Jump to content

Applebys: Something or other about planes and VAT. CM says Panic!


Declan
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I must have imagined the Sky News article I watched a couple of weeks ago then, Si. With the female head of EU tax affairs stating that the construct was unfair, if not illegal. And lots of footage of Dublin? I can't remember what the exact amount was though, but it was "€ -illions". For sure.

 

IIRC Ireland were not "fined" that amount. The tens of billions Euros was the amount that the EU determined that Ireland should have been charging Apple in taxes, but led to the strange situation that Ireland said, erm, no they don't and no we don't want those 10's of billions thanks. Presume this is all in EU court somewhere at moment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Bono doesn't sit in the UK House of Lords!

There's a distinction between UK resident & UK domiciled.

It was suggesting that Lord Aschroft is DOMICILED in Belize. This effects his inheritance tax status - i.e. not liable for it if he's DOMICLED elsewhere.

If he's UK Resident, then he will be chargeable to INCOME tax on his world wide income and should be declaring accordingly.

The anomaly would come if you were neither UK Resident or Domiciled then how the hell can you have a seat in the UK House of Lords??

 

ICIJ brought Bono into it - not me!

Ashcroft gave up his seat in the Lords in 2015.

With the agreement of the UK authorities - Ashcroft is deemed 'UK long-term resident' not 'UK Permanent resident' meaning that with the agreement of UK tax authorities - he can remain tax domiciled elsewhere (Belize) and only pay UK tax on UK income and will cease to have an income tax liability to UK when his UK long-term (not permanent) residence finishes.

I am not responsible for UK tax rules, neither is Ashcroft, neither is the Isle of Man or Belize.

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Bono doesn't sit in the UK House of Lords!

There's a distinction between UK resident & UK domiciled.

It was suggesting that Lord Aschroft is DOMICILED in Belize. This effects his inheritance tax status - i.e. not liable for it if he's DOMICLED elsewhere.

If he's UK Resident, then he will be chargeable to INCOME tax on his world wide income and should be declaring accordingly.

The anomaly would come if you were neither UK Resident or Domiciled then how the hell can you have a seat in the UK House of Lords??

 

If you are in the House of Lords the UK treats you as UK R & D.

 

41Tax status of MPs and members of the House of Lords

(1)Subsection (2) applies if a person is for any part of a tax year—

(a)a member of the House of Commons, or

(b)a member of the House of Lords.

(2)The person is to be treated for the purposes of the taxes listed in subsection (3) as resident F1... and domiciled in the United Kingdom for the whole of that tax year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

ICIJ brought Bono into it - not me!

Ashcroft gave up his seat in the Lords in 2015.

With the agreement of the UK authorities - Ashcroft is deemed 'UK long-term resident' not 'UK Permanent resident' meaning that with the agreement of UK tax authorities - he can remain tax domiciled elsewhere (Belize) and only pay UK tax on UK income and will cease to have an income tax liability to UK when his UK long-term (not permanent) residence finishes.

I am not responsible for UK tax rules, neither is Ashcroft, neither is the Isle of Man or Belize.

The program was not really about Ashcroft's tax.

They were suggesting that the trust was run in the UK. If that were the case, the trustees would have a tax problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

The program was not really about Ashcroft's tax.

They were suggesting that the trust was run in the UK. If that were the case, the trustees would have a tax problem.

The UK press (including ICIJ) are certainly treating it as about Ashcroft's tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paradise-papers-latest-lord-ashcroft-house-of-lords-non-domicile-status-uk-belize-a8039251.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NoTail said:

I don't see that Phillip. Surely if HMRC can demonstrate that Ashcroft was controlling the trust then they could treat the whole thing as a sham, see through the trust and target Ashcroft. 

You know more about this than me so I may be wrong

I expect HMRC would be happy to establish either Sham or UK residence.

Sham is a notoriously hard contention to prove, you have to establish that none of the relevant parties intended to form a trust (while they insist that they did).

Residence (of trust) requires that HMRC establish that it was controlled in the UK. Still not easy but slightly easier.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Well nobody is interested in the boring affairs of the average man in the street. It was interesting that they called the information "leaked" rather than "stolen".

If the data is stolen then isn't it the case that anyone using that data is in possession of stolen property or some sort of breach of data protection? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's actually two difference possible areas of violations involving Ashcroft surely? 

One is that he either donated money to the Conservatives or served as a member of the House of Lords when he was not legally entitled to do so.  To some extent this will be a matter of timing, especially the Lords membership.  But if his status was different from what was claimed at the time, this should cause problems

The other is that he remained in effective charge of his Trust - according to the BBC:

Quote

 

The peer gave assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the Punta Gorda Trust in Bermuda in 2000.

The Paradise Papers suggests he sometimes made decisions without consulting trust officials. Such action could see the trust challenged by HMRC.

 

In that case the location of the Trust  (I think it was in Bermuda) is not really relevant  What the documents may do is undermine the whole status of the Trust - and possibly compromise Appleby if they are shown to have produced incorrect documentation to reinforce the Trust's status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...