Offshore Tax Avoidance: Mike Garlick

[Guich]

Offshore Tax, Men are Mingers and Owen Jones (unrelated) threads all at the top of the board can only mean one thing...

SEAN IS STAYING!!!!!!

Get in!

[Sidney1st]

...or the corporations simply make less profit. Did you intentionally leave out that possibility? Apple have $250 billion in profits sat off-shore having used every method imaginable to avoid paying tax. That's an awful lot of maths teachers.

I'm sure I read once that Apple had more ready cash than the USA...

[If it be your will]

.

[Spijed]

Congratulations to Mike Garlick and anyone else who has managed to successfully avoid paying tax within the law.

The law is simply designed to help the wealthiest avoid paying as much tax as possible!

Still, money is everything to the wealthiest.

Morality means nothing.

[Paul Waine]

It's a nice idea, and I agree that they need to be more knowledgeable to an extent (e.g. stop banging on about how much a company turned over when complaining about them not paying any CT) but the chances of any but a very small number really understanding the tax laws and the potential impact of bad phrasing is very optimistic.

I probably studied tax for about a year, I can prepare a simple income tax return or CT600 but anything complicated is going to get passed to the tax department with a few hundred years of collective knowledge. Even then, anything really complicated will get passed on to tax lawyers who may spend a week in the library researching the legislation.

I don't want an MP to have enough knowledge to be able to understand the impact that a badly, phrased clause will have, it would mean that they were neglecting other duties. They need highly competent professional advisers to brief them (which is going to be difficult when private firms pay much higher wages) and, I would suggest, it is also an area where the House of Lords can come into play.

Hi aggi, I'm with you with passing the hard work on tax calcs to the experts. I've just paid my employers PAYE (I'm the only employee) - and I'm struggling the HMRC's Basic PAYE Tool. The system let me in to pay the tax, but now won't let me in to submit EPS for other periods. Arghh! New password requested by post. More time "wasted" feeding the government's poor IT systems.

We do need the MPs to understand what they are doing with tax - otherwise we end up with the mess that we all suffer from now - and it's just more government waste. I'm with you that the "house of lords" should do more - I've written before that it should be an "assembly of knowledgeable persons" - and, I'd have most of these KPs as apolitical experts (not "shoved upstairs ex-MPs).

[Spike]

just would like to add that if Mike Garlick ran the country there wouldn't be a need for tax evasion he would balance the books and everyone pay a fair amount of tax

[Paul Waine]

...or the corporations simply make less profit. Did you intentionally leave out that possibility? Apple have $250 billion in profits sat off-shore having used every method imaginable to avoid paying tax. That's an awful lot of maths teachers.

Two things, iibyw:

1) yes, you can imagine that there is the possibility of "less profits" - but, if the corporation knows there's a tax charge on turnover, don't you think they will add that to their selling prices? So, there are only two states: (1) the consumer pays; (2) the corporation goes out of business.

There's a situation in the UK retail energy markets at the present time. Large suppliers are charged by the government for a number of "green taxes" - small energy suppliers avoid these charges. So, the large suppliers add these to their prices to customers. I don't have the stats, but that is one of the biggest differences between large and small suppliers - and, why it is smart to switch.

2) Do you think that all of Apple's cash pile is earned on sales in the UK and Europe? And, define "offshore" - is it "offshore UK" (as the media is reporting) or "offshore USA" where Apple is headquartered? So, who should be collecting the tax on "excess profits" and employing more math teachers? (Is there a hint in my missing "s")?

[RingoMcCartney]

Quite a lot in the security industry

Then they will obviously be unaffected


But what about the millions of low paid low skilled jobs that ARE affected. You know, the ones that even Ed Miliband admitted existed in his 2015 general election campaign?

Or, like Lancaster claret, and other Remoaners, are you point blank refusing uncontrolled mass immigration has any effect on the, already beleaguered, workers. Their living standards their ability to negotiate better wages. While simultaneously seeing more of their ranks, be8ng forced to take zero hours, part time and short term contracts due to an over supply of cheap labour?

I agree with Ed Miliband....

[deanothedino]

Then they will obviously be unaffected

They ARE affected though. Wages are declining in real terms as Lancaster said but it's not because of mass immigration otherwise it wouldn't be happening for jobs that immigrants are ineligible to do.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Okay, I accept the IFS analysis. I happen to think they've been overly negative, but it is reasonably balanced and interesting.

It is important to note though, in the title of that piece they said "Labour’s reversal of corporate tax cuts would raise substantial sums" That is, it would raise substantial sums.

Yep. They do say that.

They also say it is in the short term but that the medium and long term may be very different. Which I referred to openly in my last post.

I happen to think they have been overly positive - economists always underestimate the behavioural effects that they cannot predict easily. We will find out I guess.

I’m not disagreeing on the need to tax the rich more, I’m just saying this isn’t the way to do it.

[Dark Cloud]

And one thing we do agree on I think, is that we should have immigration controls.

The difference is that I think we can do that within the EU (actually, not think, know we can) and you don't

If you're right about that, Lancaster and you may well be, then it would have been a VERY good idea for it to have been sorted BEFORE the brexit vote, because there's no doubt it's what swung the vote in favour of leaving.Successive governments had had enough time to get to grips with it from "within the EU tbh.

[Lancasterclaret]

Costs too much money for an austerity conscious govt.

Course, it will cost even more now like and thats what we will have to do after Brexit.

[aggi]

Then they will obviously be unaffected


But what about the millions of low paid low skilled jobs that ARE affected. You know, the ones that even Ed Miliband admitted existed in his 2015 general election campaign?

Or, like Lancaster claret, and other Remoaners, are you point blank refusing uncontrolled mass immigration has any effect on the, already beleaguered, workers. Their living standards their ability to negotiate better wages. While simultaneously seeing more of their ranks, be8ng forced to take zero hours, part time and short term contracts due to an over supply of cheap labour?

I agree with Ed Miliband....

Come on Ringo, if you're going to attack the EU in a post on tax then you should surely be referring to something like our inability to set our own VAT rates due to EU legislation or the EU interfering in individual country's tax matters, like Ireland and Apple {admittedly some may suggest a tax rate of 0.005% is a little low but that's sovereignty}.

Attempting to blame EU immigrants for a real wage slowdown whilst other countries in the EU with a higher rate of immigration are not suffering the same is a tough ask, you should have gone with the easy options above.

[aggi]

Two things, iibyw:

1) yes, you can imagine that there is the possibility of "less profits" - but, if the corporation knows there's a tax charge on turnover, don't you think they will add that to their selling prices? So, there are only two states: (1) the consumer pays; (2) the corporation goes out of business.

There's a situation in the UK retail energy markets at the present time. Large suppliers are charged by the government for a number of "green taxes" - small energy suppliers avoid these charges. So, the large suppliers add these to their prices to customers. I don't have the stats, but that is one of the biggest differences between large and small suppliers - and, why it is smart to switch.

2) Do you think that all of Apple's cash pile is earned on sales in the UK and Europe? And, define "offshore" - is it "offshore UK" (as the media is reporting) or "offshore USA" where Apple is headquartered? So, who should be collecting the tax on "excess profits" and employing more math teachers? (Is there a hint in my missing "s")?

I agree that a tax charge on turnover is a bad idea. It may seem a good idea when you see Amazon turning over millions and paying no tax (no VAT in the UK, it all goes via Amazon Sarl in Luxembourg, an EU announcement is due on this soon) but when you have companies that in reality are still turning over decent amounts but making losses (BFC for most of the last 20 years for instance) those extra taxes are just going to hit them harder.

I believe that most of Apple's cash pile is offshore-US in that they cannot bring it back to the US without taxes arising but it was mainly earned out of the US (largely in Europe) and would normally have been taxed in UK, etc if not for their rather dubious tax deals with Ireland.

[UpTheBeehole]

I believe that most of Apple's cash pile is offshore-US in that they cannot bring it back to the US without taxes arising but it was mainly earned out of the US (largely in Europe) and would normally have been taxed in UK, etc if not for their rather dubious tax deals with Ireland.

Similar to Mike Garlick's pension.

[AndrewJB]

The whole reason given for reducing the tax burden on the rich was that it would encourage investment, allow the free market to flourish, and this would benefit everyone. They never said; "and we'll plug the hole in our finances by cutting services that benefit the majority of people, or borrow until we amass huge levels of public debt" - but that is what they have done.

In terms of the original reasoning; it hasn't encouraged enough internal investment to justify cutting the taxes in the first place because we know a lot of that extra money they've made has gone offshore. If the free market has flourished (and growth figures over the last forty years suggest it hasn't), then the benefits have been distributed so unequally that over half the population is now worse off. By 'worse off' I mean stagnating wages, and spiralling costs (especially housing). So in turn it can't at all be said that reducing the tax burden on the rich has benefited everyone.

Those who voted for that path were sold a lemon.

What to do to fix it? Some people say that if we try to reverse things - even just a little - the rich are so powerful now they will simply move everything away, and we'll have even less than we do now. If they do in fact hold so much power right now, then they present a danger to our society, and surely we ought to be acting to reduce their power? The whole 'we need to appease the rich' argument has been voiced for about twenty years now, and during that time they've become more powerful, so if we imagine staying on this course for another twenty years I can't see it leading to an improvement in the situation. Surely it's a nettle that will have to be grasped at some point, and given the direction of travel the sooner the better?

[dsr]

If the free market has flourished (and growth figures over the last forty years suggest it hasn't), then the benefits have been distributed so unequally that over half the population is now worse off. By 'worse off' I mean stagnating wages, and spiralling costs (especially housing).

If you're preaching financial doom and gloom, surely 1977 is a bad year to measure from? Have you got figures to show who is worse off?

[thatdberight]

I agree that a tax charge on turnover is a bad idea. It may seem a good idea when you see Amazon turning over millions and paying no tax (no VAT in the UK, it all goes via Amazon Sarl in Luxembourg, an EU announcement is due on this soon) but when you have companies that in reality are still turning over decent amounts but making losses (BFC for most of the last 20 years for instance) those extra taxes are just going to hit them harder.

I believe that most of Apple's cash pile is offshore-US in that they cannot bring it back to the US without taxes arising but it was mainly earned out of the US (largely in Europe) and would normally have been taxed in UK, etc if not for their rather dubious tax deals with Ireland.

Football isn't a good example. If there was a turnover tax, they'd just lose some more, charge more or pay less to players. It's an industry to which no normal rules apply.

To be clear, I suggested a tax based on turnover with reliefs available. You might say, that's called profit but we need to be cleverer with this nowadays. The problem is the tax structure still exists in a world where value is mostly physical. The thing to say to the Apples, Googles and the like is that, yes, they've exported their clever R&D from the US (mainly) but the profits aren't going to be deemed to belong to that R&D and, even less grounded in reality, their 'brand' (which Starbucks etc have used most).

[aggi]

Football isn't a good example. If there was a turnover tax, they'd just lose some more, charge more or pay less to players. It's an industry to which no normal rules apply.

To be clear, I suggested a tax based on turnover with reliefs available. You might say, that's called profit but we need to be cleverer with this nowadays. The problem is the tax structure still exists in a world where value is mostly physical. The thing to say to the Apples, Googles and the like is that, yes, they've exported their clever R&D from the US (mainly) but the profits aren't going to be deemed to belong to that R&D and, even less grounded in reality, their 'brand' (which Starbucks etc have used most).

OK, Woolworth's for instance. Very big turnover, no profit, taxing them even more would have just made it even worse for them. Or a trader, huge turnover but wafer-thin margins.

As soon as we start introducing "reliefs" it will end up as another set of rules that big businesses will game and small ones will get stuck with. There are a whole load of tax and accounting rules dealing with intangibles, R&D, etc. The trouble is applying them correctly and keeping them up to date

[RingoMcCartney]

Come on Ringo, if you're going to attack the EU in a post on tax then you should surely be referring to something like our inability to set our own VAT rates due to EU legislation or the EU interfering in individual country's tax matters, like Ireland and Apple {admittedly some may suggest a tax rate of 0.005% is a little low but that's sovereignty}.

Attempting to blame EU immigrants for a real wage slowdown whilst other countries in the EU with a higher rate of immigration are not suffering the same is a tough ask, you should have gone with the easy options above.

Another Remoaner denying the existence of supply/demand equation.......

[Lancasterclaret]

You are ignoring the fact that other countries have the same immigration issues but not the same problem.

I know I'm ******* in the wind here, but have you ever considered the possibility that it might be slightly more complicated than that?

[aggi]

Nah, it's all them bloody immigrants (even though all them bloody immigrants haven't caused a wage decrease in real terms in other countries, maybe we've just got the wrong type of immigrants).

Discussions with Ringo are always entertaining, his total unwillingness to engage in any form of debate other than reiterating his original point (often with added capital letters) is highly impressive.

[RingoMcCartney]

You are ignoring the fact that other countries have the same immigration issues but not the same problem.

I know I'm ******* in the wind here, but have you ever considered the possibility that it might be slightly more complicated than that?

I joined in this thread cos you said, "we are the only country in the western world who have almost full employment and shrinking wages."

I said, "You sound like you have all the in-depth data and inconvenient facts to hand."

So come on, where is the data and inconvenient facts to back up you're repeated claim that other countries in the EU that are suffering uncontrolled mass immigration on the same scale as the UK, Are not seeing wage suppression and a race to the bottom in income for the workers at the bottom.

Where is It? Surely you have it at hand?

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

I joined in this thread cos you said, "we are the only country in the western world who have almost full employment and shrinking wages."

I said, "You sound like you have all the in-depth data and inconvenient facts to hand."

So come on, where is the data and inconvenient facts to back up you're repeated claim that other countries in the EU that are suffering uncontrolled mass immigration on the same scale as the UK, Are not seeing wage suppression and a race to the bottom in income for the workers at the bottom.

Where is It? Surely you have it at hand?

Here you go RIngo, EU immigration as a percentage of population. Note we're ninth in this yet the countries taking a higher proportion of immigrants are not seeing the same issue as we are.

Capture.JPG (81.78 KiB) Viewed 3599 times

[Lancasterclaret]

This is from Forbes about last year that might help a bit (there are a couple of Guardian reports along the same lines, but I've not used them as I think you'd ignore them!)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 8484c9d8c2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the point being made is that its too simplistic to blame it on what you want to blame it on.

[aggi]

I happen to think the market would adjust to a turnover tax, just like it does everything else, but I wasn't actually thinking of a widespread turnover tax. I'm not suggesting we actually do this (certainly not until all other measures to tax tax-avoiding multinationals have failed), but there's nothing to stop an act of parliament punitively targeting specific companies, if that's what it takes. One way or another, we have to make the tax practices of Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and the like untenable. I don't believe for one moment it is beyond us to do this, one way or another. And I don't believe they would vacate the UK market entirely if we did (and if they did, I'd live without my iphone, cheap books and watery coffee before I'd accept what they are doing!)

Like I've said, we have previously lacked motivation, not the means (for reasons that are painfully obvious when the PM's family were caught up in the last leak, and their biggest party donor in this one). If we accept we are powerless in this regard, accept 'that's just how it is', we are giving up far too easily. Our public services (nay, our civilisation as we understand it!) are at stake here.

I'm pretty sure that an act of parliament punitively targeting specific companies would break all sorts of EU and WTO rules.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be targeted, just that a turnover tax (or referring to turnover whilst complaining about how much tax they don't pay) isn't the way to do it. The real way is to close down the ability to for companies to trade in friendly nations with highly favourable tax rates (e.g. Amazon and Luxembourg, Apple and Ireland). There are moves to do this but we're not going to be part of them for much longer (in fact positioning ourselves as the friendly nation seems more likely).

[Lancasterclaret]

Course, there is due to be an EU wide statue due to take effect on Jan 2019 about tax avoidance.

More than one commentator has made the case that quite a lot of the wealthy Brexit backers might have had reasons to avoid that.

[Corky]

So, to summarise, it's interesting that a crime is treated as a crime and something that's not a crime isn't.

You have, I think, a low threshold for "interesting".

Well you must have found it interesting enough as you responded albeit weirdly.

Would you be offended if I thought you were a bit of a thick ****. I know, I just can't help myself.

[RingoMcCartney]

Here you go RIngo, EU immigration as a percentage of population. Note we're ninth in this yet the countries taking a higher proportion of immigrants are not seeing the same issue as we are.

Capture.JPG

Nice graph. Where is the section that shows the effects of immigration on the wages and bargaining power on low skilled workers? Also, where is section that shows the annual figures of non-EU immigration?

[Paul Waine]

I happen to think the market would adjust to a turnover tax, just like it does everything else, but I wasn't actually thinking of a widespread turnover tax. I'm not suggesting we actually do this (certainly not until all other measures to tax tax-avoiding multinationals have failed), but there's nothing to stop an act of parliament punitively targeting specific companies, if that's what it takes. One way or another, we have to make the tax practices of Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and the like untenable. I don't believe for one moment it is beyond us to do this, one way or another. And I don't believe they would vacate the UK market entirely if we did (and if they did, I'd live without my iphone, cheap books and watery coffee before I'd accept what they are doing!)

Like I've said, we have previously lacked motivation, not the means (for reasons that are painfully obvious when the PM's family were caught up in the last leak, and their biggest party donor in this one). If we accept we are powerless in this regard, accept 'that's just how it is', we are giving up far too easily. Our public services (nay, our civilisation as we understand it!) are at stake here.

Interesting, iibyw. I understand what you propose is called protectionism. Let's say it starts with the UK passing some legislation that "hits" Apple, Amazon, Starbucks - and others, I assume. What's the next move? USA picks out some UK owned "world beating firms," Dyson, maybe or GSK or BP (ok they've already hit BP - and they are 40% USA anyway)? And, then the EU does something and so on, and so on. We could be back in the 1930s depression in no time.

So, there needs to be an internationally agreed approach. Maybe there is merit in limiting the value of IP, say time limit it or introduce an objective measure of the value to be charged (though, I'd guess the rules already do this).

So far as the "tech giants" are concerned, it might be that a "data value tax" per customer would work - charged on the number of subscribers resident in a particular jurisdiction. Rather than FB, Amazon, Google and the rest getting rich on the free use of our data, maybe they could be charged by our government on a collective basis - and perhaps the revenue could be a contribution to national health care system or education. I'm sure the tech giants would see that the value of the data they collect from us all would be enhanced if (a) we are in good health and (b) we are well educated.

[thatdberight]

Here you go RIngo, EU immigration as a percentage of population. Note we're ninth in this yet the countries taking a higher proportion of immigrants are not seeing the same issue as we are.

Capture.JPG

I'm not really interested but if all those figures are positive, where are they all coming from?

[RingoMcCartney]

This is from Forbes about last year that might help a bit (there are a couple of Guardian reports along the same lines, but I've not used them as I think you'd ignore them!)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 8484c9d8c2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the point being made is that its too simplistic to blame it on what you want to blame it on.

There is nothing. Absolutely nothing, in that link, that backs up your claim. That the effects of uncontrolled mass immigration in similar countries in the EU has not had a negative effect on the wages and bargaining power on low skilled workers.

Absolutely non. In fact the guy says, "As Karl Marx did point out, if there's the reserve army of the unemployed then the capitalists don't need to raise wages to get the labour they desire." The army of unemployed are effectively the immigrants!!! Having a large pool of cheap labour to draw on means the bosses don't need to raise wages. You used a link that supports my argument!!!!

So I ask you for the last time. Back up your claim and provide evidence that "we are the only country in the western world who have almost full employment and shrinking wages."

And show me inconvenient facts and in-depth data that shows uncontrolled mass immigration has no effect on the lowest paid' s race to the bottom in wages.

[thatdberight]

Well you must have found it interesting enough as you responded albeit weirdly.

Would you be offended if I thought you were a bit of a thick ****. I know, I just can't help myself.

I wouldn't be offended. It would be exactly what I'd expect of you; throwing an insult to distract from your floundering. I'll leave you still musing on what you've found an intractable puzzle: why are criminals criminalised?

[Lancasterclaret]

Third try

"I think the point being made is that its too simplistic to blame it on what you want to blame it on."

We agree that we have almost full employment? Yes?

We agree that wages are low? Yes?

You think its SOLELY due to "mass uncontrolled immigration" I don't, but I am capable of accepting that it is a factor but CRUCIALLY only ONE factor,

IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE. IT NEVER IS. IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE OF ALL THE FACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED.

ANY FACTORS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH YOU JUST IGNORE.

Anyway

http://uk.businessinsider.com/low-unemp ... omy-2017-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

Third try

"I think the point being made is that its too simplistic to blame it on what you want to blame it on."

We agree that we have almost full employment? Yes?

We agree that wages are low? Yes?

You think its SOLELY due to "mass uncontrolled immigration" I don't, but I am capable of accepting that it is a factor but CRUCIALLY only ONE factor,

IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE. IT NEVER IS. IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE OF ALL THE FACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED.

ANY FACTORS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH YOU JUST IGNORE.

Anyway

http://uk.businessinsider.com/low-unemp ... omy-2017-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Just a quick one though, every other rich EU country has migration issues like we have. Why is it not affecting them?" Lancaster claret 7 November 2017.

Still nothing to back it up......

Still denying, like a true Remoaner, the existence of the supply demand equation.

Actually supply me a quote by Marx, " if there's the reserve army of the unemployed then the capitalists don't need to raise wages to get the labour they desire." That backs up my argument!!!

Still nothing at all that disproves my opinion that uncontrolled mass immigration has a devastating effect on the wages, bargaining power and job opportunities of millions of beleaguered British workers.

Another misguided Remoaner europhile, happy to behave like a latter day master sweep, or a the lackey of Dickensian gang master.

Till it happens to you or your family, and they go to the job centre to see a sea of minimum wage, zero hours, part time and temporary contracts. You'll just continue to pontificate from your ivory tower. Bet you get good mobile reception up there eh!? Every, selfish, cloud Lancs.....

[South West Claret.]

More on Off shore tax on R4s File on 4 in a minute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09cz3mp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

If you're preaching financial doom and gloom, surely 1977 is a bad year to measure from? Have you got figures to show who is worse off?

I’m not preaching doom and gloom. I don’t believe it is impossible to redistribute wealth a lot more than we currently do. What I was doing was calling out an idea that has failed - that of trickle down economics (the rationale behind reducing their taxes In the first place. And I’m also challenging those who insist we can’t tax the wealthy more because we need them - that if this is the case the position of ordinary citizens is getting worse in comparison to the rich, so we’ll need to bite the bullet sooner rather than later.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Sigh

There is more one factor at work here.

More than just immigration.

[AndrewJB]

Multinational tax avoidance is a global problem and needs global solutions. Our present government has put obstacles in front of attempts to do this.

[aggi]

Nice graph. Where is the section that shows the effects of immigration on the wages and bargaining power on low skilled workers? Also, where is section that shows the annual figures of non-EU immigration?

Here you go Ringo, totals. Take a good look at Germany and their immigration levels in particular.



However, I'm taking a wild guess that this won't suit you either, so I have a solution.

Given it is your assertion that the decrease in wages in real terms is solely due to mass immigration then provide some actual evidence. Some actual facts.

[pureclaret]

I have just watched part of the program with Richard Bilton and feel he will suffer the consequences of his ill advised actions with his for disregard for the customs and people of the Isle of man and the blatant disregard for the Mooinjer Veggey shame on you Dick

[Paul Waine]

I said if all else failed, and that is what it takes, then yes.

The USA would not retaliate, they are as livid with these practices as everyone else. As these leaks show it is us, the UK that is the pariah state when it comes to tax havens, by using our offshore sovereign territories. The world is looking to us to act. Europe and the US is furious at us for allowing this to happen. We're the baddies in all this.

No one is going to be angry at us if we crack down on our tax havens, and allowing companies like Apple to use them - quite the opposite.

Hi iibyw, I don't think we need to "flog" ourselves too much about tax havens. The "Belgium dentists" are famous for hiding their cash in Switzerland, as are the Germans. Don't forget that the President of the European Commission, Juncker, was once the leader of Luxembourg - a favourite tax haven of many, including a number of the USA tech giants. Remember also that there is a well known "aggressive, but legal" tax structure known as the "double dutch." It involves companies registered in the Netherlands with links also to Ireland: it has been extensively used by USA headquartered corporations.

I guess the only "regret" the USA will have for the existence of tax havens within the UK dependencies is that more of the business didn't end up in their own offshore tax havens.

The world is full of tax havens - the UK doesn't have a monopoly.

As I've typed a number of times, both on this thread and earlier ones we need MPs who have an interest in understanding the tax laws that they create rather than spending all their time "politicking."

EDIT: 1:00 Just seen The Times (on-line) for Wednesday. It seems that a couple of Labour councils have also been using "offshore" schemes to avoid tax on purchase of UK properties. This is something we should all be "livid" about.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[JohnMcGreal]

Course, there is due to be an EU wide statue due to take effect on Jan 2019 about tax avoidance.

More than one commentator has made the case that quite a lot of the wealthy Brexit backers might have had reasons to avoid that.

Yep. The EU is launching a major crackdown on offshore tax avoidance which will come into force in 2019. Still, I'm sure those wealthy donors to the leave campaign are really concerned about sovereignty and fish.

By that time we'll be well on the road to becoming the deregulated, low-tax, low-wage, environmentally dangerous, free market wasteland that the likes of Aaron Banks and Liam Fox have wet dreams about.

[Paul Waine]

Oh yes, most certainly. Of course we need to see the precise details in the form of an investigation, but if any Labour councillors were knowingly involved in offshore tax avoidance, particularly if public money was involved, then they should resign. I would not be at all surprised if some Labour MPs even, were found to be doing this. Again, as a party member, I would be seeking for the whip be withdrawn and suspend them from the party. Further, if any party donor was found to be funding the party from assets in any way linked to tax havens, I would demand their donations returned, and that would include any union donations (with over half a million members, we don't require any tainted funding, after all). If, heaven forbid, any of Labour's front bench were found to be aggressively avoiding tax using havens, then they absolutely must step down immediately.

I don't imagine for one second that the whole of the Labour machinery went into this clean as a whistle, that would be naive. I damn well hope they come out of the other side pretty clean though. How can I trust a party to act on my behalf in combatting these abusive practices if they don't act on their own personnel using them? I will revoke both my membership and support of the Labour Party if they don't.

What would you wish to happen to Tory councillors, MPs, cabinet members and party donors mixed up in such affairs? Would you revoke your support for the Conservative Party if they fail to act as above?

Good morning, iibyw.

Well said.

Re Conservative party: Yes, I think you've seen my posts on many occasions that speak very strongly against (1) abusive tax evasion; (2) tax avoidance facilitated by badly enacted tax laws - whether this is used by politicians or people connected with politicians; (3) the House of Lords, ex-MPS and wealthy people, including business "leaders" being "elevated" to the HoL to "lord it over us." Of course, it's a lot worse when these people turn out to be "corrupt and dishonest" in any way. Of course, my disdain applies also to the Liberal-Democrats and all other political parties.

Does this make it sound like I particularly need to revoke "support for the Conservative Party?" I've never been a member. I never will be a member.
Yes, they've had my vote more times than not - but, it's important when elections are held that we all participate.