Blairs saved £312k in stamp duty deal.

paddyann54

Well brexit WAS pushed through to protect offshore laundering of money .....the EU brought in new laws to stop it in January !THAT was the main reason FOR Brexit and the gullible public bought the lies about the NHS etc etc .

Utter rubbish. Where do these conspiracy theories come from???

Anyone who buys an ISA is avoiding tax legally.

Andrew has close relationship with Crown Estate despot. #PandoraLeaks
independent.co.uk/news/business/news/duke-york-meet-azeri-despot-ilham-aliyev-12th-time-9857222.html

Four years ago when the paradise papers were released the Queen and Prince Charles were shown to be investing offshore. Will these new documents show they’ve stopped or continued their offshore investments?
#abolishthemonarchy

I thought this post was about ‘The Blairs’ not Boris Johnson? I do wish some posters would read the original post. I know Blair and Boris start with the same letter but really?

Yeah, but "Blairs save money in entirely legal manner" pales a bit when faced with "Major Tory Party donor might be a crook".

I can’t see why this is of relevance now. They didn’t do anything illegal, and Tony Blair left power in 2008. There are far more important current issues to exercise angst about surely?

Yeah, but "Blairs save money in entirely legal manner" pales a bit when faced with "Major Tory Party donor might be a crook"

Yeah but the operative word in that post is MIGHT. Blair led us into an illegal war and is a crook. No might about it!

Blair led us into an illegal war and is a crook.

Does that preclude him from legally buying property?

MaizieD

Considering the outcry from some there was recently on a thread about Social Care at the thought of people having to use their 'hard earned money' on social care rather than pass it on to their children it seems to me that the wealthy are protecting 'their' money too, but on a much a much larger scale.

I'm not saying that I approve in any way of what the wealthy do but getting indignant about the Blairs doing something that is currently perfectly legal, seems a bit odd.

There is a good case to be made about the wealthy hoarding resources while much of the world population lives in absolute poverty, but how many posters would do the same if given the opportunity?

I may be misreading, but as someone who has argued on here that access to free social care should be available to all (whether or not they choose to pass anything onto their children), that comes across as rather a nasty comment. Why are 'hard earned money', and 'their' in inverted commas?

That your link between the wealthy hoarding resources (if 'wealthy' describes those with something to leave their children), and most of the world living in absolute poverty is made on an Internet discussion board that is exclusively populated by those with the resources to access the Internet and the spare time to do so (yourself included) is ironic, surely? 40% of the world's population has no internet at all.

As regards the Blairs - I do think it is hypocritical of someone who led the Labour Party to behave like this, whether it is legal or not. The Labour Party stands for a more equal distribution of wealth (which is not, IMO going to be achieved by means-testing the 'just about managing'), and to deliberately avoid paying a significant amount of tax is in conflict with that aim - of course it is.

It may not be fair (or even realistic), but I hold Labour MPs to higher standards than I do Tories, because the ideals they stand for are (IMO) higher. The Tories are all about individuals looking our for themselves, whereas Labour is about looking our for one another. A Tory MP avoiding tax is in keeping with the Tory world view, so whilst I might see it as reprehensible, it isn't hypocritical, whereas a Labour MP doing the same is disappointing on both levels.

You missed 'some' in my first sentence, Doodledog.

Does that alter the principle? I was definitely among those arguing for equal access to free social care.

Doodledog

Does that alter the principle? I was definitely among those arguing for equal access to free social care.

Well, it does in my eyes when I took particular care not to generalise my comment to everyone who posted on that thread.

I'm not sure what to make of that?

I'm also not sure that it matters who said it, though. The suggestion is that those who object to an unequal system of social care have no right to criticise the Blairs.

I do object, and I also criticise, but I do both from the perspective of a Labour supporter, and don't see any conflict there.

Casdon

I can’t see why this is of relevance now. They didn’t do anything illegal, and Tony Blair left power in 2008. There are far more important current issues to exercise angst about surely?

Exactly! And of course, it is no great co-incidence that this non story is released on the day of the Tory party conference. I look forward to some tabloid stories about Corbyn; maybe not declaring the profits from the sales of his allotment produce?

The whole thing has definitely been reported now to take the heat off the awkward questions that will be asked in the interviews around the Tory Conference.

^ The suggestion is that those who object to an unequal system of social care have no right to criticise the Blairs.^

No, Doodledog, it was those who wanted to hang onto their money come what may.

I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way. I generally agree with your views on how society should work.

Doodledog

The whole thing has definitely been reported now to take the heat off the awkward questions that will be asked in the interviews around the Tory Conference.

I think that the Blairs' angle been picked up by the RW press to deflect from the corrupt tory donor.

Yup. And the Queen picking up the bill for PA's legal fees.

Some background to counter the Brexit argument.

On 28 January 2016 the EU Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164. The end of the implementation period was 31 December 2020. The UK left the EU at the end of 31 January 2020.

The directive changes practice regarding:

Controlled foreign company (CFC) rule: to deter profit shifting to a low/no tax country.

Switchover rule: to prevent double non-taxation of certain income.

Exit taxation: to prevent companies from avoiding tax when re-locating assets.

Interest limitation: to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes.

General anti-abuse rule (GAAR): to counteract aggressive tax planning when other rules don’t apply.

I don’t know the fine details of the 2017 Blair transaction but at the very least it might have come under the general anti-abuse rule had the transaction been subject to EU law. However, and again I haven’t examined the directive, it would be unusual for tax legislation to be retroactive.

Tax planners knowing of the EU proposals predating the UK referendum, may have apprised their clients of such, who may have voted accordingly but the UK is perfectly at liberty to tighten up on its own anti-avoidance legislation and has been doing so e.g. the Finance Act 2016 and GAAR 2017.

Much of the referendum debate was about sovereignty. The UK has always had sovereignty over how it taxes UK residents and overseas nationals domiciled here - as it also had over so many things that the general public did not think it had sovereignty over - such as immigration and border control but that’s another issue.

The Blair transaction seems, prima facie, to have nothing to so with EU legislation so Brexit is a red herring in this case. They took advantage of legal loopholes in UK tax legislation using a British tax haven.

I agree entirely with the last two paragraphs of Doodledog’s post regarding the expectation of higher standards from a Labour Party minister - which is sad indictment in itself of how so many of us think about the people who currently govern us.

Lincslass

paddyann54

Well brexit WAS pushed through to protect offshore laundering of money .....the EU brought in new laws to stop it in January !THAT was the main reason FOR Brexit and the gullible public bought the lies about the NHS etc etc .

Utter rubbish. Where do these conspiracy theories come from???

Oh FGS! There is no conspiracy theory here!

MaizieD

Doodledog

The whole thing has definitely been reported now to take the heat off the awkward questions that will be asked in the interviews around the Tory Conference.

I think that the Blairs' angle been picked up by the RW press to deflect from the corrupt tory donor.

Exactly - I am NOT at all excusing what the Blairs did- find it despicable, even if it was legal and also immoral.

But it was legal, a long time ago and all done and dusted. So why now.

And tiddly winks, compared to what has been going on recently.

As far as I knew savings on Stamp Duty was common practice in the City back in the day. It wasn’t actually illegal.

Still is Rosie, just happens to be more common in London where people, typically from abroad, buy expensive properties using a company and the next buyer gets the stamp duty benefit. When I was practising as a property lawyer in the City I saw quite a lot of it. Would any of us, looking to buy a property (please no bricks in reply saying you can’t afford to buy, that’s not what my question is about) then finding it was owned not by Joe Bloggs who showed you round but by his company, and we could save stamp duty by buying the company, walk away because it is ‘immoral’? I certainly wouldn’t if I wanted that house and the company was ‘clean’.

Ah. How sweet. The socialists are bending over backwards to lend support to their ex leader Tony Blair.

If you mean me, Kapitan, you’ve got my politics badly wrong I’m afraid.