The Paradise Papers

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

Surely the issue with Hamilton is plane purchase?

He doesn't reside in the UK, he shouldn't be taxed in the UK. Whatever I think of him or the moral decision of people like him to be non dom they aren't doing anything wrong as such.

The plane purchase, based on what I've seen looks dodgy.

1

Surely you can read what I've said Trent. I'm not talking about the current law and practice

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

No more often than every other F1 driver. Should they all be UK taxpayers too?

If their team is based here, then yes

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Surely the issue with Hamilton is plane purchase?

He doesn't reside in the UK, he shouldn't be taxed in the UK. Whatever I think of him or the moral decision of people like him to be non dom they aren't doing anything wrong as such.

The plane purchase, based on what I've seen looks dodgy.

Well, it's certainly the legal issue.

But I'm not going to stop caring about the moral issue of a man standing on the top step of a podium, pretending to be representing a nation he has chosen not to live in for his own financial gain, with the British national anthem playing as if any of it meant something to him. 

[TrentVilla]

Just now, bickster said:

Surely you can read what I've said Trent. I'm not talking about the current law and practice

Not really needed was it?

Yes I can read what you've said, I was just offering my view on it not commenting on yours. I'll leave you to it, as you were.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Not really needed was it?

Yes I can read what you've said, I was just offering my view on it not commenting on yours. I'll leave you to it, as you were.

Apologies, thought you were referring to my posts

[Risso]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

If their team is based here, then yes

So irrespective of where an employee lives and works, tax should be paid by an individual based on where a head office is located?  Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

[bickster]

6 hours ago, Risso said:

So irrespective of where an employee lives and works, tax should be paid by an individual based on where a head office is located?  Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

I’ve clearly thought it through more than you’ve read my posts and understood them

 

[Risso]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I’ve clearly thought it through more than you’ve read my posts and understood them

 

It’s clearly what you’re inplying in this case and ‘come the revolution’.

[Seat68]

My take on Hamilton, the shit weasel is he moved to a tax haven because he didn't wanted to be bugged all the time, then he has knowingly tax avoided on his plane. He has chosen to diddle the HMRC and for that, **** that guy.

[blandy]

9 hours ago, bickster said:

If their team is based here, then yes

I don’t like that idea at all. In simple terms, I’d like to think that income tax paid by a worker would be levied at the location ( country) the worker performs the work, rather than where a company HQ is based. 

We see loads of companies base themselves in low corporation tax locations to avoid that tax. I’d not want to see the practice expand to allow employees to pay less tax, too.

if you earn income by performing work in the UK, pay income tax in the UK.

For sports like F1, or e.g. when football tournaments are held Euro 96 etc.  Nations often make special arrangements on the basis that hosting the event brings benefits, and trying to tax all the World Cup footballers or racing drivers or athletes for a day/ week they’re competing and trading in the UK is counter productive. I guess the difficulty is these sportsmen can arrange things so they pretty much end up paying no income tax anywhere, by moving to Monaco or the Isle of Man. Until these havens are shut down that’ll always happen. Shaming people is the only tool we can use unless governments act collectively.

[Risso]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don’t like that idea at all. In simple terms, I’d like to think that income tax paid by a worker would be levied at the location ( country) the worker performs the work, rather than where a company HQ is based. 

We see loads of companies base themselves in low corporation tax locations to avoid that tax. I’d not want to see the practice expand to allow employees to pay less tax, too.

if you earn income by performing work in the UK, pay income tax in the UK.

For sports like F1, or e.g. when football tournaments are held Euro 96 etc.  Nations often make special arrangements on the basis that hosting the event brings benefits, and trying to tax all the World Cup footballers or racing drivers or athletes for a day/ week they’re competing and trading in the UK is counter productive. I guess the difficulty is these sportsmen can arrange things so they pretty much end up paying no income tax anywhere, by moving to Monaco or the Isle of Man. Until these havens are shut down that’ll always happen. Shaming people is the only tool we can use unless governments act collectively.

The trouble is, in as much as I think it's a problem, is that I can't ever see a day where jurisdictions around the world all have similar rates of tax for individuals and companies.  Even within the EU you have countries that are have low taxes, such as Malta, Ireland, Cyprus and the UK.  Look at Malta, it's a spit of rock in the Med that's smaller than the Isle of Wight, but it is rammed with offshore financial companies.  Fund management, e-gaming, insurance etc etc.  The effective rate of corporation tax over there is 5% tops.  All countries are in a global competition to attract businesses and individuals, and smaller countries that don't have much else to offer are always going to have to do what they can to attract capital.

[bobzy]

14 hours ago, Risso said:

So irrespective of where an employee lives and works, tax should be paid by an individual based on where a head office is located?  Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

I'm not au fait with the complexities of accountancy and taxation across the World, but to me you should pay tax according to the office you work out of.

If Mercedes have a base in Monaco which Hamilton works out of as he lives in Monaco, then that's the tax he should pay [presumably zero].  If Mercedes don't have a base in Monaco, but have one in France then Hamilton should be taxed according to whatever France's taxation laws are - because that's where the work is coming from.

It's something I've often wondered how/why it works.  I have a good friend who works and lives in China for a UK-based company.  His salary comes from this company in this country, but he pays no tax - either to the UK or to China.  I don't understand why this is a thing.  Surely he should pay tax somewhere?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

... I have a good friend who works and lives in China for a UK-based company.  His salary comes from this company in this country, but he pays no tax - either to the UK or to China.  I don't understand why this is a thing.  Surely he should pay tax somewhere?

I sometimes go abroad to work for a UK based company. What they do is some kind of shenanigans called hypothecation. The country I go to (say Australia or France..etc.) demands income taxes from "me" while I'm working there. My company pays these taxes for me. Then my company deducts money from my pay equivalent to the tax I would have been paying if I'd remained in the UK. Then the company claims the tax "I" paid abroad back from HMRC. So in essence I pay tax as if I'd stayed in the UK, the other country (Aus etc.) gets their income tax from my Co. and my company then claims that back from the UK taxman (because I was abroad, not in the UK).

I'm not sure who really benefits, but I know filling in all the ruddy tax forms for all these places is a massive pain.

Presumably your friend's company pays his China tax for him, but doesn't (unlike my employer) deduct from his wages the equivalent UK income tax.

[bickster]

10 hours ago, blandy said:

I don’t like that idea at all. In simple terms, I’d like to think that income tax paid by a worker would be levied at the location ( country) the worker performs the work, rather than where a company HQ is based. 

 

 

Hmm yes and no. I said if the team is based here because they tend to only have one site or two in the case of Mercedes F1 (both in the UK), I was being specific to F1 teams really. The HQ thing is irrelevant apart from in this particular industry it tends to be the only fixed work location

I then thought about a worldwide travelling salesman for example. He works out of a British office but travels the world selling his wares, it wouldn't be practical to tax him in every country he visits surely, he gets taxed here because that's where his base is and that's where the fruits of his labour are realised

 

Maybe it's me in cloud cuckooland but its pretty galling for the average person to witness these highly paid people paying next to nothing in tax, when everyone else gets taxed more but earn far less

[peterms]

Oh, this is good.

Quote

The Guardian is to defend robustly a legal action seeking to force the disclosure of the documents that formed the basis of its Paradise Papers investigation.

The offshore company at the heart of the story, Appleby, has launched breach of confidence proceedings against the Guardian and the BBC...

...Appleby has said the documents were stolen in a cyber-hack and there was no public interest in the stories published about it and its clients.

Ah hahahahahaha, hohoho, cough, splutter, I must lie down for a moment.

[Risso]

Good on them. The information wasn’t leaked, it was stolen.

[peterms]

4 hours ago, Risso said:

Good on them. The information wasn’t leaked, it was stolen.

I think the saga of Appleby and the Parasite Papers may shed some light on a range of illegal and antisocial activities.

How sad that Appleby's main concern seems to be keeping these things under wraps.  You might hope that they would have shared the views of various charities and campaigning organisations, here.

Quote

“In Transparency International’s experience, investigative journalism of this type is critical in detecting and deterring corruption,” said Robert Barrington, the executive director of Transparency International UK.

“The extent of wrongdoing and unethical behaviours exposed by the Guardian, the BBC and the other global media partners of the ICIJ [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] demonstrate the clear public interest in publishing material from the Paradise Papers.”

Rebecca Gowland, Oxfam GB’s head of inequality, said: “Investigations like the Paradise and Panama Papers help lift the lid on the hidden world of tax dodging which costs the poorest countries an estimated $170bn a year in lost revenue.

“Protecting those who expose these tax scandals is vital – public scrutiny is helping drive action to fix the broken global tax system and ensure there is more money to fight poverty worldwide.”

Christian Aid noted that the Panama Papers had prompted the EU to pass a directive requiring greater corporate transparency.

“Leaks such as the Panama and Paradise Papers play a crucial role in … increasing the pressure on politicians and global leaders for further action around the world.”

Appleby has claimed it is “obliged” to sue and that there was no public interest in publication. It has only brought action against journalists in the UK.

I should think pretty much anyone outside the taxdodging industry would see there is a very clear public interest in finding out about these things.

[OutByEaster?]

It's hard to get over the brass neck of Appleby in bringing a lawsuit against people who exposed their immoral, harmful, practices. We live in strange times.

 

[sne]

Swedish (Nordic) Bank Nordea fined £2 m for breaking the Luxembourg money laundering rules in the aftermath of the Paradise papers.

That'll teach them a lesson...

[Dr_Pangloss]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's hard to get over the brass neck of Appleby in bringing a lawsuit against people who exposed their immoral, harmful, practices. We live in strange times.

 

Same for those who say "good on them", some very bizarre people out there indeed.