Geoffrey Cox

Germanshepherdsmum If you think Dickens had a miserable supervisor, I'm afraid you don't seem to realise that that kind of attitude isn't unusual.

Dickens

What a miserable supervisor you had. I doubt that was a happy office.

As regards Cox, if he had a video conference scheduled he had the option of going to his chambers for it (much nicer than his parliamentary office I’m sure) and taking time away from the House, or doing the conference between parliamentary duties and therefore being present in the House for much longer. He chose the latter, thereby prioritising his public duties over his private work. I fully support that choice.

Germanshepherdsmum

I understand the point you are making about QCs commanding high fees, so there is no logical reason why Cox should not expect to be rewarded accordingly for his services.

But if, as alleged, he used his Parliamentary office and, presumably, Parliamentary time, then that is an issue.

I once worked as a 'temp' for a company in London and was caught filling out my agency time-sheet 10 minutes before the official lunch-break - I was reprimanded by the supervisor and told "you do not do your private work in the company's time". I was told to deduct 15 minutes from my hours worked. A bit petty, but the principle is sound - I was being paid to do a job, as is Cox... and we the taxpayers are paying him.

My (then) lowly status as a shorthand-typist / translator, compared to Cox's esteemed role as a QC should make no difference to the principle.

Accountancy firms make huge amounts of money helping companies to plan their tax, and in particular devising tax avoidance schemes. These schemes should always be submitted to HMRC for approval, if not they run the risk of being found not complying with tax rules. That is a risk some tax avoiders appear to be willing to undertake. It is their decision. But it is a risk and it is no good moaning if the avoidance is later found to be breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse I’m afraid.

If you are planning to use a know tax avoidance scheme, you should take advise before you do. Accountants should if they are any good know if the scheme has HMRC approval.

I know very well the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.

But there have been many cases over the years where people placed their money into investments that they honestly believed were legal tax avoidance investments, only to have the HMRC, usually years later, decide that these schemes are evasion.

Deliberate tax evasion is evasion, but there is a clear rule of law, that people are innocent of any crime until proved guilty. That includes murderers, rapists and tax evaders.

The really sad thing is that HMRC worked closely with European countries over tax evasion during our membership through a particular scheme know as Fiscalis, which allowed officers to engage, travel to other European countries and share information. This proved both informative and preventative of evasion. It was an excellent scheme, and proved extremely lucrative for tax revenue.

M0nica

If I do something I believe is tax avoidance and legal, and someone says it is evasion. It only crosses the line of legal avoidance to illegal evasion, when the claim is legally proven.

Tax evasion is a deliberate act of avoiding tax by illegal means.

Companies such as the one we are talking about will be absolutely clear of the difference between avoidance and evasion.

They constantly take advise over tax matters.

If I do something I believe is tax avoidance and legal, and someone says it is evasion. It only crosses the line of legal avoidance to illegal evasion, when the claim is legally proven.

M0nica

'Accused' is not evasion. if convicted, it is evasion. Until then it is avoidance on the basis of innocent until proved guilty.

No it isn’t avoidance. They are quite distinct things, and should never be conflated.

M0nica

Evasion, WWM2 or avoidance? If it was evasion the HMRC would be onto him by now.

The fact that the company has evaded €millions suggests rather that the crime was committed in Europe.

Don’t you agree?

From the article in my link:

"Court papers obtained by the Guardian show tax inspectors ordered two property companies owned by the Goldsmith family to pay €24m (£20m) in unpaid taxes and fines after investigating what they said was a suspicious property deal.

The tax authority’s findings have been upheld by one of Spain’s highest courts, with judges agreeing the companies effectively engaged in a deliberate effort to evade tax and committed “serious” violations of the law."

That's more than an accusation. The Spanish court has ruled he owes the money, but he's appealing.

'Accused' is not evasion. if convicted, it is evasion. Until then it is avoidance on the basis of innocent until proved guilty.

M0nica

Evasion, WWM2 or avoidance? If it was evasion the HMRC would be onto him by now.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/12/boris-johnson-holiday-villa-linked-to-zac-goldsmith-firms-accused-of-tax-evasion

"It is growing clearer by the day that this government does not have a mandate to undercut high environmental standards in any new trade deals.

Just five days ago, the European Movement published exclusive research showing that voters from all parties – and especially Conservative voters – want to make sure imported food is produced to the same environmental and animal welfare standards that we uphold in the UK.

We are putting Conservative MPs on notice that their constituents oppose any attempts to undercut the UK’s animal welfare and environmental standards.
Earlier this year, the Conservatives were beaten in Chesham & Amersham as a result of a mass haemorrhage of votes from its ‘Blue Wall’.

Now, the European Movement is focusing on Conservative MPs in the ‘Blue Wall’ and making clear that if they don’t act to protect UK standards, it could cost them votes at the next election. This includes:

•Producing specialised digital adverts aimed at 44 Conservative MPs and building our movement in their constituencies;
•Organising targeted actions during COP26 to put the government’s environmental credentials under the spotlight;
•Focusing on high profile Conservatives in farming communities, including Environment Secretary George Eustice in Cornwall.

With this government mired in scandal there is every reason for Conservative MPs to consider our arguments, and our research has shown that it can make a real impact. We will spare no resources to make the biggest impact and ensure that the government changes course on this issue, but we need your help."

Dominic Grieve

www.europeanmovement.co.uk/

Evasion, WWM2 or avoidance? If it was evasion the HMRC would be onto him by now.

Evasion of €24million btw,

Goldsmiths company that owns the villa that provided Johnson with a holiday has been done for tax evasion.

Clearly lying in the House to deceive is against the rules, and Johnson has done this on so many occasions they can't possible be listed here.

Liam Fox is the Conservative MP for North Somerset.

This year he has earned £10,000 from a PR firm based in the tax haven of Panama for a total of zero hours' work.
He also received a £10,000 donation from Alexander Temerko, a Russian-born British citizen with an extensive business empire, mostly specialising in oil and gas. Temerko was a Russian defence minister in the 1990s.

These might well be within the rules, but I wonder if they are the sort of second source of income that most constituents imagine?

Germanshepherdsmum

Please itemise the alleged breaches of parliamentary rules Kali.

Is that for Patel and Johnson? Bullying and proroguing parliament spring to mind.

Please itemise the alleged breaches of parliamentary rules Kali.

Who are these ‘some’ people? Can’t say I’ve noticed anyone saying they support any racist remarks or have donated money.

So should Patel and Johnson, just to mention a couple, 'take the consequences' as they have clearly broken Parliamentary rules, Johnson on a regular and repeated basis?

No lemon, Farage is a lot more than a TV presenter, tragically- he led a very racist campaign recently and supported leaving the EU for all the wrong reasons. Some people here clearly support his racist views and his politics, and some have even said they supported his campaign with their financial donations.