Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Yibble

Members
  • Content count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

About Yibble

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member
  1. That is an entirely separate issue. But anyway, who is pretending that? I don't think anyone disputes that Hamilton's Corporate jet was sourced in a particular way in order to attract the favourable tax treatment provided by the legislation for that route. I have certainly never suggested it's anything other than lawful avoidance. You however have repeatedly alleged tax evasion, and then repeatedly failed to substantiate that allegation, because you are talking out of your fundament.
  2. Nice rant, but I notice you duck the question actually asked. Once again: Where is the evidence, or even credible suggestion of evasion? Nothing in either your comments or Jasper's has identified any. The only evasion I can see is you two evading answering that question. You specifically highlighted the VAT zero rating of Hamilton's corporate jet as an example of what you claim is evasion. I provided you with links to show that it appears (at least on the basis of what has been reported on the issue) to have been zero-rated exactly in accordance not only with the law but also with HMRC's guidance on how it should have been treated. In view of that, tell us where the evasion is there. Save us your random thoughts on taxpaying generally until you have at least shown some credibility / integrity in defending your silly claims of evasion. Or perhaps dump them on (say) Richard Murphy's site, where agreeing with the spirit of rantings there is seen as more important that factual accuracy, truth or real understanding of the issues. Meanwhile, let's see if you can actually back up the claims you have made here about evasion.
  3. Once again, what evasion? You keep making the allegation, but every time you're challenged on it you can't support it. The Paradise Papers are largely notable for the lack of evasion they have been able to uncover. Put up or shut up. Large multinationals do not evade taxes. If you genuinely believe otherwise, produce some evidence, or even some possible examples. 'Aggressive avoidance' is another matter, but there the seismic change happened years ago. BEPS was initiated over 5 years ago on the back of pressure from George Osborne and Wolfgang Schaeuble. That was anyway preceded by over 10 years work by the OECD Forum on Tax Administration, with extensive collaboration between national tax authorities following on from the Seoul Declaration in 2006. Tax planning without substance is all but dead. The EU's recent announcement is just another small step down a path that was commenced years ago. The sort of nonsense you're spouting here may play to the average Daily Mirror reader, but if you want to be taken seriously by actual grown-ups, you need to make an effort to understand the reality here, instead of attempting to misrepresent it.
  4. Oh really? Which part of the law, or of HMRC's guidance on the matter do you claim is not being respected here then?
  5. That's a very odd example to cite as an example of what you claim is tax evasion, when HMRC guidance (in respect of equivalent UK legislation) is really quite explicit that in the circumstances apparently involved, zero rating should apply. Rather than playing fast and loose with the law, this seems to be an example of compliance both with the letter and the spirit of the law, as is evidenced by HMRC's guidance. Quite the opposite of tax evasion in fact. The IoM's involvement here also seems to be of little relevance given it's clear the same result would have arisen under UK / EU VAT law. Sometimes the law may result in somebody paying less tax than you / Jasper / Richard Murphy / Jeremy Corbyn might like, but that's a very different thing from tax evasion. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-744c-ships-aircraft-and-associated-services/vat-notice-744c-ships-aircraft-and-associated-services#aircraft-and-qualifying-aircraft https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-transport/vtrans110640
  6. New attack on IOM tax haven status

    Thanks both. It's bewildering that certain EU jurisdictions are missing from the list and that seems to undermine its credibility. If the EU is genuinely committed to transparency, then surely it should be transparent about matters to be addressed with some of its member states too? It doesn't look good if you slag off the neighbours when you can't get your own house in order. As regards the IoM, requiring real economic substance is a good thing and anyone still relying on tax structuring which lacks economic substance is sailing close to the wind. I would hope its an issue which the IoM should not struggle to demonstrate compliance with.
  7. New attack on IOM tax haven status

    Has anyone found the grey list / watchlist? I'm curious as to which other jurisdictions are on it. Presumably Luxembourg sits right at the top with double red underlining, or would that be too embarrassing for their former finance minister?
  8. Perhaps you could give us an example of how that works then, troll boy?
  9. Jasper. You're living in the past. If US corporations or indeed anyone else were intent on evading tax, the IoM would be a very unwise jurisdiction to attempt it from / via*. The writing was on the wall for evaders years ago. Why do you think, despite the squiqabytes of data leaked, the Paradise Papers have uncovered so little evasion here? Greater scrutiny and transparency will quite likely serve in the IoM's interests because it will reveal that things here are far cleaner than in other 'respectable' jurisdictions, for example Delaware, Luxembourg and (dare we say it?) London. Frankly, you're just a troll, and a not-very-effective one. Do keep at it though, because it gives us yet another opportunity to tell the real story. *Some reasons why: The IoM's network of tax information exchange agreements FATCA The IoM's adoption of the Common Reporting standard The IoM's adoption of the EU Savings Tax Directive IoM's participation as a BEPS associate (albeit that's more about countering avoidance than evasion)
  10. Public Sector Pension Liability

    Yep. My comment was based on the (unstated) assumption that seeking to 'milk' some of the lowest paid would not be seen as viable, because it would push many into either poverty or welfare (or both) as well as creating a 'welfare trap' disincentive to work. Anyway, governments will always struggle to raise much additional tax revenue from poor people, because they tend not to have much money to take. In summary, we can either: (a) Cross our fingers and hope that a lot of economic growth materialises (a pretty stupid strategy, but seemingly the essence of the current IoMG plan), or (b) Start to loot the earnings and savings of middle income citizens to fund the public sector, or (c) Bite the bullet and cut back government expenditure and public sector pensions entitlement (cue much wailing). I vote for mainly (c), whilst remaining open to (audited) proof that the problem is not actually quite as dire as it appears to be.
  11. Public Sector Pension Liability

    Not quite, because the lower paid don't have enough funds to contribute a meaningful amount towards filling the gap. High net worth tends to be fairly mobile, so attempting to tax that means much of it will likely disappear elsewhere (with knock-on economic impact to boot). Therefore the harsh truth is that IF more revenue has to be raised to fund government spending and public sector pensions, most of it will have to come out of the pockets of fairly ordinary, middle income individuals and families. That's the essential truth that Corbyn is trying to deny in the UK and it's the issue which IoMG will need to face here. The alternative, of course, is to reduce government spending and (publicly funded) public sector pension entitlement. PS. My thanks also to Philip for clear, informed and illuminating comments. These forums are at their best when comments provide such real insight, in contrast to the usual bickering.
  12. Unfortunately the rhetoric is distracting from the real issues and also the real actions being taken to address them. The OECD's BEPS initiative is probably the most significant change in the international tax landscape in the last century. What is needed is concerted action to tackle other instances of aggressive avoidance, combined with ongoing pursuit of evaders. The OECD, G20, UK and IoM have all made major progress there and that needs to be recognised, supported and encouraged further. The current nonsense is just creating confusion and risks politicians going for headline grabbing actions, instead of contributing to effective action. The rubbish currently being spouted by Panorama, Corbyn, Hodge and Co either means they have very little actual understanding of the issues involved or, more likely, they are intentionally seeking to deceive (again). But then we're dealing with a man who can't even be honest about finding a seat on a train.
  13. Agreed. In amongst all the rubbish being talked on this issue, HQ gave a good, clear, and (I hope) honest summary of the position. He could have been a little more bullish I thought, but that is a risky tactic with a Humphries interview. Oh and Humpries also did a good job with the interview, putting the allegations that would be in the mind of a reasonable questioner, but keeping them on-point rather than just the usual non-specific muddying of the waters. It was good to hear rational debate instead of groundless muck-throwing.
  14. In due course. However it needs to be earned before it can be spent / distributed. Meanwhile we are spending far more than we earn, so until we do earn more we must spend less.
  15. They've had over six years to produce that roadmap. There's still no sign of it. All true. However growing the cake is only part of what needs to be addressed in the roadmap. To continue to spend on the basis that we might 'get lucky' and find some extra income is the road to penury. We should certainly try to grow the economy, but relying on doing so is idiocy. The real 'difficult' decisions needed are reductions in spending, to live within our means. That will entail a significant reduction in public sector headcount, reduced services, reduced pensions entitlement and maybe pay cuts too. That will indeed be difficult and unpopular, but nobody has yet come up with a credible suggestion that there is an alternative. This needed doing six years ago. It needs doing so even more now.
×