Tory Peer Bamford under HMRC investigation for £500m

[Blue62]

Hammersia said:

As I understand it the investigation has been going on for three years and there's been no recent significant events concerning it.

So, er, not news then. Looks like a whatabout deflection from the genuine Raynor catastrophe.

From what I can see the Bamford story broke late last year, so no idea why it’s news now, is it because he has just resigned from the Lords?It’s also strange that Lord Ashcroft isn’t onto it.

The other point to make is that Bamford is the subject of an HMRC investigation, while Rayner is the subject of an accusation, so why is that a ‘genuine catastrophe?’ You stated earlier she will be gone, I’m sure Starmer would hope so but she’ll have to be proved guilty of an offence first and even then if it’s an oversight over £1500 then possibly not.

[mac96]

S600BSB said:

mac96 said:

While I don't agree with his politics it's worth bearing in mind what this man has achieved. He is not some characture parasite Tory peer.
His father created JCB from nothing; Lord Bamford made it the multinational success it is today.
We need more people like him so I really hope HMRC know what they are doing.

I wouldn’t use the term parasite, but he was a significant Brexit backer - so probably worse.

Brexit is one reason why I said I didn't agree with his politics. Although if you owned a business whose main operations were in UK USA and India you might have been a Brexiteer, at least it was logical.
Anyway when you consider the jobs he has created, the taxes paid, the individual positive acts (eg creation of a school in Rocester) I think he can be forgiven those views.

[nikaiyo2]

Blue62 said:

From what I can see the Bamford story broke late last year, so no idea why it’s news now, is it because he has just resigned from the Lords?It’s also strange that Lord Ashcroft isn’t onto it.

The other point to make is that Bamford is the subject of an HMRC investigation, while Rayner is the subject of an accusation, so why is that a ‘genuine catastrophe?’ You stated earlier she will be gone, I’m sure Starmer would hope so but she’ll have to be proved guilty of an offence first and even then if it’s an oversight over £1500 then possibly not.

I can understand how someone owning a multi billion pound company might have rather more complex tax affairs than ooh I dont know a care assistant, perhaps there is more scope for grey areas when talking about one not the other.

I can see how using more complex legal schemes to avoid tax might be considered normal, if one owed potentially £500m then it would seem reasonable to try and mitigate this.

I am unsure how a care/ assistant union activist/ gob ste would ever be confused about where they lived and with whom... I certainly find that less understandable than someone perhaps trying to minimize a £500m bill.

[Al Gorithum]

But Angela Rayner and the £1500 that she may not owe...

[Blue62]

nikaiyo2 said:

I can understand how someone owning a multi billion pound company might have rather more complex tax affairs than ooh I dont know a care assistant, perhaps there is more scope for grey areas when talking about one not the other.

I can see how using more complex legal schemes to avoid tax might be considered normal, if one owed potentially £500m then it would seem reasonable to try and mitigate this.

I am unsure how a care/ assistant union activist/ gob ste would ever be confused about where they lived and with whom... I certainly find that less understandable than someone perhaps trying to minimize a £500m bill.

I couldn’t disagree more. You see a care assistant with little to no professional advice could quite easily and understandably, fall foul of the rules on CGT when related to property transactions. Whereas a billionaire like Bamford will have the very best advice and really has fewer excuses for making an erroneous return.

I’m not defending Raynor, but at the moment there’s no investigation to the best of my knowledge, not so with Bamford. I think the tone of your post undermines any credible point you’re trying to make, really unnecessary language, get a grip.

[S600BSB]

Blue62 said:

nikaiyo2 said:

I can understand how someone owning a multi billion pound company might have rather more complex tax affairs than ooh I dont know a care assistant, perhaps there is more scope for grey areas when talking about one not the other.

I can see how using more complex legal schemes to avoid tax might be considered normal, if one owed potentially £500m then it would seem reasonable to try and mitigate this.

I am unsure how a care/ assistant union activist/ gob ste would ever be confused about where they lived and with whom... I certainly find that less understandable than someone perhaps trying to minimize a £500m bill.

I couldn’t disagree more. You see a care assistant with little to no professional advice could quite easily and understandably, fall foul of the rules on CGT when related to property transactions. Whereas a billionaire like Bamford will have the very best advice and really has fewer excuses for making an erroneous return.

I’m not defending Raynor, but at the moment there’s no investigation to the best of my knowledge, not so with Bamford. I think the tone of your post undermines any credible point you’re trying to make, really unnecessary language, get a grip.

Why didn’t he just use an accountant for these things like the rest of us.

[valiant]

In the spirit of the Rayner thread I feel that we should wait until the authorities have completed their investigations before calling for his head...

[Newc]

Blue62 said:

nikaiyo2 said:

I can understand how someone owning a multi billion pound company might have rather more complex tax affairs than ooh I dont know a care assistant, perhaps there is more scope for grey areas when talking about one not the other.

I can see how using more complex legal schemes to avoid tax might be considered normal, if one owed potentially £500m then it would seem reasonable to try and mitigate this.

I am unsure how a care/ assistant union activist/ gob ste would ever be confused about where they lived and with whom... I certainly find that less understandable than someone perhaps trying to minimize a £500m bill.

I couldn’t disagree more. You see a care assistant with little to no professional advice could quite easily and understandably, fall foul of the rules on CGT when related to property transactions. Whereas a billionaire like Bamford will have the very best advice and really has fewer excuses for making an erroneous return.

I’m not defending Raynor, but at the moment there’s no investigation to the best of my knowledge, not so with Bamford. I think the tone of your post undermines any credible point you’re trying to make, really unnecessary language, get a grip.

But surely a care assistant who definitely only has one house and one main residence and no ambiguity at all doesn't ever come up against the CGT rules ?

Whereas people with genuinely complex situations will often be in areas where HMRC themselves have no idea what to do because HMRC didn't have the wit to cover all the possibilities when they came up with the initial legislation.

[Hammersia]

Blue62 said:

nikaiyo2 said:

I can understand how someone owning a multi billion pound company might have rather more complex tax affairs than ooh I dont know a care assistant, perhaps there is more scope for grey areas when talking about one not the other.

I can see how using more complex legal schemes to avoid tax might be considered normal, if one owed potentially £500m then it would seem reasonable to try and mitigate this.

I am unsure how a care/ assistant union activist/ gob ste would ever be confused about where they lived and with whom... I certainly find that less understandable than someone perhaps trying to minimize a £500m bill.

I couldn’t disagree more. You see a care assistant with little to no professional advice could quite easily and understandably, fall foul of the rules on CGT when related to property transactions. Whereas a billionaire like Bamford will have the very best advice and really has fewer excuses for making an erroneous return.

I’m not defending Raynor, but at the moment there’s no investigation to the best of my knowledge, not so with Bamford. I think the tone of your post undermines any credible point you’re trying to make, really unnecessary language, get a grip.

Renting out her house to her brother for five years was accidental?

[Eric Mc]

Gecko1978 said:

She will resign too right what with being investigated and all. An I mean as an MP not just the whip. Like this Chao has.....all tongue in cheek of course

Do you read what you write?

[Pit Pony]

S600BSB said:

mac96 said:

While I don't agree with his politics it's worth bearing in mind what this man has achieved. He is not some characture parasite Tory peer.
His father created JCB from nothing; Lord Bamford made it the multinational success it is today.
We need more people like him so I really hope HMRC know what they are doing.

I wouldn’t use the term parasite, but he was a significant Brexit backer - so probably worse.

Yeah, but JCB is tiny in comparison to the competition.

I have had a couple of jobs, where JCB were 70% of our sales, and had experience of dealing with them. The management style is 1967.

It's not surprising that most people you meet that work there are "Angry"

[nikaiyo2]

Blue62 said:

I couldn’t disagree more. You see a care assistant with little to no professional advice could quite easily and understandably, fall foul of the rules on CGT when related to property transactions. Whereas a billionaire like Bamford will have the very best advice and really has fewer excuses for making an erroneous return.

I’m not defending Raynor, but at the moment there’s no investigation to the best of my knowledge, not so with Bamford. I think the tone of your post undermines any credible point you’re trying to make, really unnecessary language, get a grip.

Sorry you cant be serious.

Someone with one residence does not have to pay CGT, a normal person never has to worry about it at all ever. HMRC are pretty clear about how to figure this type of thing out, there is no grey area. There is no complex affairs, no need for advice as its so obvious.
Effectively the questions are where did you live, when did you live there? I would expect anyone to be able to answer that without obfuscation.

LOL "really unnecessary language" for calling her a gob ste? Wow, apologies I thought this was a site populated largely by adults. I cant imagine being so isolated from reality that this is considered unnecessary. Again sorry for all the hurt and offense this has caused you.

[119]

Can't wait for tomorrows non story from the resident PH faux outrage brigade.

[Blue62]

nikaiyo2 said:

Sorry you cant be serious.

Someone with one residence does not have to pay CGT, a normal person never has to worry about it at all ever. HMRC are pretty clear about how to figure this type of thing out, there is no grey area. There is no complex affairs, no need for advice as its so obvious.
Effectively the questions are where did you live, when did you live there? I would expect anyone to be able to answer that without obfuscation.

LOL "really unnecessary language" for calling her a gob ste? Wow, apologies I thought this was a site populated largely by adults. I cant imagine being so isolated from reality that this is considered unnecessary. Again sorry for all the hurt and offense this has caused you.

You’ve caused me no offence, I’m simply point out that if you’re trying to sound credible, insulting remarks just weaken your position, ironic that you should bring adult behaviour into the discussion.

The rules around CGT and home ownership are not clear, why else do you think she’s yet to be charged with anything. Bamford affairs will be extremely complex, which is why he will have a ton of advisers, if he’s under investigation it’s more than likely he and his advisers have sailed close to the wind.

[DeejRC]

I invariably find that if one is under investigation by HMRC it’s because the error/misunderstanding lies with HMRC, as opposed to an individual. Those who think otherwise, I have tended to find, are those who have more minimal dealings with HMRC.

[Killboy]

mac96 said:

Brexit is one reason why I said I didn't agree with his politics. Although if you owned a business whose main operations were in UK USA and India you might have been a Brexiteer, at least it was logical.
Anyway when you consider the jobs he has created, the taxes paid, the individual positive acts (eg creation of a school in Rocester) I think he can be forgiven those views.

Eeeeer.

[mac96]

Killboy said:

mac96 said:

Brexit is one reason why I said I didn't agree with his politics. Although if you owned a business whose main operations were in UK USA and India you might have been a Brexiteer, at least it was logical.
Anyway when you consider the jobs he has created, the taxes paid, the individual positive acts (eg creation of a school in Rocester) I think he can be forgiven those views.

Eeeeer.

Well, he may or may not have paid the correct amount of tax. We will see. As others have pointed out, HMRC do not have an immaculate track record here..
But he and his business will have generated a huge volume of tax over the years.

[119]

mac96 said:

Killboy said:

mac96 said:

Brexit is one reason why I said I didn't agree with his politics. Although if you owned a business whose main operations were in UK USA and India you might have been a Brexiteer, at least it was logical.
Anyway when you consider the jobs he has created, the taxes paid, the individual positive acts (eg creation of a school in Rocester) I think he can be forgiven those views.

Eeeeer.

Well, he may or may not have paid the correct amount of tax. We will see. As others have pointed out, HMRC do not have an immaculate track record here..
But he and his business will have generated a huge volume of tax over the years.

I bet he/his company have paid more than all of us put together.

[sugerbear]

119 said:

mac96 said:

Killboy said:

mac96 said:

Brexit is one reason why I said I didn't agree with his politics. Although if you owned a business whose main operations were in UK USA and India you might have been a Brexiteer, at least it was logical.
Anyway when you consider the jobs he has created, the taxes paid, the individual positive acts (eg creation of a school in Rocester) I think he can be forgiven those views.

Eeeeer.

Well, he may or may not have paid the correct amount of tax. We will see. As others have pointed out, HMRC do not have an immaculate track record here..
But he and his business will have generated a huge volume of tax over the years.

I bet he/his company have paid more than all of us put together.

I guess you are on of those law and order types.

[valiant]

119 said:

I bet he/his company have paid more than all of us put together.

And?

Does that give him a green card to play fast and loose with the tax system then? (Allegedly of course)