£40bn held in Swiss bank accounts by UK taxpayers....

antrobus

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

None of that is untrue but it only works as an attack at the Labour party if you think the Conservatives would have done any different about it if they had been in power for the last 13 years. Personally I think we'd be in the exact same situation. Given the relatively prosperous years during Labour administration, there is no way the Conservatives would have even looked at tackling the wealthy either on illegally hidden tax or anything else.

Ah, so you're saying that it would have made no difference who was running the country over the 'last 13 years' (by which I presume you mean the period 1997-2010). Which is very much what the original commentator was saying about "succesive Government both home and abroad" having "connived to allow this situation continue for decades post war". Which might or might not be the case. (Although I'm not sure that the situation was any different pre-war for the matter.)

Nevertheless it does appear that the current mob are having a crack at the problem. No idea whether it will work mind you. On the other hand they have got their mitts on £330 million which is money in the bank.

Every little helps.:)

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

There are many reasons to keep assets offshore. The hedge fund I used to run the ops side of kept the assets offshore but the management of the assets onshore.

There was no tax gain to be made it was just easier and cheaper to do it that way. We had nothing to hide but the Government would have wanted us to spend thousands proving that. It was better for us just to get around the problem entirely. As a very small fund we used to spend about £50,000 on UK compliance costs and perhaps £1,000 (max) on offshore compliance costs plus audit costs.

Those that use offshore tax-havens to avoid tax have good reason to be worried because the US Government is gunning for them and the IRS will rain on your parade for fun from what I've seen. Countries like the UK and Germany will piggy back off the power of the US.

Normally a uk managed hedge fund's assets were held by a UK prime broker rather than being kept offshore, innit? That doesn't affect the tax status of the fund as the fund is a cayman entity (and the uk would have no regulatory hold over an offshore fund just because its assets were in a uk account).

BertieUK

Generali wrote: »

There are many reasons to keep assets offshore. The hedge fund I used to run the ops side of kept the assets offshore but the management of the assets onshore.

There was no tax gain to be made it was just easier and cheaper to do it that way. We had nothing to hide but the Government would have wanted us to spend thousands proving that. It was better for us just to get around the problem entirely. As a very small fund we used to spend about £50,000 on UK compliance costs and perhaps £1,000 (max) on offshore compliance costs plus audit costs.

Those that use offshore tax-havens to avoid tax have good reason to be worried because the US Government is gunning for them and the IRS will rain on your parade for fun from what I've seen. Countries like the UK and Germany will piggy back off the power of the US.

That sounds like credible and sensible way of making your assets promote the strength of your company and is forward thinking.

Quite tricky getting it to work I think but in the long run worth it for the company.

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

That sounds like credible and sensible way of making your assets promote the strength of your company and is forward thinking.

Quite tricky getting it to work I think but in the long run worth it for the company.

Bertie, in future could you add a paragraph at the end of each of your posts explaining the post you have just made, as it's almost always impossible to understand what you're on about.

BertieUK

BertieUK wrote: »

That sounds like credible and sensible way of making your assets promote the strength of your company and is forward thinking.

Quite tricky getting it to work I think but in the long run worth it for the company.

Maybe I misunderstood the point that Generali was making,but according to what I read into his comments was that he had nothing to hide hiding from the Government, but merely making the money that his business made stay in his business rather that him going down the road that proceedures that the Government wanted him to go, as he said We had nothing to hide but the Government would have wanted us to spend thousands proving that

So doing it this way money / costs whatever was saving time and expense and he was not doing anything illegal.

If I have misunderstood this post then I apolgise, and many posts on here are for me difficult to understand but I do make every effort.

I may not understand fully many of references that are made by posters but then I do not think that I am alone on that one.

CKhalvashi

I mentioned this about 6 months ago, and have also just opened accounts with UBS.

I will be resident in Switzerland from the tax year starting April though (9 tax days in 14), so it will be declared, but taxable as nil.

CK

Jennifer_Jane

Several years ago I had reason to visit a Swiss bank regarding an estate. My research at that time came up with a few interesting things:

1. Banks were legally required to in no way acknowledge that a person's account existed. Bank employees could be imprisoned for so much as nodding that someone had a bank account. (This is unless money laundering was suspected).

2. Even though we had account details and a letter from the deceased, we were unable to access the account. A Power of Attorney previously lodged with the Bank, or probate were required.

3. Interest rates were pretty good, and general growth on equity based investment accounts were very good at that time.

4. There is or was nothing illegal about having a Swiss bank account. It is, of course, illegal to not declare the interest from a Swiss bank account in the UK, or, I guess, the capital gains from investment growth.

Of course, it would be naive to think that people haven't used this secrecy to their advantage (Nazis, African leaders, etc), and I welcome the openness which the EU (not the ConDems), but Europe has demanded from Switzerland.

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, so you're saying that it would have made no difference who was running the country over the 'last 13 years' (by which I presume you mean the period 1997-2010). Which is very much what the original commentator was saying about "succesive Government both home and abroad" having "connived to allow this situation continue for decades post war". Which might or might not be the case. (Although I'm not sure that the situation was any different pre-war for the matter.)

Nevertheless it does appear that the current mob are having a crack at the problem. No idea whether it will work mind you. On the other hand they have got their mitts on £330 million which is money in the bank.

Every little helps.:)

The more "desperate" you are the more effort you will put in, even if it is virtual crumbs, not to mention the political kudos.

YoungBusinessman

I almost wish i had enough already to justify the mucking about to get my money held elsewhere. British banks are more or less all a joke(iv dealt with 4 in space of last 5 years)