Panama tax evasion

[Wee Willie]

...I am not going to keep arguing this with you as to be fair, its not the most interesting of arguments and is boring for others on this thread.

All I'll say is that we clearly believe different things on this and we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

As one of the common people (aka peasant), I’m no sure what each word actually means in the context of this thread.

I would suggest they are synonymous with each other and no really that far apart as to justify different meanings here.

As I understand it

immoral means not moral = evil/bad

amoral means without morals = evil/bad

 

Web dictionary

immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, unprincipled, unscrupulous

 

amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

synonyms: unprincipled, without standards, without morals; unethical, without scruples, unscrupulous

[Ad Lib]

Immoral and amoral mean very different things.

 

Something that is immoral is something that breaches one or more moral principle(s).

Something that is amoral is something which does not concern moral principles.

[thisal]

Well good luck writing an enforceable tax code without semantics and lawyers.

True and as long as the vested interests are backing the main political parties and the media is owned by billionaires with offshore accounts I don't expect it to get past discussing semantics.

[Mortar Bored]

Not knowingly.

Quality response.

[williemillersmoustache]

True and as long as the vested interests are backing the main political parties and the media is owned by billionaires with offshore accounts I don't expect it to get past discussing semantics.

 

Tried and tested trick, smother it with bullshit until the next big story comes along and we all move on.

 

Hack. "Prime Minister have you ever benefited from offshore funds?"

DC "I don't own any offshore shares, i have modest savings and my Westminster salary and I will never benefit from any in the future."

Hack "with respect that didn't answer my question."

 

DC "look we have done more to close loopholes and tackle aggressive tax avoidance than any other government"

Hack "Have you ever benefited from an offshore fund?"

DC " I will be attending a conference about it next month."

 

Hack "Answer the fucking question"

 

DC "well that's all we have time for thanks for all your interesting questions."

[Mortar Bored]

I've got to add to AD Libs humorous response.

Everything you argue (it appears to me) comes down to semantics, precise definifitions and points of law.

In my opinion, this is the sign of a true politician.

So, let me be very blunt and ask YOU what YOUR opinion is.

Do you agree that wealthy people resident in the UK, using tax havens to mitigate their tax obligations to the detriment of the UK budgetary capabilities is wrong?

Can you understand the frustration of the UK non-elite, that whilst enduring horrendous cut-backs it becomes evident that the ruling classes are getting richer & more powerful by using these schemes?

Do you believe that your Liberal values are insulted by the latest revelations regarding the rich getting richer by hiding behind these offshore loopholes?

I'm not interested in law, semantics or precise definitions, asking for your opinion.

[Ad Lib]

I've got to add to AD Libs humorous response.

Everything you argue (it appears to me) comes down to semantics, precise definifitions and points of law.

In my opinion, this is the sign of a true politician.

So, let me be very blunt and ask YOU what YOUR opinion is.

Do you agree that wealthy people resident in the UK, using tax havens to mitigate their tax obligations to the detriment of the UK budgetary capabilities is wrong?

No I don't think it's "wrong", in a moral sense, but I think any prudent legislature should in those circumstances change the law to prohibit it where possible.

Can you understand the frustration of the UK non-elite, that whilst enduring horrendous cut-backs it becomes evident that the ruling classes are getting richer & more powerful by using these schemes?

I can understand why people might be annoyed at a small number of people making themselves very rich, but I don't blame them for trying to make themselves very rich and I don't find it illuminating or productive for people to express that general anger and disillusionment without people actually proposing clear, logical, specific, practical solutions governments could be taking instead of the ones they are to improve the situation.

Again, this was why I applaud the work of people like Andy Wightman in the area of land ownership. They didn't just whinge at a small number of people owning big estates: they called for public registers, restrictions on foreign ownership where its effect is to conceal control, and called for specific types of land value tax to disincentivise unproductive uses of land. They didn't whinge aimlessly: they had a clear alternative set of ideas. Specific ideas. Not just "we've got to stop the elites eh?"

Do you believe that your Liberal values are insulted by the latest revelations regarding the rich getting richer by hiding behind these offshore loopholes?

It probably troubles two Liberal values: transparency and efficacy of government. I think there are things that should be done differently around the declaration of assets and the existing rules concerning accounting practices for the determination of profits.

I'm not interested in law, semantics or precise definitions, asking for your opinion.

I literally don't understand how you could have an "opinion" that is constructive or functionally useful about taxation unless you are willing to talk about how laws operate, what semantic distinctions the law should make, and how things like income, profits and wealth are defined.

[Crossbill]

thisal, on 07 Apr 2016 - 14:54, said:

True and as long as the vested interests are backing the main political parties and the media is owned by billionaires with offshore accounts I don't expect it to get past discussing semantics.

 

This is worth a read:

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/lessons_of_the_panama_papers_yes_the_rich_are_different_from_us_they_stole_our_money/

 

Quote

 

Let’s put it this way: Who writes the laws, in a society dominated by finance capital, neoliberal economics and the ideology of free trade and globalization?

...

Whose interests are those laws meant to protect? Does the world of Mossack Fonseca and its ilk, where morphing, shifting corporate entities shepherd amazingly large sums of money in secret from one jurisdiction to another, sound like the operation of a free and fair market society where everyone who works hard or has talent has an equal chance to become Donald Trump or Kim Kardashian? Or does it sound like a rigged system designed to delude the powerless and make them accomplices in their own impoverishment, while ensuring the indefinite oligarchic rule of the rich and powerful?

[Mortar Bored]

No I don't think it's "wrong", in a moral sense, but I think any prudent legislature should in those circumstances change the law to prohibit it where possible.

When your party were in government, were they a "prudent legislature" or just Tory puppets?

If you argue they had limited power- I'll agree, but if it was against liberal principles, why continue the coalition?

I can understand why people might be annoyed at a small number of people making themselves very rich, but I don't blame them for trying to make themselves very rich and I don't find it illuminating or productive for people to express that general anger and disillusionment without people actually proposing clear, logical, specific, practical solutions governments could be taking instead of the ones they are to improve the situation.

Again, this was why I applaud the work of people like Andy Wightman in the area of land ownership. They didn't just whinge at a small number of people owning big estates: they called for public registers, restrictions on foreign ownership where its effect is to conceal control, and called for specific types of land value tax to disincentivise unproductive uses of land. They didn't whinge aimlessly: they had a clear alternative set of ideas. Specific ideas. Not just "we've got to stop the elites eh?"

Ok, again your argument is "unless you have the solution, stop moaning" my solution is this- any resident in UK pays tax at UK rates. Very similar to Mr Obamas view on the Pfizer / Alegon deal. I see no problem with tackling individuals or corporations to do business in the UK according to UK law. It's like the old argument of punishing banks, bankers and share traders will cause the elite to move operations elsewhere- well let them go, we have people capable to replace them- good riddance I say!

It probably troubles two Liberal values: transparency and efficacy of government. I think there are things that should be done differently around the declaration of assets and the existing rules concerning accounting practices for the determination of profits.

So- against your values.

I literally don't understand how you could have an "opinion" that is constructive or functionally useful about taxation unless you are willing to talk about how laws operate, what semantic distinctions the law should make, and how things like income, profits and wealth are defined.

I have very little concern about how semantic tax laws are. I know myself what is correct and what's wrong, I don't need to read law books to form an opinion. You do.

[HTG]

I couldn't care less if he stands to benefit from the independent actions of his father. How would you like

It if someone held you morally responsible for the way your parents ordered their affairs just because it meant you got more when their assets were divided under their wills?

Well morally it would sit easier if Cameron were to drive the tax avoidance agenda forward by insisting that folk "shouldn't be like that old fucker of mine who has landed me with a swedge more inheritance than I'd have got otherwise". Nothing to see here etc.

[ICTChris]

Tax avoidance is OK provided you aren't a posh rich Tory IMO.

[welshbairn]

I wonder if people at Davos all chuckle when some new boy mentions taxes.

[ICTChris]

David Cameron held shares worth £30,000 in Blairmore, which he sold in January 2010.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

David Cameron held shares worth £30,000 in Blairmore, which he sold in January 2010.

Just before becoming PM. Not murky at all no siree, totally coincidental.

[Ad Lib]

Robert Peston put an interesting thing up on Facebook:
 

The nature of the tax avoidance carried out by Blairmore Holdings, the investment company where David Cameron's father Ian was a director, may have been misunderstood.

There is a widespread presumption, I think, that the incorporation of Blairmore in Panama and its location for operating purposes in the Bahamas somehow meant that its shareholders - including members of the Cameron family - were protected from paying income tax and capital gains tax.

But Blairmore's 2006 prospectus is explicit that is not so. Its British investors were and are liable to income tax on the dividends they receive and capital gains tax on whatever profits they earn when they sell their Blairmore shares (and as far as I can tell they would have been lucky to make profits, since the performance of this small £21m fund has been anything but stellar).

So any Cameron who received income or capital from Blairmore should have paid tax on it.

That said, Blairmore's offshore status does reduce - probably to zero - the tax liabilities of Blairmore itself. Any profits it makes from its investments is not subject to corporation or income tax.

Which many of you may see as scandalous.

But it is worth making three points. As a company incorporated in Panama, the tax would go to the Panamanian taxman - which would do naff all good to our deficit (and Panama as a point of principle doesn't want the tax).

Second the less tax Blairmore pays in Panama, the bigger the dividends it can in theory pay to investors in Britain - who should therefore pay commensurately more tax in the UK.

And finally Blairmore's Panama/Bahamas structure - which latterly became a Panama/Dublin structure - is spectacularly conventional.

There are thousands and thousands of investment funds with near identical offshore structures. I can think of loads of hedge funds, private equity funds and international investment funds with incredibly similar offshore identities.

They are so common that I would be staggered if there were not Labour MPs - among others - who had not at some juncture held investments in funds with similar offshore structures, though they might not have been aware of it.

None of which is to argue that we should approve of the likes of Blairmore legally dodging taxes.

But it is to point out that Blairmore's tax avoidance does not in and of itself prove that Ian Cameron and his family avoided tax.

UPDATE

So for the avoidance of doubt, what I am saying is that the Blairmore furore shines a light on the extraordinarily high incidence of the use of offshore arrangements by businesses to avoid tax.

Most would say that is a noxious phenomenon.

And given David Cameron's public stand against such tax avoidance, it is embarrassing for him that his late dad employed such techniques at the investment fund he founded.

But Blairmore itself does not appear to have been a vehicle designed to reduce the personal tax bill of the Camerons.

[williemillersmoustache]

So the thing we all agree is bad is in fact in this case absolutely fine, in fact good. GoodOff-Shoring vs BadOff-Shoring.

 

Eat your cereal.

[BerwickMad]

He should resign.

[ICTChris]

David Cameron today divulged to me his past interest in the Panamanian trust, Blairmore, set up by his father Ian - which he sold shortly before becoming prime minister in 2010 - and details of his £300,000 inheritance. The full interview, in which he says criticism of his father is unfair, can be watched here - https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fPYq6K9Myvc - or read below.

RP: Have the disclosures about Blairmore, the company set up by your father in the Bahamas and Panama, been embarrassing to you?

DC: It has been a difficult few days, reading criticisms of my father and his business practices - my dad a man I love and admire and miss every day.

I think a lot of the criticisms are based on a fundamental misconception, which is that Blairmore, a unit trust, was set up with the idea of avoiding tax. It wasn't. It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated companies could do so.

And there are thousands of other unit trusts set up in this way. It was reported to the HMRC, the Inland Revenue, it reported itself every year. It was properly audited.

It wasn't a family trust. It wasn't for the benefit of one particular family. Anyone could have bought units in it. And crucially if you were a UK citizen and bought units in it then you paid income tax on the dividends and you paid capital gains tax when you sold the shares. It was subject to full UK taxation. So that's what it was, there are many other unit trusts like it. And I think it is being unfairly described and my father's name unfairly written about.

RP The effect of Blairmore's structure meant it didn't pay tax. Is that wrong?

DC The point is that it was a unit trust. So the money it had was other people's money on which they pay tax. If you were a United Kingdom owner of these things you paid income tax on your dividends and you paid tax in the normal way. If you were a foreigner you would pay tax in your own country. There are thousands of unit trusts and there are millions of people who own shares in Britain, many of whom hold them through unit trusts. And as I said Blairmore was licensed by the Inland Revenue and reported to it every year.

I have been very clear about the future. I have said I am not going to benefit from any family trusts. I have been very clear about the present, I don't own any shares, I don't own any unit trusts or any investments like that. I own two homes - one of which I rent out - and I have a salary as prime minister. So my affairs are very transparent. I am happy to make them more transparent.

But I should deal with the past as well. Because of course I did own stocks and shares in the past - quite naturally because my father was a stockbroker. I sold them all in 2010, because if I was going to become prime minister I didn't want anyone to say you have other agendas, vested interests. Samantha and I have a joint account. We owned 5000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000.

RP: Was there a profit on it?

DC: I paid income tax on the dividends. There was a profit on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance so I didn't pay capital gains tax. But it was subject to all the UK taxes in all the normal way. So I want to be as clear as I can about the past, present and future. Because frankly I don't have anything to hide. I am proud of my dad and what he did, the business he established and all the rest of it. I can't bear to see his name being dragged through the mud. For my own, I chose to take a different path from my father, grandfather and great grandfather, who were all stockbrokers, and I have nothing to hide in my arrangements.

RP: So I am sorry to press you on this but part of your dad's estate was in Jersey when he died. Did you benefit from that?

DC: He left me some money, very generously, quite a lot of money. It was £300,000. I obviously can't point to every source of every bit of the money, and dad isn't around to ask the questions now.

He was a very hardworking man who built up a business. He left his house to my brother. He left me some money. And left things to my brothers and sisters too. And I think there is transparency about all of that. And in the future I am not benefiting from any Cameron family trusts. At the moment I own no shares, no investments. I have savings.

If people want information about my tax return, I can tell you what goes on mine. And I said before the last election, if we want to move to a situation where prime ministers and potential prime ministers publish this information, I am very happy to do that. So I hope I have dealt with the future, present and the past. I've frankly been more transparent about these things than any prime minister in the past.

RP: So you can't be certain some of that £300,000 didn't come from offshore sources

DC: Well he had investments in Blairmore

RP: And in Jersey?

DC: Well that was because of another unit trust, again established to UK standards, and many people have those investments. But in all of this I've never hidden the fact that I am a very lucky person. I had wealthy parents who gave me a great upbringing. Who paid for me to go to an amazing school. I have never tried to be anything I am not. And I am lucky, in that I earn a good salary as prime minister, my wife is successful and earns money and we own two very nice houses. So I am not pretending anything. But I was keen in 2010 to sell everything, shares, all the rest of it, so I can be very transparent. I don't own any part of any company, any investment trust, anything like that.

RP: There was a time when you talked about being completely transparent, publishing everything on an annual basis, in terms of assets and income and all the rest of it. Are you going to revisit that? Should senior politicians be completely transparent with their earnings and assets?

DC: I think the idea of publishing the information that goes in your tax return, I am very relaxed about that. It didn't happen before the last election. It did not come about.

I don't think this should be for every MP. It is a very big change in our system. It should be for the prime minister, and the potential prime minister. I am very happy for that to happen.

RP: Of course it won't be you publishing, you are standing down?

DC: That is why I am very happy to get on and do that now. Whether we get on and do it every year, or starting now, or going back a couple of years, I am very happy with that.

And that will be a big change. So we shouldn't dive into it and insist everyone does it. But if people want the prime minister and potential prime minister, as I said before I am relaxed about that, I am happy to do that.

RP: People often say to me that paying the tax that you owe is a moral issue. Is it a moral issue?

DC: Yes. Absolutely. We should pay the taxes that we owe. And also I have said very clearly that there is not only the rules, and the rules on these things are changing, on investments and all the rest of it, some of the changes brought in by my government, we've done more than any previous government to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance, on abuses. I think we have raised an extra £12bn by doing that. But there are the rules and also being content with the choices you make. And I think both are important. And frankly the rules on this sort of area have changed, the culture is changing too, and that is a good thing.

RP: Do you feel any personal conflict of interest? The way your father behaved was typical of stockbrokers of his generation. But standards have changed.

DC: Well rules have changed, culture has changed. And I welcome that. But if you look at today, what a leading tax adviser Graham Aaranson has said, he has been been very clear that unit trusts like Blairmore were set up and it would be completely wrong to say they were set up as vehicles for tax avoidance. When they were set up the world had changed, exchange controls had come off, it was now possible to set up organisations where people wanted to buy dollar-denominated companies and shares and stocks right around the world. And they could do that. And these unit trusts, of which there are still thousands in our country, were properly audited and looked at by Revenue and Customs, and that is as it should be. But if you are asking do rules need to change more, do customs and practices need to change more, absolutely? This government has been right behind that.

We are getting country after country to share tax information so that people can't hide their tax details. We are the first country in the world to have a register of beneficial ownership so everyone can see who owns what company. We are taking huge amounts of action and will announce more in our anti-corruption summit in May, to make sure London in particular does not become a home for hot money. So we are committed to taking all of these steps.

[welshbairn]

 

Mr Cameron’s 2013 intervention in the EU’s push for greater financial transparency was sparked by an EU initiative to set up national public registers to disclose the true, “beneficial†owners of shell companies and trusts.

 

According to Judith Sargentini, a Dutch lawmaker who led the parliament’s work on the draft law, the UK’s argument was that strict transparency rules would be a damaging interference into people’s privacy.

 

It argued that trusts have a special role in Britain in helping families manage issues around inheritance.

 

Oh aye?

 

https://next.ft.com/content/0e7c0a20-fc17-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d

[P45]

Dave oot.