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

bankerboy

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

1 Follower

About bankerboy

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. bankerboy

    TT 2018

    Probably because, somewhat surprisingly, it’s not been drafted as an ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ clause. I’m not a lawyer, but if you want to enforce jurisdiction, safer to write exclusivity into the terms. In fact, some of the other wording seems quite sloppy to me. For instance, in the event of a red flag, riders are instructed to ride their machines ‘back’ to parc ferme; although elsewhere in the document it is made very clear that riders must not go the ‘wrong way’ around the course without proper instruction, telling them to go ‘back’ is not only ambiguous but potentially dangerous.
  2. Roger, reading between the lines, I suspect it is linked to variable yields from EasyJet, see: “5.16 A further feature of the introduction of easyJet services has been the dilution of the yield earned by the Airport in terms of average passenger related aeronautical revenue per passenger, which has declined from £5.09 to £3.28 per passenger between 2007/8 and 2017/8 - a decline of 36% whilst passenger growth over the period has been 4.8% or 18.6% from the low point in 2010/11. This is illustrated in Figure 5.4, which shows a decline in the amount of income from airport charges earned from each passenger as the proportion of easyJet passengers in the mix has risen from 0% to 40% in 2017.” In addition “8.47 In terms of future aeronautical incomes, we have assumed that yields from passenger charges remain static over the 5-year period, although our analysis in Section 5 suggests that there is a risk this might be difficult to achieve. If aeronautical yield continues to decline over the five-year period at the same rate as in the last twelve months to March 2018, then the trading position will be worse than we have projected. If aeronautical incomes increase as a result of the proposed increased security charge of £1 per departing passenger from August 2018, the trading position will improve although we have some concerns that an increased charge to airlines could also have a negative effect on traffic growth.”
  3. A nice tribute to a lovely mad, and I particularly liked this line “He was a great supporter of democracy in church institutions, as long as he could fix the result of the elections.”
  4. Giggleberrys, help me out - where does it say that? I see that section 3.3 mentions “ payroll costs account for around two thirds of overall expenditure, which is relatively high. This may result, to some degree, from the difficulty of recruiting to some of the more skilled positions such as Air Traffic Control and Rescue & Firefighting Services, requiring relatively high rates of pay. However, the historical rates and allowances applicable to Government employees have also been and continue to be relatively generous compared to the norms in the commercial airport sector.” Section 6.23 adds that “Allowing for the premium that may have to be paid to recruit to specialist or skilled jobs on the island, the basic rates of pay do not seem excessive. However, it is notable from this analysis that on-costs are quite high, in some cases almost doubling the basic pay rates. These on-costs include what is referred to as ‘overtime’, which we understand is defined as including shift working premiums, weekend and bank holidays premiums, first aid payments, as well as additional hours worked.” Most of the relevant numbers have been redacted but my reading of the above is that base salaries attract a premium, possibly due to the limited universe of candidates, but perhaps not excessively. However, overtime and other add-ons are out of line and overall, ‘rates and allowances’ are ‘relatively generous compared to the norms in the commercial airport sector”.
  5. It is important to recognise that there are different types of trust arrangement. This is what the IOMFSA have to say on the subject of the (trustees of a) discretionary trust holding shares in an IOM company, which, I understand, is the type of trust to whIch Gladys has been referring, and this confirms the approach she has set out in this discussion: ”Where the trust is a discretionary trust, its beneficiaries do not have an absolute right to any of the trust property, but only a right to be considered, as any benefit they receive is at the discretion of the trustees. In such circumstances, the beneficiaries of the discretionary trust cannot be beneficial owners and therefore cannot be registrable beneficial owners of the company. In that case, the registrable beneficial owners will, in the case of trustees who are natural persons, be those trustees. Where the trustee is a legal person, the registrable beneficial owners may be the trust company’s shareholders, if their apportioned shareholding in the company is over 25%.” Different treatments may may apply for other types of trust - see https://www.gov.im/media/1357278/beneficial-ownership-act-2017-guidance-june-2017-gc-no-2017-0003.pdf
  6. I think you might be confusing two things - the domicile of the trust is typically determined by the domicile of the trustee(s): hence where an IOM trust company is trustee of a trust, that trust will (normally) be resident in the IOM for tax purposes. However, the assets of the trust, and the beneficiaries, could be located outside the Isle of Man. Say for example the beneficiaries are UK residents, then making a loan or a distribution to such beneficiaries could have material tax consequences for them in the UK. Indeed, in some instances the location of the assets could have adverse consequences or, for very long standing trusts, changing the shape of the assets could be detrimental. What the IOMFSA is getting at is the trustee should be awake to the tax impact of its actions for the trust assets and for the beneficiaries ; this is different, i believe, to the tax residency of the trust itself.
  7. Depends what is meant by ‘filing’. Regulated entities must lodge their audited accounts with the IOMFSA, if that’s what you mean. Also, class 1(1) licenceholders - ie banks - are supposed to make available their financial statements across the counter on demand, or on their website, and some banks have also lodged them at the companies registry. All IOM companies need to file accounts with Income Tax, and it’s possible (not sure) that PLCs have further obligations for the filing of financial statements, but other than those, IOMFSA regulated entities have no additional obligations to file accounts at the companies registry or indeed in any other public fora.
  8. Some interesting statistics on page 32 (of the PDF) of the IOMFSA’s annual report: https://www.iomfsa.im/media/2489/fsa-annual-report-2017-2018.pdf Whilst some CSPs focus only on class 4 corporate activities, most fiduciary firms also undertake class 5 trust and trustee activities, plus of course a few also do class 3 fund admin work. But just focussing on the traditional trust and company work, and with the enormous caveat that the income derived from, and the employment/work associated with servicing, will differ from structure to structure, so looking at numbers of structures/entities alone may not in itself lead to meaningful conclusions. That said, it seems that IOM companies represent around 27.5% of the total number of structures being served (28% if the F register companies are included). No doubt for many of these structures, the beneficial owners will not care about disclosure, but some certainly will, and this could result in one of two outcomes - the structure being redomiciled elsewhere but the admin remaining in the IOM (in which case, the only loser is the IOM Govt in terms of registry fees), or the client being lost to another territory, in which case both public and private sector lose out. Incidentally, comparing these statistics with those from the companies registry, IOM CSPs are responsible for around 50% of all IOM 1931 Act companies and apparently 91% (***) of 2006 Act companies (*** Given that 2006 Act companies MUST engage a CSP as their registered agent, this figure should be 100% - there is clearly a 10% error between the figures generated by IOMFSA and the Registry).
  9. The Tynwald answer makes it clear that “In terms of numbers of jobs created, the Department records the minimum and maximum employment forecast by a project and uses an average as an indication of the employment forecast to be created during any year in question”. It seems to me likely that any application for Govt assistance will have a tendency to over-egg the upside potential on the job creation side, particularly if so doing helps along the application and given that there is (presumably) no risk or other implications from so doing - such as funding being recovered if the upside projection is not met. Also, projects are always optimistic about outcomes, otherwise nothing would ever get done! So, if an application says that there is likely to be a minimum job creation of ten places but that it could be as many as 150, that will be recorded by the Dept as 80 jobs created. My instinct is that most applicants will be running closer to the minimum number projected, with only a small number of applicants hitting anywhere near the maximum figure, hence this method (quelle surprise) will probably over-state the numbers. There can’t be that many FAS approvals each year, so it wouldn’t take a lot of work to do a quick sample of applicants to gauge exactly what jobs have been created.
  10. Sorry, my response was addressed to WTF...
  11. Ok, but I though the issue in this case was that Ronaldsway wasn’t open due to ATC staff being deemed out of time. I was pointing out that the limits for ATC time dont appear to be as black and white as they are being presented. You seem to be suggesting that the problem actually lies with easyJet staff being timed out?
  12. John, you’re the lawyer, not me, but have you actually read CAA CAP 670 part D? Seems to me, from a superficial reading, that there is sufficient flexibility to remain open, more at least than to which the air traffic controllers here (or retired ATCs perhaps) allude: Para D28 “At units where workload for any part of the day is judged to be low and the activity is spasmodic rather than continuous, periods of operational duty, at these times, may be extended to a maximum of four hours, provided that the following break is taken pro-rata (e.g. 45 minutes after 3 hours or 60 minutes after 4 hours).” Might be considered applicable to the IOM situation which is generally inherently less intense that, for example the control towers at Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham etc and particularly as all other traffic would have quietened significantly mid evening that night to allow sufficient rest periods. also Para D52 “In exceptional circumstances a Provider at a unit may in its discretion modify any Limitation through persons exercising its authority.” Exceptional circumstances being, perhaps, a one off delay caused by completely unexpected events at Gatwick, in the run up to Christmas? To me, these time limits don’t seem as black and white as painted.
  13. OK, i now see it is here - https://www.gov.im/media/1362401/1635-robert-sutton-v-creechuch-capital-limited.pdf but = and i could be wrong = i was pretty certain that until today it was on the tribunal decisions page - https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/offices/general-registry-isle-of-man-courts-and-tribunals/tribunals-service/tribunals/employment-tribunal/employment-tribunal-decisions/
  14. Indeed - so much so that the judgement seems to have vanished from the employment tribunal’s website - presumably an injunction, appeal or some other legal action is underway!
  15. There is a very clear local connection - according to the website of Manx Financial Group, which is the holding company for Conister Bank, amongst others: Arron Banks, a former Director of the Group is beneficially interested in 38,153,158 Ordinary Shares. This holding includes 9,777,166 Ordinary Shares held by Rene Nominees (IOM) Limited in trust for ICS Risk Solutions Limited. John Banks, a director of MFG is also a director of ICS Risk Solutions Limited. 38m shares represents around 29pc of the group, so a major stake in a local bank/financial services group.
×
×
  • Create New...