the topic of "any global conglomerates" not avoiding taxes is very relevant. I don't think tax avoidance is something single governments can do much about without losing out.

A game that costs the British tax payer like you and me a lot of money and time challenging the various tax avoidance schemes.

Aggressive tax avoidance is in my opinion, highly immoral.

Yes, ww. But maybe the ability to avoid paying a lot of tax is something that helps business and enterprise and that's why it gets allowed by tax laws all over the world.

I used to think it immoral too. Nowadays I'm not so sure. I don't think it's a simple black and white issue.

I know Baggs. This thread has become a dystopian horrow show. It's like being covered in a tsunami of b******t and ignorance whilst someone stands on the sidelines shouting 'opinions not based on facts are prejudice'.

There are many schemes that have been successfully challenged and continue to be successfully challenged.

OK * primrose* if you are suggesting my posts are bigoted and ignorant I suggest you first reply to my request about reading my post correctly and then we can have a sensible conversation about tax

Aggressive tax avoidance is definitely NOT a black and white issue

primrose OK let me start you off.

I will assume that you have re-read my post about right tax right time - and now understand that the figures you posted are a result if you misunderstanding what I was saying.

I accept you apology not with standing.

I can go a lot further if you wish and outline exactly what I mean.

My current feeling is that making 'aggressive' tax avoidance illegal might actually cost us more in lost entrepreneurship, lost wealth creation, less business, fewer jobs for plebs like you and me.

The UK's biggest firms will have to say how much their top executives get paid, in the interests of transparency.

I have been looking at different Virgin companies, and came across a Virgin Greenfund, which will invest in renewable energy companies providing they can prove a 20% return on investment.
Personally I think it's greenwash. If he's that concerned about the environment, he could just stop Virgin planes.
I also think it's greenwash because it's impossible to get on the website. Can anyone?
It's virgingreenfund.com

I am sorry but I entirely disagree with that statement bags

It is a line that corporations like to spin, but bears no reality to the truth I am afraid.

On the other hand stopping people who aggressively avoid paying tax in this country bidding for public franchises and syphoning money out the NHS and railways might at least make a proper health system affordable. Or do you really think it's OK to avoid tax, take public subsidies and pay huge dividends to share holders?