Outrage - Tory Tax Dodger costs Taxpayers Millions - The Times

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Tory Zac Goldsmith admits he is a non-dom

AC GOLDSMITH, the green adviser to David Cameron and prospective Tory MP, has admitted that he claims non-domicile tax status, enabling him to avoid huge sums of tax on his estimated £200m fortune. In a disclosure that risks embarrassing the Conservative party, he confirmed that he is a “non-dom” who can legitimately escape paying tax on his inheritance from his late father, Sir James Goldsmith. Much of it is held offshore.

Non-domicile status is usually reserved for foreign nationals or people with roots overseas. It allows them to avoid tax on money earned outside Britain, unless they bring the money back into the country.
Although Goldsmith Sr was Anglo-French, Zac was brought up in the UK, mostly in the southwest London area where he is now standing for election. His campaign website states: “Zac grew up in Richmond and went to school in Richmond. He has lived in Richmond most of his life.”
In an unusual arrangement, some of his British properties are held offshore.

Goldsmith’s 300-acre ecological farm in Devon and a house in Richmond are both owned by companies based in the Cayman Islands. The farm was bought in 2001 and the house in Richmond was bought in 2007 for £7.75m. A house in Fulham, west London, was bought in 2004 and is owned by an investment company based in Liverpool.
A spokesman for Goldsmith, 34, whose sister is the writer Jemima Khan, said the homes were “made available” to him by a trust set up by his father. He confirmed that Goldsmith had non-dom status but was planning to change this.

Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “Cameron must sack Zac Goldsmith as a candidate now. He’s not fit to sit in parliament, when he’s claimed non-dom status all his life to keep his offshore hundreds of millions free of income, capital gains or inheritance tax. He must pay the millions he’s dodged to the British taxman.”

Bet this won't be on the front page of the Sun tomorrow. Millions he's cost the tax payer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936364.ece

lostinrates

For a while, years ago I loved Sheherazade's column in what ever sunday supplement it was. She lived how I dreamed of living ''when I grew up''. Gradually the unrelaistic nature of her life, the way what she thought was normal to afford (both financially. and with time) started to grate. I saw older female friends aping this on their credit cards and it made me cross. One column I distinctly remamber was about how they commuted by train for the weekends to minimise carbon footprint. How they bundles into the train on friday after noons to enjoy the family time together down to Devon.

Of course, many parents can't leave home at the same time as their children, even if they are lucky enough to have a home somewhere else, but just the same if the weekend i to be in the week day home...they travell home in rush hour collecting tired and fractious children who have been with a childminder or something.

I used to get the same train, and unlike he goldsmiths, no farm manager was at the station in a LR to colllet me, I had to rely on a patient mother, and fit in with her, which meant her friday evenings/afternoons had to braodly fit in with the train timetable.

Its a hideously busy line on a friday, and many a time I've stoo the whole way out, or sat in the luggage racks or bicycle cupboardy bit.

Its a beautiful idea. and if I had a quater of what the goldsmiths have I'm sure I'd do much the same!

nearlynew

Did someone mention that they are all lying f*cking thieves?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

nearlynew wrote: »

Did someone mention that they are all lying f*cking thieves?

That's usually a phrase reserved only for people on benefits, isn't it?

PasturesNew

I am posting in support of #3

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Tory Zac Goldsmith admits he is a non-dom

Bet this won't be on the front page of the Sun tomorrow. Millions he's cost the tax payer.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936364.ece

Wait.....

You mean to say people with money use every option the law allows to legally structure their affairs to minimise tax?????

I'm shocked...:rolleyes:

BTW, he hasn't cost the taxpayer a penny. The government sets the rules on tax, and people are then free to structure their affairs in any way that is legal to minimise that tax.

fc123

lostinrates wrote: »

For a while, years ago I loved Sheherazade's column in what ever sunday supplement it was. She lived how I dreamed of living ''when I grew up''. Gradually the unrelaistic nature of her life, the way what she thought was normal to afford (both financially. and with time) started to grate. I saw older female friends aping this on their credit cards and it made me cross. One column I distinctly remamber was about how they commuted by train for the weekends to minimise carbon footprint. How they bundles into the train on friday after noons to enjoy the family time together down to Devon.

Of course, many parents can't leave home at the same time as their children, even if they are lucky enough to have a home somewhere else, but just the same if the weekend i to be in the week day home...they travell home in rush hour collecting tired and fractious children who have been with a childminder or something.

I used to get the same train, and unlike he goldsmiths, no farm manager was at the station in a LR to colllet me, I had to rely on a patient mother, and fit in with her, which meant her friday evenings/afternoons had to braodly fit in with the train timetable.

Its a hideously busy line on a friday, and many a time I've stoo the whole way out, or sat in the luggage racks or bicycle cupboardy bit.

Its a beautiful idea. and if I had a quater of what the goldsmiths have I'm sure I'd do much the same!

Her columns wound me up waY more than Liz Jones' ones. Sunday Times Style mag I think.

Nothing worse that a wealthy type banging on in a 'do-gooding/preachy' way to the great unwashed/not wealthy. Can't believe she got paid for it too.

I know a few who do the offshore/non dom thing. It's quite a lot of hassle too. Son's GF father spends most of his time in Monaco...but isn't around to assist her mother (who has a mountain of issues), her younger siblings nor herself.

I think it's costing him far more than the tax £££ he is saving TBH.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wait.....

You mean to say people with money use every option the law allows to legally structure their affairs to minimise tax?????

I'm shocked...:rolleyes:

BTW, he hasn't cost the taxpayer a penny. The government sets the rules on tax, and people are then free to structure their affairs in any way that is legal to minimise that tax.

quite right

it's for voters to decide whether they wish to be represented by people who don't pay tax here, don't use the NHS, don't use state schools etc...

or whether they feel that the skills learned by people who have no need to work, don't live like the majority of UK people, are of great value in government making laws about tax, NHS, education etc.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wait.....

The government sets the rules on tax, and people are then free to structure their affairs in any way that is legal to minimise that tax.

Can't the same be said of benifits, swap benifits for tax and minimise to maximise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

quite right

it's for voters to decide whether they wish to be represented by people who don't pay tax here, don't use the NHS, don't use state schools etc...

or whether they feel that the skills learned by people who have no need to work, don't live like the majority of UK people, are of great value in government making laws about tax, NHS, education etc.

To be fair many people that pay tax here still don't use the NHS, state schools, benefits system, etc.....

I don't use any government services if I can avoid it, generally have to pay for those I do use, and I pay a ridiculous amount of tax for the privilege of paying my own way in life..

Haven't used the NHS since I was a child, went to private schools, don't have kids, never claimed benefits, unemployent, etc.

nearlynew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The government sets the rules on tax, and people are then free to structure their affairs in any way that is legal to minimise that tax.

The same government that sets the rules on who can claim benefits and how much they can claim.

So that's OK as well then, isn't it McTittish?



You are becoming more idiotic by the day.

You silly, silly boy.