Yibble

Whilst Hodge may have benefited (greatly) from tax avoidance, that wasn't her doing and anyway was not wrongdoing. What is much more troubling was her reprehensible behaviour when she chaired the UK's Public Accounts Committee, which showed her to be fundamentally unreasonable and borderline dishonest. She's a crook. We should take no lectures in integrity from her. https://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2013-02-06-299031-tax-prat-year

or indeed tax. Well apart from back in the days when he was promoting tax avoidance that is. However knowing how to dodge taxes due on one's employment of domestic servants is quite a different thing from having an elementary understanding of or competence in international corporate tax matters.

Murphy's drivellings are always good for amusement. "[He has] three comments to make": One of them is agreeing with a comment made by the Guernsey press, so no controversy there. Then, with his other two comments, he gets his silly head in a muddle again. He laughably tries to suggest that the UK's ability to legislate on Crown Dependency matters in the case of a breakdown of good governance might apply where the 'governance' is corporate governance (and in an amorphous general sense only), when it is quite obviously a reference to the good governance of the CD itself. Then he describes a suggestion that Guernsey might petition the Queen as '"laughable", when that is precisely the route open to them to seek remedy (there's a clue in the word 'crown' Murph). Then he goes on to say "The Crown Dependencies really need to get their basic constitutional facts right." Quite a cheek, when he's the man who tried to claim (repeatedly) that the IoM is part of the UK.

Just to address Mitchell's specific claim that 'something like' £90bn is laundered through "the UK family, that's the overseas territories, crown dependencies and London": The £90bn estimate seemingly comes from Page 28 of the UK National Crime Agency's National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2016. To quote: "While there are no confirmed figures for the scale of money laundering, the IMF has estimated that money laundering globally represents between 2% and 5% of GDP. This estimate is broadly in line with similar estimates by the UN and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). If these percentages were applied to the UK economy with GDP at approximately GBP 1.8 trillion, the amount of money laundered would be between GBP 36 billion and GBP 90 billion." In other words, the figure is an estimate based on the IMF's global estimates, rather than being any estimate of the UK's actual involvement in money laundering. It is in no way related to the Crown Dependencies (other than you could apply the same percentage estimate to the GDP of the IoM, Norway, those blokes with the bows and arrows on the Andaman Islands, or anywhere else). It is utterly disingenuous of Mitchell to try to imply that figure represents money laundering by the Crown Dependencies. The man is a crook.

So the odious and disreputable Andrew Mitchell was spouting off on the Today Programme this morning (50 mins in). As befits a man who seems to struggle with truthfulness, integrity and fairly representing circumstances, he entirely skipped over the point that the Crown Dependencies already share beneficial ownership with the relevant law enforcement agencies. I suppose when one's argument on an point is weak, it's just easier to duck the point entirely. Then he had the cheek to suggest that his proposed legislation was necessary to combat a reported £90bn of money laundering through 'the UK family', thereby attempting to associate the CDs with London's reputation for money laundering. He also used words to the effect that, on his tour of the CDs, he heard nothing that cause him to change his mind. Hands up anyone who believes that either he or Hodge would have changed their minds in any circumstances whatsoever. The man is a shit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-47428417

Hmm, I'm no lawyer, but: If I were a schoolteacher, I think it might be an interesting exercise for a group of twelve-year-olds to critique that. I suspect at the end of the lesson the 12YOs would emerge as more competent legislators that this arse. The bloke is a Chartered Accountant FFS. He must have some experience of interpreting legislation. How could he possibly come up with something that laughably awful? [Edit] Now do I have to go to prison for two years for posting that?

Most covenants do not conflict with public interest (or at least the interest of a significant element of the community) in the way that these 'no pub' covenants do. I think it's fairly widely accepted that 'local' pubs do / can constitute assets of significant community value (for example see link below). Every few weeks sees a story in the UK media about communities acting together to save 'their' local. Whilst the UK is not here and here is not the UK, there are surely parallels. H&B's practice of using these covenants seems contrary to such community interest and my view is that IoMG should lean on them and tell them to stop. I have no idea whether the LA constituted a local community asset. I have never crossed the threshold. However the issue goes wider than the LA and I believe H&B need to be stopped from doing this elsewhere. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cheers-all-round-for-community-pubs-day--2

Perhaps where the issue is regarding an 'asset of community value' ? Pubs are private enterprises, but I think it's widely accepted that they become part of community tradition and in many cases serve as a community hub. They operate under and have been granted degree of exclusivity via licences granted by the state, with the brewery having built up a powerful oligopoly on the back of that. In consequence, it would not seem unreasonable for IoMG to legislate to prevent the brewery destroying community assets when they can no longer be bothered running them successfully. In fact the same could probably be achieved much more easily by IoMG securing a 'gentlemen's agreement' with the brewery that they will desist with their practice of restrictive covenants.

If only there was some sort of dredged, non-drying mooring facility involved in this development plan . . .

Scrapes and shunts in Tesco's car park and the like are not particularly pertinent to a road safety strategy debate.

Hmm. It seems that the CM was taken by surprise by this measure. He has a point in that it doesn't appear to make much sense (from a logical perspective, though the political rationale behind it is more understandable). However it looks like the IoM has been caught napping in that the measure was put out for consultation and it doesn't appear the IoM contributed a response (though I don't speak Dutch). Even if the IoM wasn't monitoring this, one might think that one of the global accounting firms would have alerted them to the consultation.

Seems HQ agrees with my suspicions: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=44373&headline=MEPs had made up their minds before visit&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2018

You're right. The operation of the rule of law is fundamental to the economic success of a territory. Britain's economic success for hundreds of years has depended on that. If we undermine that we will undermine our tax base, as well as our economy. I certainly have a vested interest in that. However I have no connection or involvement whatsoever with aircraft leasing, registration or the taxation thereof.

I expect so, for the VAT on jets that is. If the EU wants to change the rules, that's fine. That will of course 'un-level' the playing field for VAT on different types of air travel. That undermines what the EU considers to be a fundamental VAT principle of fiscal neutrality: "its expression in the sphere of VAT ‘precludes, in particular, treating similar supplies of services, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes" (from EU case law and a statement of the Advocate General). However I suspect you're right that political imperatives will result in the principle being overridden. Nobody could seriously consider the EU to be a principled organisation. My issue is not with whether or not the EU wishes to impose VAT on certain types of aircraft leasing arrangement. My objections are to: - The EU's disingenuous criticism of the IoM for (in effect) implementing EU law in the way the ECJ has ruled it (and any member state) should do, or indeed must do. - The utter hypocrisy of the likes of Juncker, widely reported to be the architect tax avoidance on a scale many leagues above this, to be selling himself as a crusader against avoidance. - The EU and Tax 3's hypocrisy in averting their gaze over EU territories facilitating major avoidance (notably Luxembourg, arguably Ireland, plus others). - Dishonest (or maybe just stupid) politicians and other commentators failing to distinguish between avoidance and evasion or, even worse, misrepresenting the former as the latter. - The dishonesty and/or stupidity of those who cite the Paradise Papers / LuxLeaks / Panama Papers or whatever as some sort of damning judgement of specific arrangements / regimes, without troubling to specify what the actual wrongdoing they are alleging is, or why it is wrong. If the EU believes it got it wrong with its own law, then it should change the law. That's how democratic government, the rule of law and civilised society operates. However when EU politicians disingenuously/dishonestly blame others for their own mess, they reveal themselves as liars and crooks.

Indeed. The problem for the Hodges and Ježeks of this world though, is that once they've finished their grandstanding / playing to the gallery, there's the tricky business of changing the rules such that they actually bring about the results they seem to want (or think they want). That requires detailed work with those who draft, implement and operate the rules: legal draftsmen, legislators, lawyers, accountants, tax authorities, law enforcement agencies etc. If your grandstanding position has been "never mind what the rules say", that's probably not going to go very well.