Is it OK to break the law if you are a Tory?

It’s entirely possible that he was badly advised and had no intention to evade payment of tax. We don’t know. He’s been in a dispute with HMRC and is settling. I’ve never been a fan of the man and yes he’s filthy rich and a Tory, but I know of no evidence of attempted tax evasion, as opposed to avoidance. We don’t have sufficient evidence and HMRC never comment on individuals unless they are prosecuted.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s entirely possible that he was badly advised and had no intention to evade payment of tax. We don’t know. He’s been in a dispute with HMRC and is settling. I’ve never been a fan of the man and yes he’s filthy rich and a Tory, but I know of no evidence of attempted tax evasion, as opposed to avoidance. We don’t have sufficient evidence and HMRC never comment on individuals unless they are prosecuted.

If it was avoidance, the scheme would have been presented to HMRC for approval.

Not if the adviser considered it a perfectly legitimate arrangement, not a novel avoidance scheme. We just don’t know but it’s easy to speculate.

Yes, of course, and the other one's got bells on!

You have no proof either way, any more than I do.

he lied about his dealings with those people- why would he if he had nothing to hide. Why would he suddenly pay 3 million in a hurry. Come on!

You obviously have great insight. Lying?

Yes he did. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck

He clearly did in an earlier interview with Burley. Clear as a bell. And so much more

here is an interesting link

www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/09/21/zahawi_hide/

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s entirely possible that he was badly advised and had no intention to evade payment of tax. We don’t know. He’s been in a dispute with HMRC and is settling. I’ve never been a fan of the man and yes he’s filthy rich and a Tory, but I know of no evidence of attempted tax evasion, as opposed to avoidance. We don’t have sufficient evidence and HMRC never comment on individuals unless they are prosecuted.

He did say in answer to a direct question that he didn't benefit in any way from the money in an offshore account. Nevertheless, it would appear that he's now paying tax on this money (CGT?), so why's he doing that, if what he was doing was legal and, moreover, he didn't benefit from it? Something doesn't add up.

Laws that apply to us ordinary folk, clearly do not apply to Tory politicians.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not if the adviser considered it a perfectly legitimate arrangement, not a novel avoidance scheme. We just don’t know but it’s easy to speculate.

Then his advisor was not worth his salt was he? A good accountant is absolutely on top of the tax avoidance schemes.

HMRC do not approve of tax avoidance schemes, however there is a list of schemes on request from HMRC. If there is any doubt then Zahawi’s advisor would/should have sought advice.

Zahawi was a U.K. chancellor for heavens sake! I do not believe that the advisor was so incompetent. A COP 8 is not undertaken lightly

“Bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.”

HMRC

Zahawi would recognise this and in normal circumstances, as chancellor, would take extra care that his tax affairs were absolutely above board.

But these are not normal times are they?

Whether or not he was a Chancellor , he was a Tory politician and therefore thought the the rules which apply to us normal ordinary folk. never ever applied to him

I think people are biased because of who he is.

I have already said that I have never particularly liked him, but I accord him the same benefit of the doubt as anyone else. None of us knows the facts of the matter. Everyone is merely speculating. I have no idea of the facts. Nor does any other poster.

My last word on this.

varian

Laws that apply to us ordinary folk, clearly do not apply to Tory politicians.

They don’t apply to anyone who knows how to work the system, whatever party or even no party at all.
Just checking on the generalisation / exaggeration front;
Is that all Tory politicians?
And you know that’s true because . . .

We DO KNOW he LIED. And he is a Minister of the Realm.

Maybe not all Tory politicians but the party is so corrupt that mud sticks even to the few who may not be corrupt.

You probably did not read the link above.

''And so is the Balshore arrangement. The more I think about the structure, the less it looks like tax avoidance. The problem is, there are lots of rules that stop you simply giving your shares to an offshore trust, and then taking money from the trust.4 HMRC aren’t that dumb. You’ll end up paying the tax. The structure only saves tax if you keep everything hidden from HMRC. But if Zahawi did that, then he wasn’t avoiding tax at all… it was simple tax evasion. ''

Germanshepherdsmum

I think people are biased because of who he is.

I have already said that I have never particularly liked him, but I accord him the same benefit of the doubt as anyone else. None of us knows the facts of the matter. Everyone is merely speculating. I have no idea of the facts. Nor does any other poster.

My last word on this.

If you mean that I expect certain behaviour from our elected politicians, and in particular ministers of the U.K. , then the answer is a resounding YES. To that extent I am biased.

There is no doubt that HMRC have investigated Zahawi. There is no doubt that he appears to have employed a third rate advisor.

IMO all politicians should be entirely transparent over their tax affairs. There is far too much smoke and mirrors out there. There is also no doubt that Zahawi has tried threats to prevent this information coming to the attention of the voter, and has used so called libel lawyers to issue these threats. Threats which he knows can never be followed through.

This is what I mean when I say that we do not live in normal times

“our last 3 chancellors...

1) Javid exploited non-dom tax loophole

2) Zahawi to pay millions to HMRC to settle tax dispute

3) Sunak refuses to say if he has benefited from wife’s non-dom status”

Whitemark2 I have just woken up thanking my lucky stars that I don’t live in Scotland under the SNP.

Did we ever have normal times?

ronib

Whitemark2 I have just woken up thanking my lucky stars that I don’t live in Scotland under the SNP.

Did we ever have normal times?

What does that have to do with Zahawi's tax?

Growstuff there’s a lot more stuff going on in the world than repeating endlessly that a government minister has paid his tax bill. All credit to him for getting up and founding a successful company and all the better for his contribution to the tax pot which is very much larger than our contributions here. Just think of all the teachers he has funded!

Maybe it’s getting tedious?

ronib

Growstuff there’s a lot more stuff going on in the world than repeating endlessly that a government minister has paid his tax bill. All credit to him for getting up and founding a successful company and all the better for his contribution to the tax pot which is very much larger than our contributions here. Just think of all the teachers he has funded!

Maybe it’s getting tedious?

As taxation doesn't fund spending your admiration for a man who sucks state issued money out of the economy and squirrels it away where it is doing nothing to benefit anyone is entirely misplaced. (not even himself, being too tightfisted to spend his own money unless forced to. Remember him claiming parliamentary expenses, public money, for heating his stables?)

Reading the thread on the avaricious care home magnate had me musing on the contradictory nature of people's strange support of the wealthy. One minute they're applauding the acquisition of wealth by whatever means, the next minute they're condemning it... 🤔

Well then MaizieD just think how happy we are to hear that he has paid about £4 million or so back into the Exchequer. More than we have given over a lifetime. Amply reimburses £6k for heating his stables.

Doesn’t mean that we don’t have an ever widening gap of the very wealthy and the poorest which at Davos even the super rich have called out.

Inland revenue has very competent tax inspectors and it is unlikely that they have settled taxes wrongly despite the constant hammering away to say that they have.

I'd be happier to hear that he'd sucked less out of the economy to start with.

I'm not in the least impressed that the 'super rich' have called out the ever widening equality gap. They created it in the first place and I doubt they have any intention of changing their addiction to wealth acquisition in oder to do anything meaningful to change it. Reverence for wealth and a firm belief in the supremacy of 'the market' will take aeons to shift.