Barclays shares tomorrow?

lostinrates

matbe wrote: »

Possibly to stop people like you thinking "Theres no smoke without fire Barclays must have done something wrong"

P.s. not trying to defend Barclays one way or another, but as soon as stories get into a newspaper a fair proportion of people reading it believe it.

Personally I doubt thats quite it either. But what do I know? nothing. Sadly.:o

I think it will be to conceal something as Martinsdoll suggests, but I don't assume its illegal. Could be though.

zedyy

simpywimpy wrote: »

I was just about to open their golden isa this week. Think I'll hang on and wait and see what happens

me too:beer:

Count_Dante

Was this not reported in The Sunday Times?

tricki1

The documents that Barclays blocked the Guardian from printing are on WIkileaks if anyone is interested.

Legal no doubt, but will not .matter in the current climate how legal it is, with the demand for transparency and fair accounting, How can it be seen other than an an unfair and unethical drain on the governments pocket that the public are being asked to fill up.

I wonder if revelations like this will prompt the FSA to tighten up tax regulations in the same way they are trying to cut down on tax havens? And if so when?

Barclays may have been one of the worst offenders but it is not alone, and I hope this case will help open up a debate about fair accounting that is sorely needed. Now that massive amounts of money are being used to prop up the banks, shouldn't they be given stricter rules to stop them wriggling out of their responsibilities?
Maybe others here could say how this could be fairly done to allow banks a fair amount of wriggle room with taxes but stop the excesses shown here.

What this will do to the shares of Barclays I don't know, but if the government sniffs a scandal and makes noises to clamp down on it, then that might impact shares later.

lostinrates

tricki1 wrote: »

, with the demand for transparency and fair accounting, How can it be seen other than an an unfair and unethical drain on the governments pocket that the public are being asked to fill up. ....
Barclays may have been one of the worst offenders but it is not alone, .

Yes, excuse ruthless clipping of your post...thats a point a was indirectly making...if anybody thinks Barclays are alone in not wanting things looked at they are, IMHO, wrong. Very wrong . Its a bit like houses with a big fence and lots of signs saying private. If there was just the fence not many people would be particularly curious, but with the signs you want to have a good look to see what you are missing.

kabayiri

Barclays are definitely not alone in this practise. This doesn't exactly put them in a glowing light though.

Things like offshore IP usage, non-dom preferential treatment, and transfer pricing to lower profits on imported goods, don't look good to the masses when we are expected to fork out billions in future years in increased taxation.

StevieJ

Seems like the markets are not to bothered :cool:

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

I still don't get it...I'm obviously having a really thick day, because hasn't it been legally avoided, rather than illegally evaded?

It's ok lostinrates, you're not being thick.

Barclays is using tax laws to its advantage. They are free to do it - after all tax laws are just a set of rules to follow. If Barclays has followed them then where's the problem?

Of course there is an argument that UK tax law is so complex that it encourages this sort of thing. Perhaps the way forward is to simplify tax laws so there aren't hundreds of clauses and sub clauses to hide behind.

chewmylegoff

matbe wrote: »

Any accountant will tell you there is a massive difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

I would be suprised to find any company that does not avoid tax in some way or another.

companies have a duty to run their affairs in the interest of their shareholders. as part of this, they have a duty to minimise their tax bill, as it is not in the interests of their shareholders to pay more tax than they legally have to. "tax avoidance", as it is termed.

"interestingly", this leaves some of the banks in the position of being bound to organise their tax affairs so as to minimise the tax paid to their biggest shareholder, the government.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

It's ok lostinrates, you're not being thick.

Barclays is using tax laws to its advantage. They are free to do it - after all tax laws are just a set of rules to follow. If Barclays has followed them then where's the problem?

Of course there is an argument that UK tax law is so complex that it encourages this sort of thing. Perhaps the way forward is to simplify tax laws so there aren't hundreds of clauses and sub clauses to hide behind.

If Gen says I'm not thick I'm happy Its like Claudia Schiffer saying I'm not ugly

But I might be about to spoil this!

A question about taxation: I've never really understood why it has to be so complicated. Rather than penanlise evasion and make it cryptic I don't understand why it isn't more of encouraging payment with carrots. e.g. : a subission in recognision of this boards roots: one could say only full rate paying British resisdents were granted right to buy property? (this is not a serious subission but an example of what I mean)