This Cameron non-story

[BrilloPad]

If it was anyone other than DC, HMRC would have issued an APN then argued it out later.

[flamel]

Quite. I was under the impression that everyone minimised their tax in accordance with the law, keeping in mind, as all sensible people do, that schemes that promise you 80-90% of your gross income as take home are obviously dodgy.

80-90% is obviously dodgy and HMRC have made laws to screw those people over.

Whereas paying no tax at all is easy for tory grandees - just put it into a trust in Paname.

Not dodgy at all - HMRC will never be able to legislate against that, especially when the people that make the laws have time to move their funds before making any new legislation.

[BlasterBates]

There's tax avoidance, i.e. setting up an office in the Isle of Man with 5 developers, subcontracted to your UK company and "tax avoidance" i.e. setting up an office in the Isle of Man with 5 plastic dolls, who you refer to as (wink wink nudge nudge) developers subcontracted to your UK company

[flamel]

So, to sum up, the approved process these days is to set up your affairs so that Hector gets as much as possible.

How very odd.

It seems such a long time since



As found on the site of this scrote:

Tax Research UK » The argument that tax avoidance is legal is now dead and gone, for good. The world of tax abuse changed today, for the better.

Seems very pleased with himself.

"Smug" is the word you're looking for

[BlasterBates]

80-90% is obviously dodgy and HMRC have made laws to screw those people over.

Whereas paying no tax at all is easy for tory grandees - just put it into a trust in Paname.

That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

[flamel]

That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

Obviously people keep their cash in Panama because of it's reputation for integrity and security (compared to, say, the Lloyds Branch in Clacton High Street)

[barrydidit]

PS where did that quote from, ZG?

Lord Clyde said it.

Interestingly, there was some MP type on Radio 4 this morning saying quotes like this from Judges were very unhelpful. Presumably because most people would agree with it.

[barrydidit]

That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

True. It's funny though isn't it. He started conflating tax evasion and avoidance and making a special case against 'aggressive tax avoidance' on purely moral grounds and what is arbiterilly determined to be 'fair', only to get caught in his own trap. He hasn't done anything wrong investment-wise, but it's a major political f* up and means all politicians for the rest of time will have to publish their tax affairs or else be viewed as inherently dodgy.

[flamel]

True. It's funny though isn't it. He started conflating tax evasion and avoidance and making a special case against 'aggressive tax avoidance' on purely moral grounds and what is arbiterilly determined to be 'fair', only to get caught in his own trap. He hasn't done anything wrong investment-wise, but it's a major political f* up and means all politicians for the rest of time will have to publish their tax affairs or else be viewed as inherently dodgy.

Tax returns or no tax returns - they're still all inherently dodgy.

[MrMarkyMark]

As JB said in here Camerons if little interest in monetary terms, Osborne on the other hand....