Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery

[RYH64E]

Mermaid said:

RYH64E said:

But he's said that all of his companies are UK registered for tax purposes...
.

I trust him as far as i can throw an elephant.

Not just me then!

[DonkeyApple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is of course this. Under a trust you can be the beneficiary without being the owner but it's too obvious.

There are all sorts of solutions such as EBTs etc.

Lifetime loans would be the simplest way of getting your money and paying no income tax.

He does use LLPs for key aspects as they don't have to file public accounts.

Let's not forget that this is the man who orchestrated mechanisms to enable the super rich to come to the UK and pay less tax than a haven so his advisors will know exactly how to utilise all the perfectly legal mechanisms available to him.

However, this is all accede mic as a top tax accountant could paint a relatively clear explanation as to how it works.

What gets my interest is the continual mention of incomes from 'public speaking'. We are being steered in this direction subtly.

What is it about the mechanism of paid public speaking which could be of interest?

[Globs]

Asterix said:

But the chances are he (Smith)/Labour might have only lasted one term had they implemented old school Labour practices from the off so the long term damage wouldn't have been done.

Exactly,

Zod said:

he would have brought nothing new to British politics.

Bliar and Brown proved that the last thing British politics needed was something new.

(assuming we count the psychopathic destruction of the working class and national wealth as 'new').

[NoNeed]

How do we ensure he gets properly investigated?


email MP's?
parliament petition?
HMRC grass line?

[nelly1]

NoNeed said:

How do we ensure he gets properly investigated?

Two hopes, and one of them's Bob!

[turbobloke]

Kelvin Mackenzie on Tiny Bliar's weapons of tax deduction:

Click

[hidetheelephants]

NoNeed said:

How do we ensure he gets properly investigated?


email MP's?
parliament petition?
HMRC grass line?

A one-way cattle class flight to gitmo, a fetching orange boiler suit and a bit of 'humane' waterboarding.

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

Kelvin Mackenzie on Tiny Bliar's weapons of tax deduction:

Click

Mostly drivel. Filing with Companies House is due by the end of December so it's not particularly unusual to file just before the deadline. And it's not as if you're hiding it as the stuff that is a matter of public record becomes a matter of public record permanently. Just because it was filed at a quiet time doesn't mean it disappears from sight.

I have no love for Blair at all - hell, I started this thread - but I have no love for sloppy journalism either.

[unrepentant]

All this is the fault of sitting Tory MP's in 1990.

Had they not got rid of Thatcher they would have lost the '92 election.

Kinnock would have become PM. He would have been a disaster but would have had a decent majority and would have hung on until '97.

The Tories, probably led by Ken Clarke, would have won the '97 election. Kinnock would have resigned and been replaced by Gordon Brown. New Labour would never have happened and Blair would have left politics at the 01/02 election for something more lucrative.

Basically it's all Geoffrey Howe's fault. String him up.

[turbobloke]

JonRB said:

turbobloke said:

Kelvin Mackenzie on Tiny Bliar's weapons of tax deduction:

Click

Mostly drivel. Filing with Companies House is due by the end of December so it's not particularly unusual to file just before the deadline. And it's not as if you're hiding it as the stuff that is a matter of public record becomes a matter of public record permanently. Just because it was filed at a quiet time doesn't mean it disappears from sight.

I have no love for Blair at all - hell, I started this thread - but I have no love for sloppy journalism either.

No major problem with that - I have no love for Mackenzie.

However:

• Tony Blair is such a creep - check
• as a former Prime Minister you might have thought he would act with total propriety - check
• don’t care that he minimises his tax payment - check

Not mostly drivel then

As to the filing date...having run one Ltd Co basically via my accountant's guidance in terms of Co House (and VAT) aspects, with one set of dates to monotonously adhere to including the standard Annual Return date, it's always been my impression that there is a corridor within which details are filed at Co House, depending on the trading year of the company and with deadlines at 9 months or 6 months after year end depending on whether the company is private or public. No?

If so, then there is a degree of curiosity remaining over a filing date between Christmas and the New Year. It never occurred to me to adopt that approach. Why would it be done that way when everybody is on holiday, even accountants?

Awaiting Eric Mc or another accountant coming along to correct this.

[turbobloke]

More media coverage from the Telegraph, 'Inside the Intriguing World of Tony Blair Incorporated'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai...

[flyingjase]

unrepentant said:

All this is the fault of sitting Tory MP's in 1990.

Had they not got rid of Thatcher they would have lost the '92 election.

Kinnock would have become PM. He would have been a disaster but would have had a decent majority and would have hung on until '97.

The Tories, probably led by Ken Clarke, would have won the '97 election. Kinnock would have resigned and been replaced by Gordon Brown. New Labour would never have happened and Blair would have left politics at the 01/02 election for something more lucrative.

Basically it's all Geoffrey Howe's fault. String him up.

Good theory.....


Or it was John Smith's fault for having a heart attack before the 1997 election

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

However:

• Tony Blair is such a creep - check
• as a former Prime Minister you might have thought he would act with total propriety - check
• don’t care that he minimises his tax payment - check

Not mostly drivel then

Ok, conceded; those are good points.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

• as a former Prime Minister you might have thought he would act with total propriety - check

What has he done that is improper?

turbobloke said:

If so, then there is a degree of curiosity remaining over a filing date between Christmas and the New Year. It never occurred to me to adopt that approach. Why would it be done that way when everybody is on holiday, even accountants?

Awaiting Eric Mc or another accountant coming along to correct this.

Lots of Accountants work between Christmas and New Year. Also He wouldn't have filed his Accounts, his Accountants would, and its unlikely he would have instructed them on the filing date - there is just no point. Chances are that is when the Accounts were finalised/reviewed and signed off.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

• as a former Prime Minister you might have thought he would act with total propriety - check

What has he done that is improper?

It depends on how any one individual measures propriety, but for somebody not straining to excuse the closest thing to a poster boy the Labour Party is ever likely to have:

• an ex-PM who is seemingly a devout Christian and convert to Catholicism rubbing shoulders with unsavoury characters including six private meetings with a certain former Libyan dictator two of which were facilitated with the aforementioned former Libyan dictator's private jet fleet

• accepting £240,000 to deliver just one measly speech in China, after repeatedly criticising China's human rights record - apparently their track record of making large and fast payments for next-to-nothing is more tolerable

• allegedly blurring the lines between humanitarian and commercial work in Rwanda and elsewhere

• apparently persuading the Israeli government to open up radio frequencies so that phone company Wataniya Mobile can operate on the West Bank when it's known that the company’s owner and (Qatari) telecoms giant is also an important client of J P Morgan which pays Blair £2 m per year

• last but not least having the brassneck to work on 'tackling climate change' in any way shape or form

You will doubtless understand the use of allegedly and apparently here, and appreciate that I wasn't with Bliar when the above were agreed or took place but remember reading of these matters from credible sources. There are also instances I can't remember.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

If so, then there is a degree of curiosity remaining over a filing date between Christmas and the New Year. It never occurred to me to adopt that approach. Why would it be done that way when everybody is on holiday, even accountants?

Awaiting Eric Mc or another accountant coming along to correct this.

Lots of Accountants work between Christmas and New Year.

Countdown said:

Also He wouldn't have filed his Accounts, his Accountants would

That's why I mentioned most accountants not working between Christmas and the New Year, and they would be working with Bliar's awareness and consent, regardless of direct instructions of which we are unlikely to become aware.

Any old enthusiastic defence can be rattled up but this needs more than enthusiasm

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

It depends on how any one individual measures propriety, but for somebody not straining to excuse the closest thing to a poster boy the Labour Party is ever likely to have:

• an ex-PM who is seemingly a devout Christian and convert to Catholicism rubbing shoulders with unsavoury characters including six private meetings with a certain former Libyan dictator two of which were facilitated with the aforementioned former Libyan dictator's private jet fleet

• accepting £240,000 to deliver just one measly speech in China, after repeatedly criticising China's human rights record - apparently their track record of making large and fast payments for next-to-nothing is more tolerable

Speaking slightly as a “Devil’s advocate” here but it would be useful to know what the purpose of the meetings or the nature of the speeches were, before suggesting they are improper. What was the nature of the speech he made in China? Why (if he was such a vociferous critic) were they happy to give him 240k? Did his speech actually contradict anything he said whilst he was in office? With regards to unsavoury characters that may well be “part and parcel” of the job of being a politician.

turbobloke said:

• allegedly blurring the lines between humanitarian and commercial work in Rwanda and elsewhere

Nice to see he’s still doing humanitarian work (blurred or otherwise). He’s also permitted to do commercial work. Sometimes he might do both on the same trip. Why is that improper ?

turbobloke said:

• apparently persuading the Israeli government to open up radio frequencies so that phone company Wataniya Mobile can operate on the West Bank when it's known that the company’s owner and (Qatari) telecoms giant is also an important client of J P Morgan which pays Blair £2 m per year

Was this whilst he was Prime Minister or after he left office? If the former then I agree that would be completely out of order. If it was since he left office then, quite frankly, so what?

turbobloke said:

You will doubtless understand the use of allegedly and apparently here,

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. Sticking “allegedly” or “apparently” in front of an activity doesn’t necessarily make it dodgy.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

If so, then there is a degree of curiosity remaining over a filing date between Christmas and the New Year. It never occurred to me to adopt that approach. Why would it be done that way when everybody is on holiday, even accountants?

Awaiting Eric Mc or another accountant coming along to correct this.

Lots of Accountants work between Christmas and New Year.

I’m an Accountant. There are several filing deadlines in January, mainly due to the fact that it is 10 months after 31st March. So things such as HMRC returns. Companies House returns, and Charities Commission returns have to be submitted. Hope that clarifies.

turbobloke said:

That's why I mentioned most accountants not working between Christmas and the New Year, and they would be working with Blair's awareness and consent, regardless of direct instructions of which we are unlikely to become aware.

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

[DonkeyApple]

Or whether he was present at the speech.

[turbobloke]

With no red rose tinted specs I can't reply to many of the curious offerings within Countdown's generous interpretation of events as Tiny Bliar looks different from the perspective of a non-chip carrying non-leftie

One I can is this:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

ETA one point queried - all the alleged happenings I listed were as an ex-PM. Did you not see Dispatches and do you not read about this stuff in MSM articles? To argue so assiduously (while advocating so devilishly) you seem to be unaware of a bit too much to form an opinion one way or the other. Premature adjudication problems?

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 16th January 16:44

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

One I can is this:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

I'm at a loss to understand the rationale though. It's not a sort of "good day to bury bad news" scenario. When you file your company accounts they become a matter of public record. At any time from then till years and years after you can simply go to the Companies House website, pay a very nominal fee (I think it is £1) and have yourself a copy. I've done so on numerous occasions before doing business with a company.

So much as I don't want to agree with Countdown, because most of the rest of what he has written I don't agree with, on this occasion he does kind of have a point. Apart from filing the accounts at the last possible minute and meaning that they will be published at a time where the media might be distracted by Christmas, I really can't see any advantage. But it's not like their publication will be overlooked - it'll be there on the Companies House indefinitely (or whatever their retention period is, which will be measured decades - I can see stuff on my own company going back to its formation in 1999)

[turbobloke]

JonRB said:

turbobloke said:

One I can is this:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

I'm at a loss to understand the rationale though. It's not a sort of "good day to bury bad news" scenario.

That was alleged to be the reason in an article by Mackenzie, and in looking for another reason, what alternative is there? Overly optimistic, sure, or maybe Blair simply has an element of middle finger humour.