Panama Papers: David Cameron to publish six years of tax returns

[PurpleGorilla]

"David Cameron is poised to publish six years of his tax returns in a bid to end scrutiny over his investment in an offshore investment fund as he faced a potential investigation by Parliament's standards watchdog.

The move will put pressure on prospective Conservative leadership candidates Boris Johnson and George Osborne to follow his example.

It came as YouGov polling suggested that the controversy over his tax affairs has damaged his reputation, with his approval level sinking below that of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, for the first time."

More from the source: Panama Papers: David Cameron to publish six years of tax returns

So, he is going to publish only 6 last years AFTER he sold his offshore stake, so that we won't know how many dividends he was getting per year from his shares and thus verify whether £30k he sold them for was true market value, I reckon it wasn't, so his CGT should have been a lot higher.

He needs to file every tax return as an MP.

Actually I think all Citizens tax returns should be public. I think they do that in Norway or is it Sweden?

[Samatra]

how do we know he has declared everything in his tax return.
he knows there is nothing controversial in the past 6 years that's why he is will to publish.
Remember loans don't need to be declared on tax returns bet there are other things that don't either

[AtW]

He needs to file every tax return as an MP.

File where, if they are already public then where are they to check?

Cameron must publish all profit he gained from owning those shares by year until the moment he sold it - I have strong doubts that the sale price (and purchase actually) were real market value, let's say shares had 10% dividend yield, ane he sold them for £30k+, this means he'd need to be receiving £3k dividends PER YEAR.

Do you really think that's realistic amount of dividends for him to receive in his fathers multi-million fund??????????

This is important because if he sold to related party at price that's much lower than market value then he AVOIDED CAPITAL GAINS TAXES, in fact I reckon the proper word in this case would be EVADED.

I really hope newspapers going to dig into this and get full audited profits he received from those shares.

[SueEllen]

how do we know he has declared everything in his tax return.
he knows there is nothing controversial in the past 6 years that's why he is will to publish.
Remember loans don't need to be declared on tax returns bet there are other things that don't either

Cynic.

I was thinking some of the money went directly to his children....

[NickFitz]

Cynic.

I was thinking some of the money went directly to his children....

He had it delivered to them at the pub?

[DaveB]

how do we know he has declared everything in his tax return.
he knows there is nothing controversial in the past 6 years that's why he is will to publish.
Remember loans don't need to be declared on tax returns bet there are other things that don't either

This.

6 years sounds like a convenient cut off, just after he cashed in the offshore fund.

On Thursday the PM told ITV News: "We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010"

Notice his earlier statements that he will not benefit from any offshore funds in future...

"There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future"

[AtW]

6 years sounds like a convenient cut off, just after he cashed in the offshore fund.

WHS

I can believe he sold it in 2010 and his future tax returns won't show up anything, but the key question really is what he gained before in terms of dividends on his £30k stake - if it's something like £3k per year dividends, then ok - rather small, but still should be slapped for hiding it for so long... why would he hide it if it was such small amount??? I reckon dividends were much much higher, since 1997 when he got those shares - how much did he gain overall? He must answer those questions with documents or resign.

[AtW]

Ok, so he published only 6 years of info (no detailed breakdown I can see on dividends received which he may not have been receiving at the time):

Cameron releases tax returns information amid row - BBC News



2009-10: taxable income £129k - Leader of Opposition salary is £73,617

2010-11: taxable income £157k - PMs salary is £142,500 best number I can see right now.

So, what we've got here: he gets £70k increase in salary, yet his total taxable income goes up by £30k.

£40k difference COULD easily be dividends he was receiving in 2009-10 on his shares, which he sold in 2010, now if that's true and he said he owned half of £30k sold shares, this would mean he was getting £40k dividend on shares valued at £15k that he sold. If that's true then it would obviously be sham valueation, at 10% yield those shares should have been worth £400k, in which case he dodged massive CGT on sale since he bought them for around £6k, same goes for his wife too by the way.

Who did he sell those shares to? If this is some relative then it would be another sign of sham transaction.

[PurpleGorilla]

No surprise.

He avoids tax. We all do. But what does look bad is laying into people like Jimmy Carr when (in the publics eyes) he is doing exactly the same thing.

Tory tw@t.

[MarillionFan]

No surprise.

He avoids tax. We all do. But what does look bad is laying into people like Jimmy Carr when (in the publics eyes) he is doing exactly the same thing.

Tory tw@t.

You set up mechanisms to minimize your tax. What next, Boris Johnson in 'Has ISA' scandal.


Great real. This is shoddy journalism. For good journalism, read the Archbishop story in the Telegraph. Now, that is worth reading.