Discussion
With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.
AFP said:
LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
colonel c said:
With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.
"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"AFP said:
LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.
Jovial Joe said:
"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"
Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.
The point being the conservative party, who he funds to a significant degree said he would change his tax arrangements so he would pay in the UK. He has avoided doing that, therefore you can't (and here's a surprise) trust what a political party says.Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.
Jovial Joe said:
colonel c said:
With all the Labour leadership hubbub going on I bet the Tories are hoping this will pass unnoticed.
"There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally"AFP said:
LONDON — Conservative Party peer Lord Ashcroft is at the centre of a new tax row after being accused on Monday of transferring ownership of his main British company to avoid the payment of £3.4 million.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
The outgoing deputy party chairman transferred his £17 million stake in Impellam Group to a trust fund for his daughter on April 5, the day before new legislation was implemented which forced members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets, the BBC discovered.
Had he made the move a day later, the peer would have been liable for 20-percent inheritance tax, totalling £3.4 million.
There is no suggestion that the billionaire businessman has acted illegally, but the move is likely to cause consternation in the light of his record of tax payment and the government's promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts.
The party donor was allowed to take his seat in the upper house in 2000 after agreeing to give up his non-domicile tax status and take up permanent residence.
But it emerged ahead of this year's general election that the switch never took place and he had managed instead to acquire long-term resident status, which meant he did not have to pay tax on his foreign income.
Your point being what? It's his own money, he can do what he likes with it.
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Jovial Joe said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".
Fittster said:
Jovial Joe said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".
Plastic Pig explained it above.
Edited by Jovial Joe on Monday 27th September 13:22
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Jovial Joe said:
Fittster said:
Jovial Joe said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
This is quite clearly a case of "Do what we tell you, not what we do".
Plastic Pig explained it above.
Edited by Jovial Joe on Monday 27th September 13:22
"The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals."
The Conservative party say = "Tax Avoidance = Bad"
The man who funds them does "Avoid Tax".
jezzaaa said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Fittster said:
jezzaaa said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.
Phil1 said:
Fittster said:
jezzaaa said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.
Tom74 said:
On the other hand, by putting the asset in trust he has effectively given it away, so taken a 17mill hit plus not being the recipient of any income from the shareholding.
Seems the sensible thing to do, just bad timing re his public office!
17 million he's already paid tax on.Seems the sensible thing to do, just bad timing re his public office!
Fittster said:
Phil1 said:
Fittster said:
jezzaaa said:
Fittster said:
hornetrider said:
Right-ho. Let's string up everyone who takes tax advice.
Government says: "promise to tighten up on tax avoidance amid severe public spending cuts."Man who funds the party who made that statement and has a seat in the house of Lords because of that funding avoids tax even though it has been stated he will change his tax arrangements to pay UK taxes.
You really, really don't see a problem there?
Seems to me you are conflating paying taxes in the UK as opposed to Belize, with legally minimising tax burden in order make a political point.
You've been suckered in by this bullst.
It's as if the majority of the population think that when the tax rules were being written, they deliberately included a load of 'loopholes' simply to benefit the wealthy. How do you even define 'tax avoidance'? Who decides that? Am I a 'tax avoider' by choosing not to smoke? Or paying into an ISA?
Edited by Oakey on Monday 27th September 14:01
plasticpig said:
Crap article. He would never be liable to pay inheritance tax. His estate might be liable but would be dead so liable to pay nothing. If he lives for 7 years or more his estate wouldn't be liable to pay anything. The transaction may well be subject to capital gains tax though.
Lifetime charge?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff