Tory Peer Bamford under HMRC investigation for £500m

[mac96]

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

[Sway]

mac96 said:

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

This case doesn't seem that complex (did he get the shares when he says he did, or when HMRC think he might have) - but I'd also imagine pretty much impossible to prove evasion.

How do you go about proving someone has shares in a company that aren't registered as being owned by him but his father?

[AnotherClarkey]

No shortage of forelock-tuggers here.

[mac96]

Sway said:

mac96 said:

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

This case doesn't seem that complex (did he get the shares when he says he did, or when HMRC think he might have) - but I'd also imagine pretty much impossible to prove evasion.

How do you go about proving someone has shares in a company that aren't registered as being owned by him but his father?

I was referring to the group's 'dubious' tax affairs rather than the specific case, they have always been structured to minimise tax liabilities.

[Blue62]

Sway said:

This case doesn't seem that complex (did he get the shares when he says he did, or when HMRC think he might have) - but I'd also imagine pretty much impossible to prove evasion.

How do you go about proving someone has shares in a company that aren't registered as being owned by him but his father?

The reporting on this (from what I’ve found) is pretty light, but surely any share transfers would be dated and documented. In my limited experience it’s the timing of transfers that exercises HMRC, particularly in the light of any legislative changes and the implications thereof.

The fact that we are talking about a network of off shore family trusts suggests it is pretty complex and I imagine unpicking that lot would take time, but not 20 years worth, surely? I agree that evasion would be difficult to prove, but maybe someone has fked up the paperwork, it happens.

[DeejRC]

AnotherClarkey said:

No shortage of forelock-tuggers here.

To a bloke who makes diggers?

Well that’s one interpretation I suppose…

[Vanden Saab]

DeejRC said:

AnotherClarkey said:

No shortage of forelock-tuggers here.

To a bloke who makes diggers?

Well that’s one interpretation I suppose…

Lord... tick
Rich...tick
Employs lots of people...tick
Tory...tick

BAD, BAD, BAD...

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

mac96 said:

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

This case doesn't seem that complex (did he get the shares when he says he did, or when HMRC think he might have) - but I'd also imagine pretty much impossible to prove evasion.

How do you go about proving someone has shares in a company that aren't registered as being owned by him but his father?

It can be quite a bit more complex. Often in these structures the shares are owned by an off shore (typically Caribbean) trust, company or partnership which may in turn be owned or managed by others. Frequently for tax purposes what matters in control.

Further anti avoidance legislation means steps in a structure , which maybe legal, can be ignored it they have no commercial value but just avoid tax. The commercial value test is normally the disagreement between the tax payer and HMRC.

[sugerbear]

mac96 said:

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

valiant said:

119 said:

valiant said:

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)

Nope.

So why the earlier comment?

He earns a lot and his company makes a lot so shouldn't they pay what's owed just like the rest of us?

How do you know they haven't?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. You seem to have already made up your mind. Why is that?

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

AnotherClarkey said:

No shortage of forelock-tuggers here.

And also a pitchfork wielding mob.....

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

sugerbear said:

mac96 said:

Skeptisk 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 think that the 11,000 employees contribute somewhat to the group’s success.

Having just checked the tax affairs of the group seem a bit dubious, to say the least.

Of course they do, but they are only in those jobs thanks to Lord Bamford and his father .
Complex tax yes, whether within the rules we will see. Maybe.

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

Soooooo, just like any other company then?

[President Merkin]

119 said:

valiant said:

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)

Nope.

Then why say that?

Assumptions are the mark of the terminally incurious.

In 2015, my little one man band business paid more corporation tax than Costa coffee. If you're going to breeze through life bending your knee & tugging your forelock, at least make an effort to avail yourself of the mechanisms by which some of these people become the financial titans you so admire.

[av185]

sugerbear said:

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

Yep their enormous wealth is nothing to do with their business skills and entirely because of their dedicated workforce.

[cb31]

sugerbear said:

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

I know, maybe they could do something to repay those workers like pay them wages or something?

I have no opinion either way of the bloke, don't know him or much about him apart from headlines but the above comment is absolute tripe.

[av185]

[mac96]

av185 said:

sugerbear said:

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

Yep their enormous wealth is nothing to do with their business skills and entirely because of their dedicated workforce.

Exactly. The Bamfords created the business, no Bamfords, no JCB and no jobs.
The workforce could be replaced, in the UK or overseas.

If we were talking about a big PLC like BAE where the founders are in the mists of time and the company is run by successive generations of management who are themselves employees, then perhaps less clear cut!

[valiant]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

valiant said:

119 said:

valiant said:

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)

Nope.

So why the earlier comment?

He earns a lot and his company makes a lot so shouldn't they pay what's owed just like the rest of us?

How do you know they haven't?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. You seem to have already made up your mind. Why is that?

Have I?

I said in an earlier comment that the accusations are only alleged at the moment.

My point was in rebuttal to another poster who implied that just because they may already pay a stload of tax and more than you and me doesn’t mean they should get off scot free in paying all their taxes due if indeed they are due.

Maybe you’re reading too much into it perhaps?

[sugerbear]

av185 said:

sugerbear said:

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

Yep their enormous wealth is nothing to do with their business skills and entirely because of their dedicated workforce.

Ah yes, the idea that those two alone managed to manage an entire workforce of mindless drones to do their bidding. No salespeople were ever involved, no mechanics, no engineers, no workers, cleaners etc etc no one ever came up with their own ideas, it was of course entrely down to the Bamford and son.

[simon_harris]

sugerbear said:

av185 said:

sugerbear said:

Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.

Yep their enormous wealth is nothing to do with their business skills and entirely because of their dedicated workforce.

Ah yes, the idea that those two alone managed to manage an entire workforce of mindless drones to do their bidding. No salespeople were ever involved, no mechanics, no engineers, no workers, cleaners etc etc no one ever came up with their own ideas, it was of course entrely down to the Bamford and son.

How many of those workers took the original risk with the capital to set up the company in the first place?
How many of those workers currently share the risk of the business failing and any financial requirements that might entail?
How many of those workers worry about developing markets and how to best utilise them?
How many of those workers are forced to continue working for the company against their will?

Yours is a stupid facile argument, without the original and ongoing investment and acceptance and management of risk none of those workers would be taking home a salary. It is a symbiotic relationship between business owner and employee one cannot exist without the other but it needs someone to take the initial risk.

yes the current workforce enable the Bamfords to become rich, but the bamfords enable the workforce to pay for housing, food, clothes, holidays and ultimately if they choose to do so save enough money to start their own enterprise and become rich for themselves.

Most however are happy with the business owner/employee arrangement and to carry on with their lives.

If however you were stating that the bamfords were underpaying and exploiting their workforce with an unfair and unbalanced arrangement you might have a more solid footing, but you are and you don't.

JCB is a global success story and everyone involved should rightly be recognised for that.