its always hailed as a disaster and a gaffe, but they are playing to their core vote, not Cameroons like them.
Well I can unserstand Farage playing to his "core vote" because UKIP is still a relatively small and very silly political party, but shouldn't Miliband being setting his sight's a tad higher and reaching out "beyond the core?"
Another thought on Ed's assault on vested interests and tax avoiders and that's the Scottish spin off. There's no doubt 'New Ed' will be going down a storm in Scotland. They could yet overhaul the SNP lead.
Er.... Think we need to file this one - Could be a Rogerdarmus special....
Another thought on Ed's assault on vested interests and tax avoiders and that's the Scottish spin off. There's no doubt 'New Ed' will be going down a storm in Scotland. They could yet overhaul the SNP lead.
its always hailed as a disaster and a gaffe, but they are playing to their core vote, not Cameroons like them.
Well I can unserstand Farage playing to his "core vote" because UKIP is still a relatively small and very silly political party, but shouldn't Miliband being setting his sight's a tad higher and reaching out "beyond the core?"
Miliband needs tack left and get back those Green voters that seem to be on walkabout at the moment.
How Jeremy Paxman blew lid on BBC's complicity in tax avoidance pay deals for stars...How 148 BBC performers avoid paying full tax rate....How 6000 others avoided full taxes.
Or how about how the likes of most of the MOTD presenters put money into what HMRC believes are schemes, which constitute “contrived” tax shelters.
Funny how no big headlines on the front of the BBC website about these stories.
From the headlines it sounds as if he put in a claim just for £1.30, but it sounds as like it was part of a larger expense claim. Here in the US the system is very different, you get a generous daily allowance when on trips and, if you are a being paid from federal funds, they are very annoyed when you try to claim less than the full allowance.
Another thought on Ed's assault on vested interests and tax avoiders and that's the Scottish spin off. There's no doubt 'New Ed' will be going down a storm in Scotland. They could yet overhaul the SNP lead.
LOL
Roger haven't you twigged yet Ed IS a vested interest,
he's a bartender preaching teetotalism, a kosher pork butcher, he's shagging for virginity call it what you will but he's no different from Cameron he just pretends he is.
Miliband needs tack left and get back those Green voters that seem to be on walkabout at the moment. Indeed. Is that what today's PMQ was about, I wonder?
its always hailed as a disaster and a gaffe, but they are playing to their core vote, not Cameroons like them.
Well I can unserstand Farage playing to his "core vote" because UKIP is still a relatively small and very silly political party, but shouldn't Miliband being setting his sight's a tad higher and reaching out "beyond the core?"
No doubt you and your fellow Cameroons know best, but it seems to me the way he is playing it.. whether it works remains to be seen
Roger, the SNP leader today made a stirring anti-austerity speech, demanding more spending, more borrowing and more taxing (of the rich). All fantasy politics of course, but manna for heaven for Scottish lefties. You really think Ed Miliband making wild accusations about largely unknown donors will convert the former dockyard workers of Govan from the most credible left-wing party in Scotland?
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
What today shows us - both on here and in the wider political world - is the absolute certainty of those on the Left that all Tories are dodgy bastard shits, just by dint of being Tories. They need no evidence beyond their base prejudices.
The article is riddled with inaccuracies. I have demonstrated ad nauseam that the Milibands only took advantage of their father's rightful IHT allowance.
No tax was saved, because...in fact no tax was owed...
The Labour government later formally enshrined this procedure in the Finance Act 2008.
But that's not polling. We discussed the actual polling data (ex Lord A) at the time and came to the conclusion that the Lord Ashcroft data showed enough impact of the Vow to make a difference. That at least was data. What is this stuff?
Also - why are they being so keen to get out of admitting who wrote the Vow, and out of its promises, at the moment, and why were they so desperate to make it at the time?
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
What today shows us - both on here and in the wider political world - is the absolute certainty of those on the Left that all Tories are dodgy bastard shits, just by dint of being Tories. They need no evidence beyond their base prejudices.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
You're simply wrong, and clearly haven't the foggiest about this subject...
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Nothing to see, move along to the pink bus please.
"Tax evasion scandal Posted at 18:14 Sources say Jennie Granger, director general of enforcement and compliance at HMRC, is going to meet the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and police later this week to look at possibly expanding this investigation. If the SFO and police decide to take forward investigations into the matter, this becomes a much more serious matter for HSBC."
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
Nothing to see, move along to the pink bus please.
"Tax evasion scandal Posted at 18:14 Sources say Jennie Granger, director general of enforcement and compliance at HMRC, is going to meet the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and police later this week to look at possibly expanding this investigation. If the SFO and police decide to take forward investigations into the matter, this becomes a much more serious matter for HSBC."
When can we expect HSBC to move their HQ, and how much tax revenue will the Exchequer lose?
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
To mitigate tax if Mrs Miliband should die not long after Mr Miliband [and to allow a proportion of the estate to grow outside of the estate of Mrs Miliband, also potentially mitigating tax on her death].
In other words what every sensible person with standard tax advice would have done, and what the Finance Act 2008 now provides for those who didn't take advice [or had no assets at the time of their death].
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
To mitigate tax if Mrs Miliband should die not long after Mr Miliband [and to allow a proportion of the estate to grow outside of the estate of Mrs Miliband, also potentially mitigating tax on her death].
In other words what every sensible person with standard tax advice would have done, and what the Finance Act 2008 now provides for those who didn't take advice [or had no assets at the time of their death].
To all intents and purposes it was a restructuring, for the purposes of potential future legal Tax Avoidance.
@TheWatcher The powerful should be above prosecution, or even suspicion? It appears to be a deeply held belief of yours.....I take a different view, but that could be because I am an immoral "lefty"
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
To mitigate tax if Mrs Miliband should die not long after Mr Miliband [and to allow a proportion of the estate to grow outside of the estate of Mrs Miliband, also potentially mitigating tax on her death].
In other words what every sensible person with standard tax advice would have done, and what the Finance Act 2008 now provides for those who didn't take advice [or had no assets at the time of their death].
Legal Tax Avoidance at the time.
Rubbish. What bit don't you understand about "No tax was payable."
It was Legal Tax Planning which made no difference at the time, and which in all probability has not made any difference at all, since Mrs Miliband has had 20 years in which to arrange her own affairs so as to minimize [to zero if possible] her own IHT liability.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
So why go to all the bother of setting up a trust?
Because under the arrangements that existed then it would have helped him (and his brother) avoid tax on his mother's death (but the law has since been changed anyway rendering the exercise pointless now). It's a fairly stunning act of hypocrisy on his part and does undermine all his attacks on the the tax avoidance arrangements of others.
But we have done this to death on pbc on numerous occasions now. At least this time we might be spared the speculation about when he did or didnt start living with his now wife.
Rubbish. What bit don't you understand about "No tax was payable."
It was Legal Tax Planning which made no difference at the time, and which in all probability has not made any difference at all, since Mrs Miliband has had 20 years in which to arrange her own affairs so as to minimize [to zero if possible] her own IHT liability.
You're coming on rather unnecessarily strong. The simple fact in your own account is that actions were taken by the Miliband family to reduce possible future tax liabilities. That is relevant and fair game when you start making unsubstantiated personal accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege suggesting others are crooks for taking actions to reduce their tax liabilities.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
To mitigate tax if Mrs Miliband should die not long after Mr Miliband [and to allow a proportion of the estate to grow outside of the estate of Mrs Miliband, also potentially mitigating tax on her death].
In other words what every sensible person with standard tax advice would have done, and what the Finance Act 2008 now provides for those who didn't take advice [or had no assets at the time of their death].
To all intents and purposes it was a restructuring, for the purposes of potential future legal Tax Avoidance.
Potential is the crucial word. And it's not Tax Avoidance. It's Tax mitigation/minimization by proper planning, which is everyone's legal right...
'OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?'
A Deed of Variation allows a beneficiary under a Will or an intestacy to re-direct his gift or his benefit to someone else. This note refers throughout to the variation of a Will, but the same principles apply to the variation of an intestacy. This may be done for a number of reasons:
a) To save Inheritance Tax;
b) To make a gift to someone who has been left out of a Will, or who has not received as much as he should have;
c) To change the type of gift made in the Will, for example to change a right to receive income only under the Will to a right to receive a sum of money;
d) To clarify an uncertainty or amend a defect in the Will;
e) To have the ownership of jointly owned property or other jointly owned asset (such as a bank account) severed to avoid the jointly owned asset passing to the joint owner on death.
@Neil There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. There seems to be a little confusion as to what the evidence on the discs contain. Only the tax authorities and the journalists really know for sure at the moment.
Rubbish. What bit don't you understand about "No tax was payable."
It was Legal Tax Planning which made no difference at the time, and which in all probability has not made any difference at all, since Mrs Miliband has had 20 years in which to arrange her own affairs so as to minimize [to zero if possible] her own IHT liability.
You're coming on rather unnecessarily strong. The simple fact in your own account is that actions were taken by the Miliband family to reduce possible future tax liabilities. That is relevant and fair game when you start making unsubstantiated personal accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege suggesting others are crooks for taking actions to reduce their tax liabilities.
Pretty much everybody who files tax returns (and many who do not) takes action to reduce their tax liabilities.
The use of Parliamentary privilege is an entirely separate issue.
ITV News has just said at the moment Labour are on the back foot over this.....thus showing why their news is about 20% as popular as the BBC. They have the political acumen of audreyanne.
ITV News has just said at the moment Labour are on the back foot over this.....thus showing why their news is about 20% as popular as the BBC. They have the political acumen of audreyanne.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
Family Miliband changed his will to their (potential) financial benefit. Ralph left £X, but the change meant it was £X-Y. Kerching.
Rubbish. What bit don't you understand about "No tax was payable."
It was Legal Tax Planning which made no difference at the time, and which in all probability has not made any difference at all, since Mrs Miliband has had 20 years in which to arrange her own affairs so as to minimize [to zero if possible] her own IHT liability.
You're coming on rather unnecessarily strong. The simple fact in your own account is that actions were taken by the Miliband family to reduce possible future tax liabilities. That is relevant and fair game when you start making unsubstantiated personal accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege suggesting others are crooks for taking actions to reduce their tax liabilities.
I cannot comment on Fink's affairs or whether Miliband was wise to raise them. Everything ultimately turns on the facts, and tax matters seem to bring out displays of venom and ignorance [especially from PAYErs, I guess].
But I can comment of the canard of Ralph Miliband's will. It was perfectly prudent and legal for the family to do what they did, along with thousands of others in the same situation.
ITV News has just said at the moment Labour are on the back foot over this.....thus showing why their news is about 20% as popular as the BBC. They have the political acumen of audreyanne.
When is Ed going to accuse Lord Fink without Parliamentary privilege?
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
That smells of bullshit. Few have used their tax free allowance in their lifetime, and even if they have they don't declare it...
You don't need a deed of variation if tax isn't payable on an estate, but you do need one if you see a big bill coming down the line. So the brothers fixed it so that they got a proportion of the house each and thus saved on a potential liability when their mother died.as the tax liability was avoided because there is no tax due on the first death. So they avoived a tax liability and as I said its weasel words. Miliband is a hypocrite, pure and simple.
ITV News has just said at the moment Labour are on the back foot over this.....thus showing why their news is about 20% as popular as the BBC. They have the political acumen of audreyanne.
When is Ed going to accuse Lord Fink without Parliamentary privilege?
He's probably waiting for Labour Party lawyers to produce a suitably worded statement.
He deserves to get his fingers burnt, not necessarily over the tax accusations, but the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
£0
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
That smells of bullshit. Few have used their tax free allowance in their lifetime, and even if they have they don't declare it...
You don't need a deed of variation if tax isn't payable on an estate, but you do need one if you see a big bill coming down the line. So the brothers fixed it so that they got a proportion of the house each and thus saved on a potential liability when their mother died.. So they avoived a tax liability and as I said its weasel words.
Tax Planning is perfectly rational and legal. And once more, the crucial word is "potential".
Mrs Miliband is still alive, and has every right under the law to reduce her IHT liability to zero, if she can...
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
ITV News has just said at the moment Labour are on the back foot over this.....thus showing why their news is about 20% as popular as the BBC. They have the political acumen of audreyanne.
When is Ed going to accuse Lord Fink without Parliamentary privilege?
He's probably waiting for Labour Party lawyers to produce a suitably worded statement.
He deserves to get his fingers burnt, not necessarily over the tax accusations, but the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege.
Like I said I think this will end very badly for him.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
As a life-long and committed Marxist, Ralph would have been horrified by the transfer of inherited wealth to his children. Their actions were a gross betrayal of everything he believed in and stood for.
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
The BBC really are doing Ed proud. Home page main headline "Miliband slams dodgy PM in tax row"
then on the BBC News page top story sub headings under that same heading are:
Ed Miliband brands David Cameron a "dodgy PM" in angry Commons exchanges over political donors who had HSBC Swiss bank accounts.
PM questions & tax chief questioned Kamal Ahmed: Police to be called in PM hits back at Tory tax dodge claim Watch Miliband: 'Something rotten and it's him' Watch HSBC: Tax chief shouted down by MPs
Another thought on Ed's assault on vested interests and tax avoiders and that's the Scottish spin off. There's no doubt 'New Ed' will be going down a storm in Scotland. They could yet overhaul the SNP lead.
Labour needs to get that van up to Scotland ASAP.
Wouldn't be a good idea for those lady drivers to pop over to the nearest B&Q and buy some tartan paint? They probably would if asked.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
As a life-long and committed Marxist, Ralph would have been horrified be the transfer of inherited wealth to his children. Their actions were a gross betrayal of everything he believed in and stood for.
Well he could have set up a trust, purely for the maintenance of his wife in her lifetime, if he felt so strongly about it.
Btw, the person who effectively made the deed of variation was Mrs Miliband (as the sole beneficiary), and she is a free agent.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
Except the ordinary bloke in the street will never have heard of a Deed of Variation, and whilst I agree that anyone who pays a penny more in tax than they need to is an idiot, when the right wing media raise this then it will just seem like they are all at it.
But that's not polling. We discussed the actual polling data (ex Lord A) at the time and came to the conclusion that the Lord Ashcroft data showed enough impact of the Vow to make a difference. That at least was data. What is this stuff?
Also - why are they being so keen to get out of admitting who wrote the Vow, and out of its promises, at the moment, and why were they so desperate to make it at the time?
Whatever entrails The Big Mac was examining, they indicated that the anti currency union troika headed by Osborne was a bust - 'They mapped a spike in likely yes support, pushing the vote up by 4.3% to 36.2%, when George Osborne announced the UK government would veto a sterling currency union after independence.'
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
No it's not. If you over pay tax by not using your tax free allowance you get given it back (this has happened to me when not working for part of the year, my automatically deducted tax meant I didn't use all of the allowance so I got a rebate).
How many people got IHT rebates because they didn't know they could do this?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
As a life-long and committed Marxist, Ralph would have been horrified be the transfer of inherited wealth to his children. Their actions were a gross betrayal of everything he believed in and stood for.
Well he could have set up a trust, purely for the maintenance of his wife in her lifetime, if he felt so strongly about it.
Btw, the person who effectively made the deed of variation was Mrs Miliband (as the sole beneficiary), and she is a free agent.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
Luckily Osborne rode to the rescue during the national emergency and brought the economy back to growth without causing mass unemployment, a truly astonishing feat. And I am not a Tory.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
No it's not. If you over pay tax by not using your tax free allowance you get given it back (this has happened to me when not working for part of the year, my automatically deducted tax meant I didn't use all of the allowance so I got a rebate).
How many people got IHT rebates because they didn't know they could do this?
It's why the law was changed in 2008, and why IHT is such a pernicious tax in practice, falling only on the secretive, the irrational, the unworldly, the ill or the just plain unlucky who don't have the wit or the time to seek proper advice...
The outrageousness of these people holding their money in Switzerland and then having influence over the British government as advisors is beyond shocking. There is really nothing to say. Lord Fink and his apologists are just making fools of themselves. There is going to be real anger about this. It'll make MP's duck houses pale into insignificance.
Sensible Chuka. There is no reason why he should stoop to the level of his boss, even if there weren't the additional incentive of not wanting the be at the wrong end of a libel suit.
Comments
http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/jim-murphy-claimed-1-30-for-irn-bru-on-expenses-1-3684503
How Jeremy Paxman blew lid on BBC's complicity in tax avoidance pay deals for stars...How 148 BBC performers avoid paying full tax rate....How 6000 others avoided full taxes.
Or how about how the likes of most of the MOTD presenters put money into what HMRC believes are schemes, which constitute “contrived” tax shelters.
Funny how no big headlines on the front of the BBC website about these stories.
Are there many Labour MP's in Essex?
JUST A REMINDER: If Mike gets sued, Robert will quite happilly provide the IP address and email address of the people making the defamatory comments.
Roger haven't you twigged yet Ed IS a vested interest,
he's a bartender preaching teetotalism, a kosher pork butcher, he's shagging for virginity call it what you will but he's no different from Cameron he just pretends he is.
' There's no doubt 'New Ed' will be going down a storm in Scotland. They could yet overhaul the SNP lead.'
Pure comedy,Ed's hated more than Cameron in Scotland,now that really is an achievement.
Indeed. Is that what today's PMQ was about, I wonder?
twitter.com/MarkGSparrow/status/565559118443069440
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
'Miliband is a first class shit. Rich of him to criticise others for tax avoidance when he himself avoided it on the death of his father'
I'm sure we can expect a full explanation from Ed.
They just ARE....
Foreign parts to me, I only lived there for a short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Essex
'He has avoided £0 pounds of tax. '
So why go to all the bother of setting up a trust?
No tax was saved, because...in fact no tax was owed...
The Labour government later formally enshrined this procedure in the Finance Act 2008.
Also - why are they being so keen to get out of admitting who wrote the Vow, and out of its promises, at the moment, and why were they so desperate to make it at the time?
Best thing about it is I have no idea why. My tax looked correct?!?!
Happy days.
The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
Scrapping Trident would be 'fundamental' in Labour/SNP coalition deal, Nicola Sturgeon says http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-11/nicola-sturgeon-scrapping-trident-would-be-fundamental-in-labour-snp-coalition-agreement/ …
"Tax evasion scandal
Posted at 18:14
Sources say Jennie Granger, director general of enforcement and compliance at HMRC, is going to meet the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and police later this week to look at possibly expanding this investigation. If the SFO and police decide to take forward investigations into the matter, this becomes a much more serious matter for HSBC."
At Ralph's death Ed Milliband, with the will as is, was going to pay £0 of inheritance tax.
With the deed of variation and 20% of the house this used some of Ralph's tax free allowance and so he paid £0.
In other words what every sensible person with standard tax advice would have done, and what the Finance Act 2008 now provides for those who didn't take advice [or had no assets at the time of their death].
The powerful should be above prosecution, or even suspicion?
It appears to be a deeply held belief of yours.....I take a different view, but that could be because I am an immoral "lefty"
It was Legal Tax Planning which made no difference at the time, and which in all probability has not made any difference at all, since Mrs Miliband has had 20 years in which to arrange her own affairs so as to minimize [to zero if possible] her own IHT liability.
But we have done this to death on pbc on numerous occasions now. At least this time we might be spared the speculation about when he did or didnt start living with his now wife.
'OK so if this is the case why the deed of variation?'
A Deed of Variation allows a beneficiary under a Will or an intestacy to re-direct his
gift or his benefit to someone else. This note refers throughout to the variation of a
Will, but the same principles apply to the variation of an intestacy. This may be done
for a number of reasons:
a) To save Inheritance Tax;
b) To make a gift to someone who has been left out of a Will, or who has not
received as much as he should have;
c) To change the type of gift made in the Will, for example to change a right to
receive income only under the Will to a right to receive a sum of money;
d) To clarify an uncertainty or amend a defect in the Will;
e) To have the ownership of jointly owned property or other jointly owned asset
(such as a bank account) severed to avoid the jointly owned asset passing to the
joint owner on death.
There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
There seems to be a little confusion as to what the evidence on the discs contain.
Only the tax authorities and the journalists really know for sure at the moment.
The use of Parliamentary privilege is an entirely separate issue.
You are welcome, you seemed to be a little confused on the matter
Always glad to be of assistance to my fellow left wingers Neil.
But I can comment of the canard of Ralph Miliband's will. It was perfectly prudent and legal for the family to do what they did, along with thousands of others in the same situation.
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
Suggesting the skew has gone so who wins most votes wins most seats.
That smells of bullshit. Few have used their tax free allowance in their lifetime, and even if they have they don't declare it...
You don't need a deed of variation if tax isn't payable on an estate, but you do need one if you see a big bill coming down the line. So the brothers fixed it so that they got a proportion of the house each and thus saved on a potential liability when their mother died.as the tax liability was avoided because there is no tax due on the first death. So they avoived a tax liability and as I said its weasel words.
Miliband is a hypocrite, pure and simple.
He deserves to get his fingers burnt, not necessarily over the tax accusations, but the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege.
Mrs Miliband is still alive, and has every right under the law to reduce her IHT liability to zero, if she can...
@MrSteerpike: Samantha Cameron’s sister in Twitter rant over Labour’s pink ‘tampon’ van http://t.co/5cAq1YxdHg @spectator http://t.co/MatsOYOy5e
A potential tax benefit, created by Parliament.
then on the BBC News page top story sub headings under that same heading are:
Ed Miliband brands David Cameron a "dodgy PM" in angry Commons exchanges over political donors who had HSBC Swiss bank accounts.
PM questions & tax chief questioned
Kamal Ahmed: Police to be called in
PM hits back at Tory tax dodge claim
Watch Miliband: 'Something rotten and it's him'
Watch HSBC: Tax chief shouted down by MPs
BBC Six gets between 4m and 5.6m, ITV Main gets around 3.7m so even taking the higher figure for the BBC it's almost exactly 2/3rd or 67% of the BBC figure.
http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/highlights/ratings
http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-30
Btw, the person who effectively made the deed of variation was Mrs Miliband (as the sole beneficiary), and she is a free agent.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-tories-and-hsbcs-toxic-message--were-not-all-in-it-together-10038830.html
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
Latest student voting intention (YouthSight | 06 - 08 Feb):
LAB - 33% (-5)
GRN - 28% (+4)
CON - 23% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (+2)
UKIP - 2% (-4)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9lfjSCIAAEyQ9v.png
That can't be right surely?
How many people got IHT rebates because they didn't know they could do this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko9gSpny4-c
Great colour for hiding a photo-reconnaissance aircraft.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/stanley-fink-grocers-son-who-became-the-godfather-of-hedge-funds-7858835.html
http://tinyurl.com/ng2kqn8