Paradise Papers

antrobus

daveyjp wrote: »

Follow the money and its actually a zero sum game for the taxpayer. All it results in is the Council keeping money which it would only be giving back to Treasury.

I’d rather my Council keep money to spend on local services than send it back to Government.

The very same could be said of the Crown Estate's dabbling offshore, since almost all of their profits go to HM Treasury. That didn't stop people getting excited about it.

But in any case, don't you find it amusing that Labour councils are quite happy to dabble in a little offshore tax avoidance when it suits them? Have you no sense of humour?:)

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

The OECD/G20 BEPS Project is a work in progress.

You can read all about it here.
http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions.htm

This sort of thing isn't easy you know. What's your alternative?

I never said it was, or that they shouldn't be doing it. In fact, I said several posts back that this requires international co-operation. I didn't say there was none. Just that's it's very slow.

Perhaps not relevant now, but more should have been done by the EU for the harmonization of tax laws within its borders.

Thrugelmir

kinger101 wrote: »

Perhaps not relevant now, but more should have been done by the EU for the harmonization of tax laws within its borders.

The EU isn't in agreement on this topic.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

I never said it was, or that they shouldn't be doing it. In fact, I said several posts back that this requires international co-operation. I didn't say there was none. Just that's it's very slow....

I was simply responding to your comment "And they've achieved precious little" and providing information regarding what the OECD is trying to do.

I'm sorry you don't find that helpful.

kabayiri

You've all got this offshore malarkey completely wrong.

Just see it as a very obscure way of investing in overpriced football clubs like Chelsea and Man City.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

You've all got this offshore malarkey completely wrong.

Who has got it all wrong?

kabayiri wrote: »

...
Just see it as a very obscure way of investing in overpriced football clubs like Chelsea and Man City.

I thought it was Everton?

There is actually more to this 'offshore malarkey' than simply investing in football clubs. Or anything else for that matter.

It's about profit shifting by companies, it's about people avoiding VAT, IT, CGT, whatever by structuring transactions through overseas entities, and more besides.

But it's really all about secrecy. People often go 'offshore' to keep things hidden from prying eyes. So it becomes the case that HMRC, for example, doesn't really know what XYZ is up to. If they did they might challenge it. Or they might know what legislation is needed to stop them doing it.

Knowledge is power. Ignorance is not bliss.

phillw

kinger101 wrote: »

How does on calculate the price of using the Starbuck's brandname? It obviously has a value, but why is that value so high that the shops in the UK don't turn a profit? Would you set up a coffee shop that made zero profit?

Yeah, I think HMRC should (if they don't already) have the ability to vary the value of that if they think it's over inflated. Starbucks should have to offer proof of what the brand name is worth, which if it means the UK operation makes no money then it's obviously incorrect.

Especially as they give the executives a large salary and a bonus.

antrobus wrote: »

But it's really all about secrecy. People often go 'offshore' to keep things hidden from prying eyes. So it becomes the case that HMRC, for example, doesn't really know what XYZ is up to. If they did they might challenge it. Or they might know what legislation is needed to stop them doing it.

The secrecy of whether it's illegal is probably also secret from the people involved. The likelihood is high that the tax avoidance scheme your clever accountant signed you up to eventually turns out to be tax evasion & you end up with a huge bill and embarrassment. Somehow they continue letting these dodgy accountants to walk free, when they should just be locked up.

antrobus wrote: »

The very same could be said of the Crown Estate's dabbling offshore, since almost all of their profits go to HM Treasury. That didn't stop people getting excited about it.

But in any case, don't you find it amusing that Labour councils are quite happy to dabble in a little offshore tax avoidance when it suits them? Have you no sense of humour?:)

It's only the plebs that aren't allowed to put their money off shore. Labour is socialism, not communism.

Herzlos wrote: »

Why should consumers fix the problem? Isn't this the sort of thing we have a government for?

No, we have government to do things we can't do. Like start an army, build roads etc. I'm quite capable of not walking into starbucks, so should you.

LHW99

It's only the plebs that aren't allowed to put their money off shore.

I remember the late in-laws were sold such an account some years back, and they could (though I wouldn't have) have been described as 'plebs'

antrobus

ilovehouses wrote: »

There's a line between avoidance and evasion and this couple might have stepped over it..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41893764[/url


Don't get it. Even with their lifestyle they're struggling to spend it all. Why get involved in something like this?

I agree.

The BBC state that they have stuffed £28m into a Mauritian company called Babington PCC. As an 'investment adviser' to Babington Faulkner got the company to invest in a £3.25m country mansion, an Aston Martin, a holiday home in Florida, collections of art, photographs and vintage wines and "paid for trips to New York and Miami, and spent more than £100,000 a year funding Mr Faulkner's hobby of classic yacht racing".

The BBC claims that there are a 100 or so pepole with Mauritian companies who "use the companies like personal bank accounts". Mr Faulkner has stated that he has "now commenced dialogue with HMRC to review the arrangements that their previous advisers had recommended". (As in, if I volunteer this info to HMRC I'll pay a smaller penalty,:) )

I'm no expert on offshore tax schemes but my view would be that this crosses the line from avoidance to evasion. I mean, !!!!!!, if Babington was a UK company, all that spending would be a benefit in kind. It bl00dy well ought to be the same for an offshore company.

fatbeetle

This nails it;

https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23172591_1710649412302895_4001392746396132787_n.jpg?oh=fdd33be342bd5892e706dc1cf293d30e&oe=5A9E5151