Is HMRC going to look at Blair's £8m expenses?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Perhaps he's running his company like he ran the country. Spend spend spend.

[prozak]

No, we pay for that. About £2m a year, I beleive.

booo!

Now that is something that should be looked at.

he's generating that sort of cash and we still have to fork out to protect him?

[Emigre]

No, we pay for that. About £2m a year, I beleive.

In this era of cost cuts, how can that possibly be worthwhile? How many nurses is £2m a year?

[smalldog]

No, we pay for that. About £2m a year, I beleive.

WTF!!!! Why the hell is the general public picking up his tab?

You gotta love the double standards, if we formed an intricate web of partnerships, limited partnerships that were so complex to be almost unfathomable questions would be asked if this is just a cynical way to avoid tax, and if it isnt why the complexity? that should be easy to explain I assume if its not for reasons of avoidance.

There was me thinking HMRC were coming down hard on potential TAX AVOIDANCE even to the point of prosecuting people promoting such mechanisms. Does this mean Mr Blairs accountants will be asked some searching questions over the overly complex structure, I doubt it.

[jmo21]

I think it's fairly common across the world for ex PM/Presidents to get security, but it is hard to take when he is raking it in.

[The Spartan]

Being able to class 2/3 of his income as expenses has got ring alarm bells, since when does anyone work like that. I wonder what genius devised that plan

[JamJarST]

Being able to class 2/3 of his income as expenses has got ring alarm bells, since when does anyone work like that. I wonder what genius devised that plan

A 30% return on turnover is not bad at all, there are lots of medium and large organisations that would kill for that kind of bottom line. Don't confuse his organisation whicch employs 26 people with a 1 man contractor with little or no overhead!!

[The Spartan]

A 30% return on turnover is not bad at all, there are lots of medium and large organisations that would kill for that kind of bottom line. Don't confuse his organisation whicch employs 26 people with a 1 man contractor with little or no overhead!!

My bad, I read it but didn't digest it correctly

[d000hg]

I think it's fairly common across the world for ex PM/Presidents to get security, but it is hard to take when he is raking it in.

I don't find it hard to take at all. He's a celebrity now.

A 30% return on turnover is not bad at all, there are lots of medium and large organisations that would kill for that kind of bottom line. Don't confuse his organisation whicch employs 26 people with a 1 man contractor with little or no overhead!!

The original post said £8m in expenses, not £8m in expenditure. Which is it?

[ready_to_leave]

I don't find it hard to take at all. He's a celebrity now.

The original post said £8m in expenses, not £8m in expenditure. Which is it?

Just to clarify this is £8 million of extra expenses after salary, business rent and normal costs (which amounted to £3 million). In total turnover was £12 million. Breakdown was: 3 million operating expenses (salary,rent, running etc), 8 million admin expenses (?), 1 or so million profit (which resulted in ~ 300k tax on profit).

This £8 million is classified as extra "administrative expenses" in the accounts, which were invoiced to the original Ltd Company by a limited liability partnership, also controlled by Blair. Hmm.. artificial transactions; I thought these were a real red flag to HMRC and they could look through them if they so chose.

You have to admit after operating costs of 3 mill an extra £8 mill in expenses should be raising eyebrows. It sure as hell would if I had this arrangement.