These gifts to the Labour Party...
Discussion
So, a couple of things spring to mind.
This guy Abrahams gave his stooges significant amounts of money, see breakdown here:
Janet Dunn 31 January 2003 £25,000
Janet Kidd 06 May 2003 £25,000
Ray Ruddick 18 August 2003 £25,000
John McCarthy 12 January 2004 £15,000
Janet Kidd 01 April 2004 £10,000
Janet Kidd 27 October 2004 £2,000
John McCarthy 05 February 2005 £25,000
John McCarthy 01 June 2005 £25,000
John McCarthy 22 December 2005 £52,125
Janet Kidd 23 December 2005 £30,000
Ray Ruddick 23 December 2005 £17,850
John McCarthy 21 April 2006 £50,000
Ray Ruddick 24 May 2006 £50,000
John McCarthy 28 June 2007 £35,000
Janet Kidd 29 June 2007 £38,000
Ray Ruddick 29 June 2007 £24,000
Janet Kidd 10 July 2007 £80,000
Ray Ruddick 10 July 2007 £80,000
John McCarthy 10 July 2007 £55,000.00
Total £638,975.00
What tax would they be due to pay on receipt of this money from AD? I.e. CGT.
and
Can or would Labour claim gift aid on those gifts?
Just interested!
This guy Abrahams gave his stooges significant amounts of money, see breakdown here:
Janet Dunn 31 January 2003 £25,000
Janet Kidd 06 May 2003 £25,000
Ray Ruddick 18 August 2003 £25,000
John McCarthy 12 January 2004 £15,000
Janet Kidd 01 April 2004 £10,000
Janet Kidd 27 October 2004 £2,000
John McCarthy 05 February 2005 £25,000
John McCarthy 01 June 2005 £25,000
John McCarthy 22 December 2005 £52,125
Janet Kidd 23 December 2005 £30,000
Ray Ruddick 23 December 2005 £17,850
John McCarthy 21 April 2006 £50,000
Ray Ruddick 24 May 2006 £50,000
John McCarthy 28 June 2007 £35,000
Janet Kidd 29 June 2007 £38,000
Ray Ruddick 29 June 2007 £24,000
Janet Kidd 10 July 2007 £80,000
Ray Ruddick 10 July 2007 £80,000
John McCarthy 10 July 2007 £55,000.00
Total £638,975.00
What tax would they be due to pay on receipt of this money from AD? I.e. CGT.
and
Can or would Labour claim gift aid on those gifts?
Just interested!
The funny thing about it is , the MP bloke resigned saying he was the only one responsible yet Abrahams is no going on the BBC new saying he has a hand written letter from some other high up MP thanking him for his donations 
so he is openly fueling the story against the party he supports
And at least Hilary Benn had the moral back bone not to accept donations until they were made openly by this Abrahams bloke ,, unlike Harriet Harman who took the dosh by the back door
so he is openly fueling the story against the party he supports And at least Hilary Benn had the moral back bone not to accept donations until they were made openly by this Abrahams bloke ,, unlike Harriet Harman who took the dosh by the back door
It's not likely to be a tax issue - although, as ever, interpretation of the nature of these payments could result in tax issues arising.
If Abrahms paid these individuals and called the payments "gifts", then there is no tax arising as lifetime gifts are completely tax free. If Abrahms dies within 7 years of making the gifts, then the value of the gifts is added back into his estate for Inheritance Tax purposes.
However, it is doubtful if these were "gifts" in the normal sense. The legal definition of a gift is that the money (or asset) is given "without reservation of title". In other words, the giver relinquishes all control over the money or asset once it has been gifted.
If he retains some control over the "gift", it isn't actually a gift at all. This seems to be the case with these donations in the sense that money was given to individuals on the understanding that it was passed on to the Labour party.
If that is indeed the case, these individuals never really received anything and would never be liable to any tax.
If they received any sort of "reward" for handling the money (eg. a ah handling fee or commission), THAT reward (or its monetary equivalent) WOULD be taxable.
Much more likely is that these payments contravene other "non-tax" laws - such as the law surrounding party funding, Money Laundering and possibly Procedes of Crime.
It also looks like, in at least one instance, an individual's name was used without their consent. In other words, somehow Abrahms was able to make a payment to Labour using someone else's name without the other individual knowing. If that is the case, that individual might be able to bring a civil action against Abrahms if they so wish.
If Abrahms paid these individuals and called the payments "gifts", then there is no tax arising as lifetime gifts are completely tax free. If Abrahms dies within 7 years of making the gifts, then the value of the gifts is added back into his estate for Inheritance Tax purposes.
However, it is doubtful if these were "gifts" in the normal sense. The legal definition of a gift is that the money (or asset) is given "without reservation of title". In other words, the giver relinquishes all control over the money or asset once it has been gifted.
If he retains some control over the "gift", it isn't actually a gift at all. This seems to be the case with these donations in the sense that money was given to individuals on the understanding that it was passed on to the Labour party.
If that is indeed the case, these individuals never really received anything and would never be liable to any tax.
If they received any sort of "reward" for handling the money (eg. a ah handling fee or commission), THAT reward (or its monetary equivalent) WOULD be taxable.
Much more likely is that these payments contravene other "non-tax" laws - such as the law surrounding party funding, Money Laundering and possibly Procedes of Crime.
It also looks like, in at least one instance, an individual's name was used without their consent. In other words, somehow Abrahms was able to make a payment to Labour using someone else's name without the other individual knowing. If that is the case, that individual might be able to bring a civil action against Abrahms if they so wish.
sjg said:
Marki said:
so he is openly fueling the story against the party he supports
I believe he was after planning consent for a business park that was refused. It's since been granted, so presumably he doesn't need to be bribing (these) politicians any more.edb49 said:
sjg said:
Marki said:
so he is openly fueling the story against the party he supports
I believe he was after planning consent for a business park that was refused. It's since been granted, so presumably he doesn't need to be bribing (these) politicians any more.I am not sure why the person who has done needs to call for the police to get involved. It appears a law has been broken so why do they need to be informed before they do anything? When someone is speeding it doesn't require someone to report it for the police to take action if they find out through other means (e.g. they see it for themselves) does it? So why should a political party be any different?
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff