Does anyone believe Nadhim Zahawi?

Dinahmo

Whitewavemark2

As an aside.

Accountancy partnership, particularly the biggest ones, put huge resources into devising tax avoidance schemes that would be accepted by the revenue.

Once it is accepted they can flog this scheme to anyone who would benefit at enormous cost.

You can't blame the accountants though. They are doing what is within the law. The laws need to be changed but with the current wealthy front benchers that isn't going to happen.

Of course you can

Type of behaviour You told HMRC HMRC found the error
('unprompted disclosure') ('prompted behaviour')
Reasonable care No penalty No penalty
Careless 0% to 30% 15% to 30%
Deliberate 20% to 70% 35% to 70%
Deliberate and concealed 30% to 100% 50% to 100%

that is not legal tax 'avoidance' and the accountants know it well.

Totally agree Dinahmo but it’s not just the current front bench, Labour were in power for three terms previously and done zilch to close any tax avoidance loop holes.

There appears to be no appetite once in power to do so.

Let me remind you, GG13, of something I posted on the previous thread about this. Zahawi came into government saying that tax avoidance was wrong, that labour had done nothing about it and that he was going to sort it out...

YouGov was started in 2000; that's when the Founders Shares which were his, were 'given to the offshore trust and he has claimed that he had no benefit from them, though it has been proved that he accepted at least one payment of several thousand pounds from the trust.

He knew he was planning to avoid the tax right from the start.

He needs to go and not to be defended or excused.

Sorry, I got my facts about what Zahawi said a bit wrong. Here is the tweet from 2015. When he knew he was avoiding tax.

I'm finding it deeply ironic that you are actually following his 'Labour didn't do anything about tax avoidance' line.

No I doubt he even believes himself

MaizieD

^Totally agree Dinahmo but it’s not just the current front bench, Labour were in power for three terms previously and done zilch to close any tax avoidance loop holes.^

There appears to be no appetite once in power to do so.

Let me remind you, GG13, of something I posted on the previous thread about this. Zahawi came into government saying that tax avoidance was wrong, that labour had done nothing about it and that he was going to sort it out...

YouGov was started in 2000; that's when the Founders Shares which were his, were 'given to the offshore trust and he has claimed that he had no benefit from them, though it has been proved that he accepted at least one payment of several thousand pounds from the trust.

He knew he was planning to avoid the tax right from the start.

He needs to go and not to be defended or excused.

I have not defended him or excused him.

If there is a case to answer he should have his day in Court, if found guilty he should face the consequences of the law.

I am not party to his or anyone’s tax affairs as in the U.K. they remain private.

MaizieD

Sorry, I got my facts about what Zahawi said a bit wrong. Here is the tweet from 2015. When he knew he was avoiding tax.

I'm finding it deeply ironic that you are actually following his 'Labour didn't do anything about tax avoidance' line.

Not at all, unfortunately it’s a fact that neither of the main parties have done much if anything to close tax avoidance loopholes

I have never been a fan of NZ before or since the latest headlines.

(Anyone who heats their stables needs their head examined, throw an extra rug on the horse/s)

If there is a case to answer he should have his day in Court, if found guilty he should face the consequences of the law.

well, this is the very point. And what so many so strongly object o, is that, currently, they have no intention of him facing the law. He threatened thos who exposed him, and paid up in the hope we would forget. he must face the Law

as you agree.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

Totally agree Dinahmo but it’s not just the current front bench, Labour were in power for three terms previously and done zilch to close any tax avoidance loop holes.

There appears to be no appetite once in power to do so.

Let me remind you, GG13, of something I posted on the previous thread about this. Zahawi came into government saying that tax avoidance was wrong, that labour had done nothing about it and that he was going to sort it out...

YouGov was started in 2000; that's when the Founders Shares which were his, were 'given to the offshore trust and he has claimed that he had no benefit from them, though it has been proved that he accepted at least one payment of several thousand pounds from the trust.

He knew he was planning to avoid the tax right from the start.

He needs to go and not to be defended or excused.

I have not defended him or excused him.

If there is a case to answer he should have his day in Court, if found guilty he should face the consequences of the law.

I am not party to his or anyone’s tax affairs as in the U.K. they remain private.

What was this little bit of 'whataboutery' about, then?

Totally agree Dinahmo but it’s not just the current front bench, Labour were in power for three terms previously and done zilch to close any tax avoidance loop holes.

We're not talking about what Labour didn't do. We're talking about what Zahawi said while he was knowingly avoiding tax. He was applauding his own party for passing some law on tax avoidance.

If there is a case to answer he should have his day in Court, if found guilty he should face the consequences of the law.

He's had his day in the 'court' of the HMRC. He was penalised for his attempt at tax avoidance. He won't go to any other court because avoidance isn't illegal.

You are excusing him....

To answer your question- no I don't believe him..
who would?

MaizieD I AM NOT EXCUSING HIM

Yes I have used internet shouty letters

You are basically accusing HMRC of being corrupt because they fined him as opposed to prosecution. Unless you are an expert on U.K. tax law and can prove otherwise I shall respect HMRC’s decision.

I have repeatedly posted that I would have preferred to see NZ in court but I doubt very much that it will happen.

He won't be charged with anything, HMRC have made their decision and he has paid the penalty together with the tax he owed. I find it difficult to believe that he wasn't aware that he was avoiding tax but if he wasn't, I don't think he's suitable for high office as he should have known and if he knew he was trying to avoid tax he's still not suitable for high office. IMO he's cooked, (should there be an "r" there?) and needs to resign or Sunak should sack him. I am heartily sick of these self serving politicians and the Conservatives should do what's right. Pleased to IDS prepared to speak up.

I would have thought you are either entirely innocent or you have to be charged and appear in court. This is how the law works for everyone. He shouldn’t be an exception.

Silvergirl

I would have thought you are either entirely innocent or you have to be charged and appear in court. This is how the law works for everyone. He shouldn’t be an exception.

This. He has to go to Court, not just have a word with HMRC, pay up a bit, and walk.

If you say that the above is OK, you are excusing him.

I agree with you Fleurpepper. I must not have made myself clear. I believe he is as guilty as sin.

I'm pretty sure if he's been found guilty of a careless mistake as long as he pays the outstanding amount + the penalty he's in the clear, same as any other person.

It just beggars belief that the country is being run by people who make so many careless mistakes.

We only have his word that it was a careless mistake. He would say that wouldn’t he?

Revenue have not commented

Do l? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Foxie48. Think you may find there will be lots of “careless mistakes” made among the wealthy. On balance, it would be worth the risk of making a “careless mistake” if you can easily pay the penalty.

I also believe the earth is flat..🤓

It’s not like HMRC to let anybody get away with anything. They have been especially vigilant in the last few years. Maybe Zahawi thought they were on to him.

I listened to an item either on Sky or BBC news, can’t remember which, that worked out his exact fines which they said exonerate him as having a careless mistake.

You are basically accusing HMRC of being corrupt because they fined him as opposed to prosecution. Unless you are an expert on U.K. tax law and can prove otherwise I shall respect HMRC’s decision.

No I'm not, GG13. If HMRC decided that he was 'guilty' of tax avoidance, then he won't be prosecuted (as you are wanting him to be) because tax avoidance isn't illegal in the UK. He would only be taken to court if HMRC judged he was possibly guilty of tax evasion, which is illegal. I'm not questioning their decision, or even, as you were, thinking that he should have been prosecuted.

What he did was immoral and hypocritical and he compounded it by lying about it and trying to use libel law to intimidate the tax lawyer who was investigating him.

This is not something to turn a blind eye to just because he won't appear in a court of law.

It is just one scandal after another. It doesn't even seem that surprising anymore. Boris Johnson and BBC Chairman the next one coming up. I expect he'll wriggle out of that as well. These people are lucky they are not Labour prime ministers/ministers - they'd be hung out to dry.

And no, I don't believe Zahawi. It was hilarious watching James Cleverly this morning trying to dredge up some sort of defence for Zahawi. It started with several Fawlty Towers' Manuel's "I know nothing", followed by what a great, hardworking businessman Zahawi is, how he handled the pandemic so well, etc, etc. He used a similar ploy when responding to the new Johnson/Sharp scandal - Zahawi had met Sharp - seemed eminently qualified to be BBC Chairman, sensible person, etc, etc. - ignored the question re a possible conflict of interest re Johnson and the loan guarantee.

As several commentators pointed out - if Cleverly had no idea about the background to the Zahawi issue, or the Johnson/Sharp issue, why did he not speak to them and get more information before appearing on the programme? Why? Because he was sent on to waffle, not to throw any light on the matter.

But wasn’t one of the reasons why the ERG were determined that we should leave the EU because the EU were going to change tax avoidance loopholes?

I don’t know why the tories don’t just hold their hands up and say, ok, it’s a fair cop, you’ve found us out, here’s the keys to No 10 😄. Why prolong the pain.