Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Back at GE2010 polls from the second half of Feb 2010 prov

135

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    I'm not sure there's any point debating it with the Tory herd on here. They bemoan that it's all so unfair but they need to accept the values of the country they live in. And when it comes to tax the view of British public is:

    a) They don't like IHT and are sympathetic to those who avoid it.
    b) They like income tax and are unsympathetic to people who avoid it.

    They can go on behaving like Harry Enfield's Kevin the teenager but it won't make any difference.
    In terms of the politics, I'd say that's quite correct. Though I would probably say that with income tax, they're unsympathetic to *other people* who avoid it.
    Because if you're on PAYE other than salary swap pension, putting money in an ISA and having an offset mortgage... you can't !
    I think you need to speak to an IFA old fruit....
    Are you suggesting I ask my boss to pay my salary to a company in Bermuda, and then take a loan on this money to myself ;) ?
    I'm suggesting for example if any relatives have an IHT problem, perhaps they might like to pay in to a pension for you .... if you are in the £50k to £60k income bracket & also losing child benefit, then that's a very nice bit of tax planning.
    Not in that income bracket and no kids, my tax affairs are about as simple as can be tbh :)
    No rich rellies with IHT problems as it still works even in your 'simple' position?
    Vanilla
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

    But if old Ma Miliband had popped her clogs there would have been.
  • If the current polls are right, Labour will be almost wiped out in Scotland.
  • Alistair said:

    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.

    It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    More from News You Couldn't Make Up: A solicitor has been awarded £8,000 after she won a sex discrimination case against her employer, the Equality Commission

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31439871
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

    And they should know as they obviously have experience of tax avoidance. Cayman islands ring any bells?
  • According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

    FFS!

    Of course there was tax advantage all the way from 1994 to 2007. Then it ceased to have a tax advantage due to Darling's IHT response to Osborne. There can still be a tax advantage if that spousal transferability is ever removed by another politican and it happens that Mrs M dies under those then rules rather than the ones now applying!

    They've bought a ticket for IHT planning and whether it comes off or not all depends, but at least they bought the effing ticket!!!!

    off to write a suitability report to restore equilibrium
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    If the current polls are right, Labour will be almost wiped out in Scotland.

    Not doing too badly in England though, but their vote efficiency will be alot weaker than 2005. Still if they're 1% behind in England. They've won.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    Alistair said:

    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.

    It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
    There is no fiduciary duty to expose a client to unnecessary tax risk. Which is what happens when these schemes are sold.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    TGOHF said:

    According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation...http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

    But if old Ma Miliband had popped her clogs there would have been.
    Entirely contingent on when, and what she had done prior to mitigate her liability [to zero, quite possibly].
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Betting implications...

    @rafaelbehr: Go from seat to seat, becomes clear that incumbents who are dug in, regardless of party, have big advantage. Election will massacre the lazy
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    Betting implications...

    @rafaelbehr: Go from seat to seat, becomes clear that incumbents who are dug in, regardless of party, have big advantage. Election will massacre the lazy

    Does that apply in Scotland ?
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    BenM said:

    Alistair said:

    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.

    It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
    There is no fiduciary duty to expose a client to unnecessary tax risk. Which is what happens when these schemes are sold.
    Which will be why he wrote often, not always.

    Not sure why the left are desperately defending Ed over this if it's not an issue. I'm glad they are, because it's funny, just not sure why.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @marktheowl

    'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'


    A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.

    Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    40% of whatever the nil rate threshold will be on his mother's death (the current saving would be £130,000).

    There is nothing at all unethical about this arrangement.
    That assumes his Mother will let Ed or ED and David inherit the property. Too many assumptions are being made here.
    Even if she doesn't there's still a big future tax saving.

    No there's not. She sold it to DavidM a few years back and Ed paid CGT on his share of the money.

    But if she had croaked it before that Ed would have denied the treasury a packet.

    Like saying I drove home drunk without hitting anyone so it doesn't matter.

    But she didn't, so Ed has not avoided paying any tax. He is not a tax avoider. A drunk driver is still a drunk driver whether he hits anyone or not.
    But the family intention was to avoid tax - perfectly legal and above board - just bizarre that neither he nor his defenders can bring themselves to tell the truth. Almost makes you prefer the drunk.
  • Complete and utter sulky desperation this morning from the PB Tories.

    Flogging the nun yet again.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    Betting implications...

    @rafaelbehr: Go from seat to seat, becomes clear that incumbents who are dug in, regardless of party, have big advantage. Election will massacre the lazy

    Does that apply in Scotland ?
    The wisdom on here and betting markets seems to indicate this.

    Or why else would the SNP be 6-4 to gain Charlie Kennedy's seat. Any sort of electoral model puts the probability of him holding the seat at very low %s indeed.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    Does that apply in Scotland ?

    Um, no...
  • If the current polls are right, Labour will be almost wiped out in Scotland.

    If you take that as a given it means that Labour start the election about ninety seats behind the Tories. It's a wide margin.

    A seat swing on the scale of Kinnock's 1992 triumph would leave the Tories about ten seats ahead. Parliament would be very well hung, the SNP would hold the balance of power and Cameron would probably be forced out before Her Majesty's official birthday.
  • The richer you are, the more you can spend on paying less tax.
    Let's face it, if I was a Miliband or a Cameron, or a Jimmy Carr, or, heaven forbid, a Gary Barlow, I'd hire the best accountants and tax specialists I could afford, to let me keep more of my hard earned.
    What pees the average bloke off, the men and women who earn normal wages, the sort of wages where you can't really avoid tax, is hearing the great and the good bleat, moan about, and accuse each other of, being morally repugnant tax avoiders.
    Hearing Miliband bleat about it, or Osborne and Cameron moan about it, when I'm sure they "organise their financial affairs efficiently", and entirely legally, just makes me realise what a bunch of hypocrites they all are.
  • Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    saddened said:

    BenM said:

    Alistair said:

    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.

    It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
    There is no fiduciary duty to expose a client to unnecessary tax risk. Which is what happens when these schemes are sold.
    Which will be why he wrote often, not always.

    Not sure why the left are desperately defending Ed over this if it's not an issue. I'm glad they are, because it's funny, just not sure why.
    I get that you feel demoralised after yesterday's beating. A bit of mud slinging and all the bad stuff goes away, eh?
  • Barnesian said:

    surbiton said:

    Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.

    An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
    Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
    Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
    So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    How hard working is your average Scottish Labour constituency MP by the way, surely they haven't regarded their seats as invincible fiefdoms to be forever ruled by Labour... ?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Roger said:

    Hey Scott.

    ....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?

    I know, it's relentless, no offence but they are really the most predictable and pointless comments on here, same thing every time, practically no analysis or context just remorseless copy & pasting from every right wing source and beyond with no analysis or commentary, nobody would do that day after day without being paid.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited February 2015
    Scott_P said:

    That is dynamite. I cannot believe that Ed has said that deeds of variation are disreputable tax avoidance schemes that should not be allowed or indulged in. Blimey - do you have the link?

    Gordon Brown said that, but that's not what I said.

    Ed doesn't agree he engaged in legitimate tax avoidance.
    Ed's point is that he was merely a beneficiary of the deed of variation not the person who agreed it. That said he would have been aware of the change that he was suddenly getting a % of the family home before his mother died.....

    PS The amount of Inheritance Tax that future Govts are going to receive is going to rapidly increase unless the nil rate band is increased. All because of house price inflation in the South and London and the falling % of married couples.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
    So, poor Ed back in 1994 should have had the foresight to think "Stranger things have happened, but one day 20 years hence I could be leader of the Labour party, and wouldn't want to look 'hypocritical', at least in the eyes of LIAMT. So I'd better persuade Mum not to do this..."

    Do you apply these sorts of tests to yourself, I wonder...
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    BenM said:

    saddened said:

    BenM said:

    Alistair said:

    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.

    It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
    There is no fiduciary duty to expose a client to unnecessary tax risk. Which is what happens when these schemes are sold.
    Which will be why he wrote often, not always.

    Not sure why the left are desperately defending Ed over this if it's not an issue. I'm glad they are, because it's funny, just not sure why.
    I get that you feel demoralised after yesterday's beating. A bit of mud slinging and all the bad stuff goes away, eh?
    I like reading your posts, they're funny. The way you project what you would like people to be saying, opposed to what they are actually saying, is genuinely laugh out loud funny.

    I especially like it when you think I received a "beating", seriously, give your head a wobble.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:
    There are probably thousands of people with questionable tax affairs. One would expect Ed Miliband to focus specifically only on those in the political world. That may include Labour MPs or donors. His brother's affairs are no more a political matter than Cameron's brother.
    Because if there was any suggestion of Cameron's brother having any tax irregularities EdM wouldn't be making any comments on that now would he, no siree, no chance of that.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public .
    Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along .
    You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .


  • Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    Has anyone asked Ed whether he intends to make Lord Fink's tax arrangements illegal?
  • OllyT said:

    Roger said:

    Hey Scott.

    ....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?

    I know, it's relentless, no offence but they are really the most predictable and pointless comments on here, same thing every time, practically no analysis or context just remorseless copy & pasting from every right wing source and beyond with no analysis or commentary, nobody would do that day after day without being paid.
    They are by some distance the worst thing about PB. Just utter drivel 24/7 that shed no light on anything at all.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    Scott_P said:

    That is dynamite. I cannot believe that Ed has said that deeds of variation are disreputable tax avoidance schemes that should not be allowed or indulged in. Blimey - do you have the link?

    Gordon Brown said that, but that's not what I said.

    Ed doesn't agree he engaged in legitimate tax avoidance.
    Ed's point is that he was merely a beneficiary of the deed of variation not the person who agreed it. That said he would have been aware of the change that he was suddenly getting a % of the family home before his mother died.....

    Not an expert in these matters, as I'm not a tax avoider like Ed, but I believe he had to sign off on the agreement. Happy to be told otherwise.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Has anyone asked Ed whether he intends to make Lord Fink's tax arrangements illegal?

    I am intrigued to find out how Ed might go about making having a Swiss bank account illegal, if you live in Switzerland...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,155
    edited February 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Betting implications...

    @rafaelbehr: Go from seat to seat, becomes clear that incumbents who are dug in, regardless of party, have big advantage. Election will massacre the lazy

    Pulpstar said:

    How hard working is your average Scottish Labour constituency MP by the way, surely they haven't regarded their seats as invincible fiefdoms to be forever ruled by Labour... ?

    SLab incumbents ARE the lazy. Most of them were virually invisible & silent during the Indy campaign, hoping they could get away with being part of the Unionist coalition without too much collateral damage (or effort). That worked out well..
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:
    So, first we heard was that Ed had stabbed his brother at the back ! Now, Ed has to explain his brother's tax affairs ? David lives in NY as far as I am aware.
    And the CEO of Boots lives in Monaco, didn't stop Ed from having plenty to say about his tax arrangements, even to the extent of talking total bol*ocks about a foreign national, living in a foreign country as "avoiding" UK tax on which he was never going to be liable.
    The CEO of Boots stuck his hooter into an election that's none of his business.
    How many people does his firm employ in the Uk - would you prefer it if they moved their HQ elsewhere ?
    They did, Boots HQ is in Switzerland, it moved there in 2007, strange to say, the Labour government of the time didn't object in the slightest. Not a peep was heard from the then Minister of the Cabinet Office, one Mr E Miliband.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    I read the Times today to have a good laugh at the neo con kvetching over the peace deal in Ukraine, not enough cluster bombs dropped on the people of Donetsk?, but inbetween all that there is a very good article by Phil Collins, no not the popular 80s singer, about Fink and the problems that Cameron with his background and lack of political judgment create for the Conservative Party.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015

    Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public .
    Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along .
    You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .


    Let's not forget that your party, the Lib Dems, fought tooth and nail to keep the stolen £2.5 million given to them by the convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public .
    Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along .
    You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .


    They know that Mark, that is why that going to such great lengths to pretend they are not! Lengthening the debate on tax avoidance or evasion is only going to really harm one party but they can't let it go.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    Betting implications...

    @rafaelbehr: Go from seat to seat, becomes clear that incumbents who are dug in, regardless of party, have big advantage. Election will massacre the lazy

    Reckless big value at odds against I agree
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:
    There are probably thousands of people with questionable tax affairs. One would expect Ed Miliband to focus specifically only on those in the political world. That may include Labour MPs or donors. His brother's affairs are no more a political matter than Cameron's brother.
    Because if there was any suggestion of Cameron's brother having any tax irregularities EdM wouldn't be making any comments on that now would he, no siree, no chance of that.

    Apparently, even working for a company that minimises the amount of tax it pays is a "bad" thing, well it is if you are the wife of the PM and should be brought up in the H of C.
  • The richer you are, the more you can spend on paying less tax.
    Let's face it, if I was a Miliband or a Cameron, or a Jimmy Carr, or, heaven forbid, a Gary Barlow, I'd hire the best accountants and tax specialists I could afford, to let me keep more of my hard earned.
    What pees the average bloke off, the men and women who earn normal wages, the sort of wages where you can't really avoid tax, is hearing the great and the good bleat, moan about, and accuse each other of, being morally repugnant tax avoiders.
    Hearing Miliband bleat about it, or Osborne and Cameron moan about it, when I'm sure they "organise their financial affairs efficiently", and entirely legally, just makes me realise what a bunch of hypocrites they all are.

    If you use childcare vouchers or the in-work bike scheme – which many people who are on 'normal' wages can and do – you are in a pedantic sense 'avoiding tax'. Both are entirely legitimate and indeed officially-encouraged schemes, in the same way that a DoV is.

    That some on here are determined not to see the difference between normally mandated tax breaks and artificial and contrived ways of avoiding large amounts of income tax says a great deal about the desperate groupthink on here.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited February 2015

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public

    Ah, so that's what a Liberal Democrat thinks: Lord Fink is guilty because he hasn't proven himself innocent. Classy.

    And in fact he has made his arrangements more public than almost anyone else in the country. He explained yesterday what they were. Have any LibDem given as much detail about their tax arrangements? Does the highly-paid lawyer Miriam Clegg have an offshore account in to which she pays her bonuses, or a trust for her children? She hasn't denied it so she must be guilty of aggressive tax avoidance, by your reasoning.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363
    Barnesian said:



    [snipped]

    Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?

    I've just done it. My mother has died and I'm her executor. She left me a sum of money. I don't need it and I have varied the will to leave it to my child, her grandchild who needs it more than me.

    You don't need a solicitor. It doesn't even have to be a witnessed deed. You simply write a dated letter within two years of the death making clear what the variation is and that the provisions of the 1984 Inheritance Act shall apply. If any other beneficiary is disadvantaged they also need to agree in writing. But DYOR.

    "This variation is made by me Barnesian of [address]. Mrs Barnesian of [address] died on 12 February 2015. In her will she left me a legacy of £10,000. I redirect that legacy to my son John Barnesian. I intend that the provisions of section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 shall apply to this redirection of that legacy.

    Signed ….................................................................
      Barnesian

    Date …..................................................................."

    You file the letter with your will and other financial papers. That's it. It is not a complicated technical scheme that abuses legislation. Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
    Many thanks for taking the trouble. As I am in a similar position and need to do a similar deed, it is very useful to have my own understanding confirmed. (DYOR and all that, already done, of course). But what I could not find out was whether the letter had to be addressed to anyone or just 'to whom it may concern'. Did you come to any conclusion on that, please?

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    john_zims said:

    @marktheowl

    'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'


    A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.

    Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.

    The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur.
    It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.

    I state again.
    They saved nothing
    They have saved nothing
    They probably will save nothing
  • OllyT said:

    Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public .
    Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along .
    You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .


    They know that Mark, that is why that going to such great lengths to pretend they are not! Lengthening the debate on tax avoidance or evasion is only going to really harm one party but they can't let it go.
    They walk into this simple trap every single time.

    Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550
    The tax benefit that Ed received on his deed of variation was cgt not iht. When Ed received his share in the property for cgt purposes he got an uplift to market value as at his father's death. So when he sold the property later he had a reduced cgt bill.

    This rebasing on death for cgt purposes is something that the IFS Mirrlees report of the UK tax system frowned upon.
  • RodCrosby said:

    john_zims said:

    @marktheowl

    'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'


    A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.

    Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.

    The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur.
    It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.

    I state again.
    They saved nothing
    They have saved nothing
    They probably will save nothing
    "probably"
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.

    Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
  • Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

  • They walk into this simple trap every single time.

    Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.

    Don't be silly, of course the Conservatives know that this is a 'trap'. We just don't think that it's a trap that should be avoided, because we are interested in good government, not smearing and class warfare.

    Labour supporters seem to disagree, but that's something for their consciences.
  • Mr. Observer, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.

    You can't complain about others taking legitimate measures to reduce potential taxation having done precisely the same thing yourself.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    Whiff of desperation from some PB Tories today. Raging against any possible target.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2015

    It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share.
    Again, you miss the point.

    No one is attacking Ed for what his mother did twenty years ago. Quite the contrary, most have said it was legitimate tax planning.

    Ed is being criticised for his hypocrisy two days ago, for attacking others who also use legitimate tax planning.....
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    So Ed at 25 is asked to sign a document and he did..without asking what it was ..what was the purpose..is this the same Ed who was lecturing at Harvard..did his mum tie his shoelaces and comb his hair as well..dear oh dear..
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RodCrosby said:

    It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
    So, poor Ed back in 1994 should have had the foresight to think "Stranger things have happened, but one day 20 years hence I could be leader of the Labour party, and wouldn't want to look 'hypocritical', at least in the eyes of LIAMT. So I'd better persuade Mum not to do this..."

    Do you apply these sorts of tests to yourself, I wonder...
    He may however not want to be too critical of others tax arrangements though!

    Incidentally all MPs benefit from favourable (legal tax advoidance) arrangements in that expenses and allowances that they get are not taxed in the same way as P111 benefits in kind. If I got my Iron Bru, duckhouse or trouser press as expenses then I would be taxed on it.

    MEPs do better still, having the lowest income tax rate in the EU as a legal perk. No wonder Farage is always laughing.
  • They walk into this simple trap every single time.

    Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.

    Don't be silly, of course the Conservatives know that this is a 'trap'. We just don't think that it's a trap that should be avoided, because we are interested in good government, not smearing and class warfare.

    Labour supporters seem to disagree, but that's something for their consciences.

    Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.
  • The richer you are, the more you can spend on paying less tax.
    Let's face it, if I was a Miliband or a Cameron, or a Jimmy Carr, or, heaven forbid, a Gary Barlow, I'd hire the best accountants and tax specialists I could afford, to let me keep more of my hard earned.
    What pees the average bloke off, the men and women who earn normal wages, the sort of wages where you can't really avoid tax, is hearing the great and the good bleat, moan about, and accuse each other of, being morally repugnant tax avoiders.
    Hearing Miliband bleat about it, or Osborne and Cameron moan about it, when I'm sure they "organise their financial affairs efficiently", and entirely legally, just makes me realise what a bunch of hypocrites they all are.

    If you use childcare vouchers or the in-work bike scheme – which many people who are on 'normal' wages can and do – you are in a pedantic sense 'avoiding tax'. Both are entirely legitimate and indeed officially-encouraged schemes, in the same way that a DoV is.

    That some on here are determined not to see the difference between normally mandated tax breaks and artificial and contrived ways of avoiding large amounts of income tax says a great deal about the desperate groupthink on here.

    Blimey, I'm a horrible, tax avoiding, morally repugnant b'stard. I bike to work on a tax avoiding carbon frame!
    Je suis Ed/Fink!

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    OllyT said:

    Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?

    How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public .
    Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along .
    You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .


    They know that Mark, that is why that going to such great lengths to pretend they are not! Lengthening the debate on tax avoidance or evasion is only going to really harm one party but they can't let it go.
    They walk into this simple trap every single time.

    Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.
    Which policy are you taking about?

    The freeze, or the cap?
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.

    Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
    By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.

    Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
  • Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.

    They are certainly envious, spiteful, sanctimonious hypocrites. We can all agree on that surely?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Carnyx said:

    Barnesian said:



    [snipped]

    Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?

    I've just done it. My mother has died and I'm her executor. She left me a sum of money. I don't need it and I have varied the will to leave it to my child, her grandchild who needs it more than me.

    You don't need a solicitor. It doesn't even have to be a witnessed deed. You simply write a dated letter within two years of the death making clear what the variation is and that the provisions of the 1984 Inheritance Act shall apply. If any other beneficiary is disadvantaged they also need to agree in writing. But DYOR.

    "This variation is made by me Barnesian of [address]. Mrs Barnesian of [address] died on 12 February 2015. In her will she left me a legacy of £10,000. I redirect that legacy to my son John Barnesian. I intend that the provisions of section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 shall apply to this redirection of that legacy.

    Signed ….................................................................
      Barnesian

    Date …..................................................................."

    You file the letter with your will and other financial papers. That's it. It is not a complicated technical scheme that abuses legislation. Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
    Many thanks for taking the trouble. As I am in a similar position and need to do a similar deed, it is very useful to have my own understanding confirmed. (DYOR and all that, already done, of course). But what I could not find out was whether the letter had to be addressed to anyone or just 'to whom it may concern'. Did you come to any conclusion on that, please?

    If the deed alters the IHT payable you will have to inform HMRC within 6 months.
    http://www.rhw.co.uk/news-guides/legal-guides/personal/variation-of-wills-deeds-of-variation.html

    Disclaimer: IANAL, but spent 15 years wrestling with how to reduce our family bill, from £300k to zero, which I achieved. I have also completed the some 60 pages of form IHT400 and related schedules to permit a grant of probate.
  • Miliband's complained that an Italian who doesn't live in Britain doesn't pay British tax, and that a man who, whilst he lived and worked in Switzerland, had a Swiss bank account.

    But criticising the deed of variation, which was described in less than glowing terms by a certain G. Brown esquire, is apparently deemed beyond the pale.
  • Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.

    Well, I haven't seen many Labour supporters criticise Ed for smearing Lord Fink. On the contrary, most seem to be celebrating the smear as some kind of great success. It's pretty disgusting, however you look at it.
  • The richer you are, the more you can spend on paying less tax.
    Let's face it, if I was a Miliband or a Cameron, or a Jimmy Carr, or, heaven forbid, a Gary Barlow, I'd hire the best accountants and tax specialists I could afford, to let me keep more of my hard earned.
    What pees the average bloke off, the men and women who earn normal wages, the sort of wages where you can't really avoid tax, is hearing the great and the good bleat, moan about, and accuse each other of, being morally repugnant tax avoiders.
    Hearing Miliband bleat about it, or Osborne and Cameron moan about it, when I'm sure they "organise their financial affairs efficiently", and entirely legally, just makes me realise what a bunch of hypocrites they all are.

    If you use childcare vouchers or the in-work bike scheme – which many people who are on 'normal' wages can and do – you are in a pedantic sense 'avoiding tax'. Both are entirely legitimate and indeed officially-encouraged schemes, in the same way that a DoV is.

    That some on here are determined not to see the difference between normally mandated tax breaks and artificial and contrived ways of avoiding large amounts of income tax says a great deal about the desperate groupthink on here.

    Blimey, I'm a horrible, tax avoiding, morally repugnant b'stard. I bike to work on a tax avoiding carbon frame!
    Je suis Ed/Fink!

    Me too – I use the bike scheme and the childcare vouchers scheme!

    To make things worse, I'm still on the more beneficial old CV scheme which allows the maximum childcare tax break for Higher Rate taxpayers!

    I expect a barrage of mud from the PB Tories in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share.
    Again, you miss the point.

    No one is attacking Ed for what his mother did twenty years ago. Quite the contrary, most have said it was legitimate tax planning.

    Ed is being criticised for his hypocrisy two days ago, for attacking others who also use legitimate tax planning.....

    Plenty of people are attacking Ed for what his mother did. They are saying he actively sought to avoid tax.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    RodCrosby said:

    It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
    So, poor Ed back in 1994 should have had the foresight to think "Stranger things have happened, but one day 20 years hence I could be leader of the Labour party, and wouldn't want to look 'hypocritical', at least in the eyes of LIAMT. So I'd better persuade Mum not to do this..."

    Do you apply these sorts of tests to yourself, I wonder...
    NO. Poor Ed in 2015 should look back at his previous arrangements and think "I wouldn't want to look like an opportunist little shit for accusing people of making exactly the same sort of perfectly legal arrangements that I did in 1994, but trying to imply they are unlawful, or at least very dodgy"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RodCrosby said:

    john_zims said:

    @marktheowl

    'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'


    A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.

    Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.

    The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur.
    It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.

    I state again.
    They saved nothing
    They have saved nothing
    They probably will save nothing
    You need to look at intention.

    They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.

  • They walk into this simple trap every single time.

    Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.

    Don't be silly, of course the Conservatives know that this is a 'trap'. We just don't think that it's a trap that should be avoided, because we are interested in good government, not smearing and class warfare.

    Labour supporters seem to disagree, but that's something for their consciences.

    Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.
    I learned that Labour supporters are evil venal supporters of a vile party, and that Tories are an 'oppressed group'.

    I learnt these life lessons right here, on PB.
  • Everyone on here is now fully aware of the ins and outs of this hoo-hah about tax, yet opinions differ wildly still.

    The sad thing is that 99% of the electorate will NOT be fully appraised of the facts, or even of the full flavour of the variously biased debate back and forth. They will form a snap view based on a headline, or a 10 second news article, or what the bloke down the pub tells them.

    Rinse and repeat for most issues.

    And then they will vote, and then who knows what the result will be. Democracy - doncha just love it...
  • Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.

    Well, I haven't seen many Labour supporters criticise Ed for smearing Lord Fink. On the contrary, most seem to be celebrating the smear as some kind of great success. It's pretty disgusting, however you look at it.

    You will go to heaven; I will go to hell. You are good; I am bad. And so the world turns.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited February 2015

    Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

    Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.

    It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.

    (the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.

    Well, I haven't seen many Labour supporters criticise Ed for smearing Lord Fink. On the contrary, most seem to be celebrating the smear as some kind of great success. It's pretty disgusting, however you look at it.
    The bitter taste of sour grapes.
  • This tax war is a zero sum game for politicians in the two main parties. They end up smearing each other and driving the polling of both parties down even lower. If only they learned that when chucking the smelly stuff some of it sticks to the chucker and the retaliation brings your vote down. Call it the sub 30% strategy?
  • Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.

    They are certainly envious, spiteful, sanctimonious hypocrites. We can all agree on that surely?

    I think it goes without saying that anyone who votes Labour is venal, unpatriotic and thoroughly unpleasant.

  • Mr. Observer, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.

    You can't complain about others taking legitimate measures to reduce potential taxation having done precisely the same thing yourself.

    Can you honestly – and I stress the word honestly Morris because unlike the Scott_Ps of this world you are very capable of independent thought – not see the difference between mundane, officially-encouraged financial planning and large-scale, artificial and contrived attempts to avoid large amounts of income tax?

    Have a think about it.
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.

    Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
    By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.

    Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.

    What tax has Ed dodged?

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn)
    13/02/2015 09:50
    The Sun Says today: Boris has a better grasp of popular policies than
    most other Tories combined. pic.twitter.com/Q6v2wA72l2
  • Jonathan said:

    Whiff of desperation from some PB Tories today. Raging against any possible target.

    Same old shit. Different day.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Ed at 25 is given a piece of paper to sign by his mother..he doesn't inquire what it is for or why..he just signs it..I do hope he pays slightly more attention to what he signs if he makes it into Number Ten.
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share.
    Again, you miss the point.

    No one is attacking Ed for what his mother did twenty years ago. Quite the contrary, most have said it was legitimate tax planning.

    Ed is being criticised for his hypocrisy two days ago, for attacking others who also use legitimate tax planning.....

    Plenty of people are attacking Ed for what his mother did. They are saying he actively sought to avoid tax.

    Who?

    On here most posters are saying 'legal, sensible tax planning'

    What's funny is Labour posters claiming the intention wasn't to avoid tax - then why did they do it?

    But back to present day, was it wise for Ed to criticise others for activity not unknown to the Miliband family?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015

    Mr. Observer, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.

    You can't complain about others taking legitimate measures to reduce potential taxation having done precisely the same thing yourself.

    Can you honestly – and I stress the word honestly Morris because unlike the Scott_Ps of this world you are very capable of independent thought – not see the difference between mundane, officially-encouraged financial planning and large-scale, artificial and contrived attempts to avoid large amounts of income tax?

    Have a think about it.
    Does this fall into the latter category?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

    Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.

    It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.

    (the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)

    The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.

  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited February 2015
    Hearing rich people, who "manage their financial affairs efficiently" criticise other rich people who "manage their financial affairs efficiently" does make me think of pots and kettles.
    The thing that Miliband is pinning his hopes on is that he thinks people expect rich Tories to be up to their neck in financial shenanigans, but Labour are more ethical.
    I guess we'll test that theory to destruction between now and May.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015

    Mr. Observer, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.

    You can't complain about others taking legitimate measures to reduce potential taxation having done precisely the same thing yourself.

    Can you honestly – and I stress the word honestly Morris because unlike the Scott_Ps of this world you are very capable of independent thought – not see the difference between mundane, officially-encouraged financial planning and large-scale, artificial and contrived attempts to avoid large amounts of income tax?

    Have a think about it.
    Do you have any evidence that any of the later actually occurred ? Today's revelations imply rather modest provision was made for the independence of his children, whilst resident in another country, and in compliance with the laws of that country, suggesting it was large-scale, artificial or indeed contrived without evidence would seem to me to be a courageous stance.
  • Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:

    Con .......... 281 (-1 seat)
    Lab ........... 281(+2 seats)
    LibDems ..... 23 (unchanged)
    Others ........ 65* (-1 seat)
    Total ......... 650

    * Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18
    (Rounding diff'ce 1)
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    edited February 2015

    Mr. Observer, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.

    You can't complain about others taking legitimate measures to reduce potential taxation having done precisely the same thing yourself.

    Can you honestly – and I stress the word honestly Morris because unlike the Scott_Ps of this world you are very capable of independent thought – not see the difference between mundane, officially-encouraged financial planning and large-scale, artificial and contrived attempts to avoid large amounts of income tax?

    Have a think about it.
    (my bold)

    Who are you accusing of large-scale, artificial and contrived attempts to avoid large amounts of income tax? And what are the details of these schemes?

    (edit)

    I do see the difference between the 2 BTW, and I don't think Ed has done anything wrong WRT DoV. But what I do see (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) is that Ed/You are conflating the same acceptable planning that Lord F seems to have done with contrived avoidance; then crying foul when the same is done in reverse...

  • Charles said:

    RodCrosby said:

    john_zims said:

    @marktheowl

    'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'


    A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.

    Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.

    The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur.
    It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.

    I state again.
    They saved nothing
    They have saved nothing
    They probably will save nothing
    You need to look at intention.

    They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.

    Give it up Charles.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I assumed he was taking the piss in a massive way. I rather like it = the old format was fontastic and waaay too busy.
    Floater said:

    RobD said:

    Just went onto Guido's blog. What the hell has happened??

    It is horrible isn't it.
  • Barnesian said:

    surbiton said:

    Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.

    An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
    Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
    Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
    So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
    The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.

    Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."

    So a good week for Ed.




  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

    Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.

    It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.

    (the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)

    The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.

    Interesting defence. My client shot the accuser but missed - so no murder.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

    Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.

    It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.

    (the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)

    The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.

    Yes, so you have said quite a few times now, but you are wilfully ignoring our resident lawyers who are telling you its the intent at the time of signature that matters, not how things fortuitously worked out at some later date. What was the intention of Messrs Miliband when they signed the said document in 1994 is the question that matters.
  • It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.

    The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.

    Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share.
    Again, you miss the point.

    No one is attacking Ed for what his mother did twenty years ago. Quite the contrary, most have said it was legitimate tax planning.

    Ed is being criticised for his hypocrisy two days ago, for attacking others who also use legitimate tax planning.....

    Plenty of people are attacking Ed for what his mother did. They are saying he actively sought to avoid tax.

    Who?

    On here most posters are saying 'legal, sensible tax planning'

    What's funny is Labour posters claiming the intention wasn't to avoid tax - then why did they do it?

    But back to present day, was it wise for Ed to criticise others for activity not unknown to the Miliband family?

    I think that Ed was absolutely right to raise the issue and to pursue it. If it ends up smacking him in the face - which I doubt will happen - then so be it.

  • Incidentally all MPs benefit from favourable (legal tax advoidance) arrangements in that expenses and allowances that they get are not taxed in the same way as P111 benefits in kind. If I got my Iron Bru, duckhouse or trouser press as expenses then I would be taxed on it.

    MEPs do better still, having the lowest income tax rate in the EU as a legal perk. No wonder Farage is always laughing.

    I remain convinced that Farage is simply the biggest shyster in public essentially because of this very point.

    I don't believe for a moment that he actually holds any of the views he claims to espouse. He has just spotted that there is a franchise for a shouty anti-darkie party, and he has occupied that ground. But he has not the slightest intention of doing anything for the constituency for whom he purports to speak.

    We see this in his actual track record: he has been an MEP for GOK how long, but he cannot point to one single achievement of any description that he has delivered in all that time. Not one measure voted down or amended; and thanks to his party there are 20-odd Labour MPs in Parliament who probably wouldn't have been but for his rabble and consequently we have a leftish coalition.

    His rationale for this is the tax free unaudited money for which he is required to do nothing and for which he is 100% wholly unaccountable. Essentially, in terms of Nineteen Eighty-Four, he's O'Brien and he relies on Outer Party dupes like Parsons to keep him in his position of Inner Party privilege.

    In this respect he is a very Labourish figure. Labour works tirelessly to perpetuate poverty and benefit dependency, because if too many people were prosperous and hard working, there'd be no client state to vote Labour. Farage likewise would lose his entire USP if there ever were a referendum on leaving the EU, because he'd lose. Therefore the only work he can clearly be seen to have done has been to reduce the risk of any such referendum happening and to campaign most vigorously against the party that is offering one while ignoring those that are ruling one out.

    He is a lazy, grasping, dissembling creep, basically.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: 24 hrs of tax avoidance story on social media: EdM bigger loser than Cam, according to TheySay http://t.co/l6kqBmTYW8 http://t.co/8sjg4PPGy3
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Toasters? Well that's a novel way to find crumpet.

    Off thread Re 50 shades of Gray.. the Fire brigade are expecting a spike in callouts

    Since April 2013 the capital's fire crews have:
    Attended 28 incidents involving people being trapped in handcuffs
    Removed 293 rings, including seven from male genitalia
    Attended other incidents, including releasing men's genitals from toasters or vacuum cleaners


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31428072

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    The tax benefit that Ed received on his deed of variation was cgt not iht. When Ed received his share in the property for cgt purposes he got an uplift to market value as at his father's death. So when he sold the property later he had a reduced cgt bill.

    This rebasing on death for cgt purposes is something that the IFS Mirrlees report of the UK tax system frowned upon.

    Um, there's no cgt payable on the family home. So if Ed had not received any shares, there would not have been any cgt involved at all. Quite how he obtained a tax benefit escapes me.

    I think you're confused about the rebasing at death. That means there's no cgt payable by the decedent's estate. What value would you expect a beneficiary to receive, other than the market value at the time of the transfer?
  • TGOHF said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?

    To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.

    I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!

    Except the house was sold a while back.

    Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.

    It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.

    (the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)

    The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.

    Interesting defence. My client shot the accuser but missed - so no murder.
    I wish there was a Like button.
This discussion has been closed.