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

MaizieD I am impressed with your argument. Very good indeed .
Much better subject to go with.

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?

Oh dear! I'm well aware that there's a lot more going on in the world!

That doesn't mean that this should be swept under the carpet.

Not once have I criticised Zahawi for founding a successful company. All I'm saying is that he hasn't been entirely honest about his own tax affairs. If he's made a genuine mistake, all he has to do is to apologise and explain what happened. If he really didn't owe the money, it seems strange that he's voluntarily paid up.

If he's acted legally, there will still be people who think offshore arrangements are immoral. It's up to the government to change the law. As we live in a democracy, it's up to his constituents to make their feelings clear - and I hope they will. Ultimately, voters do have the power to influence how their country is run and they should be aware of the behaviour of people they elect.

Zahawi was (briefly) Chancellor and was in a position to affect the lives of every single one of us. We have the right to elect people who will behave morally.

ronib

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.

However competent HMRC don’t forget that they are restricted both by resource, politics and the various regs.

What has made me very suspicious is the fact that theses cases generally/always take for ever to resolve, and yet this case seems to have been sorted in a few months.

It all stinks.

MaizieD does wealth addiction extend to partners in Magic Circle law firms?

Where do you start with this concept? Footballers, celebrities, or lawyers and accountants?

Not all partners in Magic Circle firms.

Money and greed are at the root of all that is going wrong with this country. If those with wealth gave their financial support to those who truly care, the whole system would be run for the benefit of us all. Instead of which, everyone is self-serving and out to put their own interests first.

Whitewavemark2 my brother was a very experienced inspector of taxes and he wasn’t corrupt.. so does the comment it all stinks apply across the board? Does it stink? Or are you, along with most on this forum not in possession of the full facts? It’s so easy for the movers and shakers to really spin it.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not all partners in Magic Circle firms.

Does that mean only some?

growstuff

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?

Oh dear! I'm well aware that there's a lot more going on in the world!

That doesn't mean that this should be swept under the carpet.

Not once have I criticised Zahawi for founding a successful company. All I'm saying is that he hasn't been entirely honest about his own tax affairs. If he's made a genuine mistake, all he has to do is to apologise and explain what happened. If he really didn't owe the money, it seems strange that he's voluntarily paid up.

If he's acted legally, there will still be people who think offshore arrangements are immoral. It's up to the government to change the law. As we live in a democracy, it's up to his constituents to make their feelings clear - and I hope they will. Ultimately, voters do have the power to influence how their country is run and they should be aware of the behaviour of people they elect.

Zahawi was (briefly) Chancellor and was in a position to affect the lives of every single one of us. We have the right to elect people who will behave morally.

Couldn't have said it better, thanks. This, end of!

There is NOTHING wrong at all in being very successful, building a very sucessful business/financial portfolio, etc, etc.

But if and when you do - you pay your taxes. Quite simple, really.

This even more so, if you are in Governement!

ronib

Whitewavemark2 my brother was a very experienced inspector of taxes and he wasn’t corrupt.. so does the comment it all stinks apply across the board? Does it stink? Or are you, along with most on this forum not in possession of the full facts? It’s so easy for the movers and shakers to really spin it.

I am not saying that HMRC is corrupt!

What I am saying is that the whole episode stinks.

Don’t make too many assumptions about my past employment, and ignorance of the system.

ronib

Germanshepherdsmum

Not all partners in Magic Circle firms.

Does that mean only some?

Which ones GSM? Please explain.

What about those who are not- but are fully aware of those who are? At what point does closing eyes to wrong-doings becomes aiding and abetting (sp?) ?

I don’t know what you mean Fp. The post was about wealth addiction. I was not addicted but of course some people are. It isn’t a crime to want to amass wealth. It is nothing to do with closing eyes to wrongdoing. You only aid and abet if you knowingly assist someone to commit a criminal offence. I hope this isn’t turning into bashing highly paid professionals who do not engage in criminality, simply because they are high earners.

ronib

Whitewavemark2 my brother was a very experienced inspector of taxes and he wasn’t corrupt.. so does the comment it all stinks apply across the board? Does it stink? Or are you, along with most on this forum not in possession of the full facts? It’s so easy for the movers and shakers to really spin it.

So it should be easy for Zahawi to give the public the full facts and then we can all forget about it!

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t know what you mean Fp. The post was about wealth addiction. I was not addicted but of course some people are. It isn’t a crime to want to amass wealth. It is nothing to do with closing eyes to wrongdoing. You only aid and abet if you knowingly assist someone to commit a criminal offence. I hope this isn’t turning into bashing highly paid professionals who do not engage in criminality, simply because they are high earners.

Not in my case, it isn't.

If he is paying all the tax due, and we have no evidence of tax evasion, what is the problem? Assumptions which suit some agendas have been made. As a lawyer I was trained to have an open mind and look for admissible evidence.

What I conclude is that when any high profile political figure is involved in a discussion about tax then Inland Revenue will act faster than usual to mitigate any political fallout. It might be damage limitation to the reputation of the person involved. I don’t know that it’s wise to demand the publication of tax decisions and payments. It wouldn’t stop with politicians and it might embarrass if applied across the board.

Are you allowed to bash the basher who made a very significant amount as a tax lawyer ? Obviously paying all taxes but without publication of course.

Well then let’s look at the questions that HMRC will be asking shall we?

1. Why did Zahawi initially give a provably false explanation for the Balshore shares, that his father provided startup capital.

2. Why did Zahawi subsequently give a second, different, explanation, that his father provided valuable advice in exchange for the shares? And why is it so contrary to common-sense, usual practice, and the evidence?

3. If Zahawi’s second explanation is true, why was no VAT paid on the valuable services provided by his father to him?

4. Why did Zahawi deny that he benefited from the trust, when we know that he did?

5. Was this a tax avoidance scheme? If not, what was going on?

6. When a UK person receives a gift from a trust, that is normally taxable. Did Zahawi pay UK tax on the gift from the trust? If not, why not?

7. Zahawi says he took a loan from a Gibraltar company. He should have paid (“withheld”) UK tax on his interest payments. Did he?

8. Why is that same loan not recorded in the Gibraltar company accounts?

9. Zahawi has taken a series of loans from offshore companies. Were these funded from dividends and gains on the Balshore shares? If they were, did Zahawi pay UK tax on this?

For further in depth information look at Tax Policy Associates.

If Zahawi has nothing to hide, I suggest he makes his tax affairs as transparent as possible to show that he indeed is paying all tax due in the U.K.

Whitewavemark2 I place my trust firmly in the camp of Inland Revenue over Tax Policy Associates. I cannot imagine for one moment that Inland Revenue would not have gone over the details very carefully.

Even if we did have access to the information I doubt, as non professionals we would be any the wiser.

GSM says . It isn’t a crime to want to amass wealth..

No, it's not a crime in our state and in many others, but there's a helluva discussion implicit in this as to the purpose of 'money', how it should be distributed, what the function of the state, which creates the 'money' should be, even the 'meaning of life' ...

But it's not a discussion that people have much interest in having.

ronib

Whitewavemark2 I place my trust firmly in the camp of Inland Revenue over Tax Policy Associates. I cannot imagine for one moment that Inland Revenue would not have gone over the details very carefully.

Even if we did have access to the information I doubt, as non professionals we would be any the wiser.

Oh dear, of course I can’t use/second guess the HMRC case, and as a retired tax inspector neither will I.

I quoted the above to give people a flavour of the sort of questions one needs answers to. Of course far more evidence is used in the final decision/agreement.

Germanshepherdsmum

If he is paying all the tax due, and we have no evidence of tax evasion, what is the problem? Assumptions which suit some agendas have been made. As a lawyer I was trained to have an open mind and look for admissible evidence.

The problem is that the tax was due- and that he tried to avoid it, whatever you call it. He is only paying now because he has been found out. THAT is the BIG problem.

How can we trust a system where the VERY rich are advised by Financial Advisors to do 'xyz' to avoid millions of taxes, with the proviso that 'don't worry, if you get caught, you can just pay it and that will be it!'

Absolutely MaisieD

It was on the bbc this morning