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

Options
245

Comments

  • Polruan
    Polruan Posts: 2,083
    Indigo said:



    Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal. Its only social justice warriors like you with their pitchforks that want to stretch the law to what they personally don't approve of.. unless we are talking about tax arrangements of prominent left wing donors, causes or newspapers which are apparently different.

    Social justice warriors like Cameron ("cutting down on avoidance is one of the UK's priorities")?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21176992

    or Osborne? (“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.")

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9194558/George-Osborne-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html

    There's cross-party consensus about roughly what avoidance is, about the fact that it's legal, and the desire to attack it. Cameron at PMQs this week, with some justification, attacked Labour for being softer on avoidance than the current government.
  • BenM
    BenM Posts: 1,795
    Indigo 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?

    Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal.
    Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.

    And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.

  • Peter_the_Punter
    Peter_the_Punter Posts: 14,779
    Indigo said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Indigo said:

    SimonStClare said:

    richardDodd said:

    A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.

    Morning all.

    A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.


    oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.
    IMO there are only two ways to reduce your tax bill, lawfully, and unlawfully, there shouldn't be any middle ground, the fact that there is, is because politicians are too lazy to frame laws with clear boundaries and amend laws to remove inadvertent loopholes, because the whole thing is monstrously too complicated, and because HMRC are incentivized on revenue collection so its in their interests to try and push the boundaries of what the law lets you get away towards the minimum possible.
    Quite agree wrt to complexity; I could be wrong, but I don’t think it is entirely down to ‘laziness’ however – for parliament to enact Tax laws that cover every conceivable eventually, would be just too cumbersome, time consuming and probably self-defeating. – Keep it simple, then tidy up any glaring loop holes later.
    If a certain G Brown Esq didn't spend years churning out Finance Acts with over a 1000 pages in it we might be in a better place. Endless wheezes by Chancellors trying to social engineer, or raise taxes without looking like they are raising taxes, and trying to target very small groups for tax rises in the hopes of not pissing off too many voters has left us with a monstrously complicated tax system that is so hard to understand that even HMRC fail to produce an accurate assessment.
    Tax authorities around the world tend to split into two groups when it comes to acting against extreme tax avoidance.

    The 'sniper' approach attempts to pick off individual unwelcome practices through specific, detailed legislation. The 'blunderbuss' approach simply asserts that if the Government doesn't like it, it's out. The 'Government' in such cases tends to be an Anti-Avoidance Unit that rules on a pretty ad hoc basis.

    Brown was a sniper, hence the length of his Finance Acts.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    Polruan said:

    Indigo said:



    Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal. Its only social justice warriors like you with their pitchforks that want to stretch the law to what they personally don't approve of.. unless we are talking about tax arrangements of prominent left wing donors, causes or newspapers which are apparently different.

    Social justice warriors like Cameron ("cutting down on avoidance is one of the UK's priorities")?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21176992

    or Osborne? (“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.")

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9194558/George-Osborne-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html

    There's cross-party consensus about roughly what avoidance is, about the fact that it's legal, and the desire to attack it. Cameron at PMQs this week, with some justification, attacked Labour for being softer on avoidance than the current government.
    Indeed. When they change the law so it is unlawful then people should stop doing it, until then people should be entitle to do what the law permits without a lot of judgemental teeth sucking. Its pretty unedifying to stand there scowling at people for making arrangements the law permits whilst doing nothing of substance about it. I think you are optimistic about the consensus, Labour did damn all about most of these sorts of arrangements while they were in office last time.
  • Floater
    Floater Posts: 14,207
    RobD said:

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

    It is horrible isn't it.
  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,864
    Scott_P said:

    Stereotomy said:

    The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.

    This is what the Labour Party said in 1994
    "It is not the very wealthy who pay most of the Inheritance Tax, they are very effective at exploiting loopholes to avoid it. Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2807995/If-theres-a-will-theres-a-way.html

    Interestingly, the same article goes on to use the phrase: "Many of these plain vanilla plans".

    Sheer coincidence?
  • FrankBooth
    FrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    Teflon Ed will be just fine I think. The public seem quite receptive to people avoiding inheritance tax - that's presumably why Dave and George focused on it. Don't people remember George's 'masterstroke' in 2007, the moment he destroyed Gordon's election that wasn't? At the same time look at the opprobrium that was poured on Jimmy Carr for his unusual tax arrangements.

    Like it or not, fair or inconsistent, it is fairly clear where the British public stand on tax avoidance. Ed could be playing a dangerous game but he's on solid ground right now. I suspect the attack in The Mail will be about as successful as their one on the Thornberry set last year.
  • Life_ina_market_town
    Life_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited February 2015
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Correct.

    And most GAAR systems include an 'Advance Ruling' procedure. If you are not sure about your proposed scheme, you can submit details to the Authority and if they OK it, you are safe.

    This is true enough, but there are limits to the doctrine. The approval is only a matter of evidence in favour of the proposition that the scheme is not abusive (Finance Act 2013, s. 207(5)). It is not determinative of the fact in law. If the approval is flawed in public law, and it is consistent with HMRC's statutory duty of "good management" of the Crown's revenues, there will be nothing stopping the Revenue counteracting a tax advantage under the Finance Act 2013 that it has previously approved (see R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (HL); & R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545 (DC)).
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    BenM said:

    Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.

    And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.

    So Ed was unethical to sign the deed of variation. Ok.
  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Time for the inaugural BOLD (Bobajob's Overview of Labour Disasters)

    Disasters this week (PB Tory Index)

    Pinkgate
    Finkgate
    Nungate

    Disasters this week (Real World Index)

    N/A

  • nigel4england
    nigel4england Posts: 4,800
    saddened said:

    The fact is that tax avoidance is any act that your opponents (of any colour) can smear you with for political advantage.

    That is what we are reduced to. The facts matter not one jot.

    Nor, it seems, does policy.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Stereotomy said:

    Polruan said:

    Hello everyone. Sorry to have left you alone for so long, but now there's a GE *and* an argument about tax, it seems a good time to re-delurk.

    Some helpful reading here on definitions of tax avoidance:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tempted-by-tax-avoidance

    "You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay
    more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can
    save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity
    through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business
    or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax
    reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and
    trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."

    One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1543/regulation/5/made

    And a discussion from way back in 2001 including input from one Edward Troup, head of Tax Strategy at a major law firm. I'm sure that name's familiar.

    http://www.tax.org.uk/tax-policy/tax-adviser-articles/2001/tax-avoidance-discussed

    The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.

    I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.

    Well said. The sad thing is that it apparently needed to be said at all, given how common-sense it is. The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
    I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.

  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.


  • CountryGent
    CountryGent Posts: 6
    Who said, "It is not the very wealthy who pay most of the Inheritance Tax, they are very effective at exploiting loopholes to avoid it. Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation."?
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.


    You're illustrating my definition very neatly.
  • nigel4england
    nigel4england Posts: 4,800
    This is interesting:

    http://www.lbc.co.uk/anonymous-hackers-to-expose-child-sex-abusers-104838
  • Verulamius
    Verulamius Posts: 1,555
    edited February 2015
    For a recent tax case on tax avoidance and bankers bonuses try http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/452.html


    The taxpayers have won in the court of appeal but hmrc has received consent to appeal to the supreme court.

    The tax arrangements in question relate to transactions over 10 years ago, and the legislation has changed since and the planning would not be effective today. Indeed this is an arrangement would be caught by the GAAR if implemented today.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Noone is on PAYE when it comes to inheritance.

    10s of millions are on PAYE for regular income....
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    BenM said:

    Indigo 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?

    Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal.
    Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.

    And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.

    Don't look at me. I must be completely unethical by virtue of not paying UK tax on any of my income..... leaving aside the minor detail that I am neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the UK and pay my taxes in a foreign country... rather like Mr Pessina one imagines, only rather less successful!
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    @DPJHodges: If Labour saying Ed's deed of variation not for tax purposes, what was it for.

    Care fees avoidance.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Michael Portillo explained the issue quite neatly last night.
  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.


    I suggest you you are being entirely and intentionally dim about the subject of hypocrisy. Ed is a hypocrite , pure and simple.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Sean_F said:

    Stereotomy said:

    Polruan said:

    Hello everyone. Sorry to have left you alone for so long, but now there's a GE *and* an argument about tax, it seems a good time to re-delurk.

    Some helpful reading here on definitions of tax avoidance:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tempted-by-tax-avoidance

    "You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay
    more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can
    save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity
    through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business
    or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax
    reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and
    trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."

    One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1543/regulation/5/made

    And a discussion from way back in 2001 including input from one Edward Troup, head of Tax Strategy at a major law firm. I'm sure that name's familiar.

    http://www.tax.org.uk/tax-policy/tax-adviser-articles/2001/tax-avoidance-discussed

    The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.

    I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.

    Well said. The sad thing is that it apparently needed to be said at all, given how common-sense it is. The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
    I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.

    Me too.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.


    You mean its nice lefty tax avoidance ? See nice lefty cuts, nice lefty wars, nice lefty dodgy dossiers, nice lefty whistleblower bullying, nice lefty cash for honours etc etc etc..
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sean_F said:

    I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.

    I think the only person that disagrees with that is Ed
  • Ishmael_X
    Ishmael_X Posts: 3,664
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.

    Absolutely, labour's core vote in the industrial heartlands think nothing of executing these Deeds on a weekly basis. I am sure Unite publishes guidance for its members on the correct procedure, along with its guide to the best public schools and where to shoot grouse.

    We have all known about Ed the Avoider for ages. Then again, Ratner had been making his "crap" speech for years before it blew up in his face.

  • SouthamObserver
    SouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
  • Polruan
    Polruan Posts: 2,083
    Sean_F said:

    .

    I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.



    Rather like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean (nothing more, and nothing less)... but that definition would differ from how the government and all major parties, HMRC, and the tax profession would use the term "avoidance". They'd call it legitimate tax planning.

    One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    I see the Mirror has publicly apologised for hacking... guess where it's on the BBC website?

    Main news page?

    Not even a top story in the business section....

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/
  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2015
    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
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure...


    Yup, they're always talking about them in the Doncaster Working Mens Club, and pubs and bars across the country.

    A majority of the population knew nothing about Deeds of Variation until this morning. Now they do.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    SouthamObserver said:

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

    I think you mean "at the time, how much did they think they were saving as a result of this Deed" surely?


  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    O/T Cricket world cup

    Trading bet - NZ to win at 5/1 or longer. Nailed on for semis and potentially the final.

    If you want to back England - who aren't without a shout of last 4 - back half now then wait until after they lost to Oz tomorrow then average up.

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Root, n00bs.

    Use silk scarves. The benefits are numerous:
    can be easily cut through if knots cannot be undone
    won't damage the skin nearly as much if, er, vigorous activity occurs
    can be worn as a fashionable accessory quite openly, whereas handcuffs are a bit more conspicuous

    Or so I hear.

    Also, anyone shoving their todger in a toaster deserves roast nuts.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Scrapheap, well, quite. It's hardly even-handed.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    Polruan said:

    One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.

    That maybe the case, but since this isn't AccountancyBetting or TaxAdviceBetting, the question is how it will play with the man on the Clapham Omnibus, will he "understand" what EdM has done, will it seem reasonable to him, or will he think its the sort of wheeze those "rich" people get up to, and will they think he is a hypocrite for doing this and then criticising other peoples arrangements.
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Dan Hodges..Just to be clear..When Gordon Brown said Deeds of Variation were Tax Abuse..he didn't mean Eds Deed of Variation..just all the others.
    Sort of sums it up really.
  • FrankBooth
    FrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    SouthamObserver 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.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    SouthamObserver said:

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

    I think you mean "at the time, how much did they think they were saving as a result of this Deed" surely?


    Just under £100K according to figures published by The Guardian.

    '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.'
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Polruan said:

    Sean_F said:

    .

    I would consider Ed Milliband's Deed of Family Arrangement to be an entirely legitimate form of Inheritance Tax avoidance.

    Rather like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean (nothing more, and nothing less)... but that definition would differ from how the government and all major parties, HMRC, and the tax profession would use the term "avoidance". They'd call it legitimate tax planning.

    One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.

    Of course. In the same way that one calls dead civilians collateral damage.
  • BenM
    BenM Posts: 1,795
    Scott_P said:

    BenM said:

    Only in so far as HMRC haven't closed the structure down yet.

    And if you're walking that tightrope you've already crossed the boundary of what is ethically acceptable.

    So Ed was unethical to sign the deed of variation. Ok.
    Oh the Right is in a major sulk this morning. Quite right too.

    And the answer is no.
  • Life_ina_market_town
    Life_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited February 2015
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Some people seem to be being almost intentionally dim about DoV – an entirely mundane, standard procedure rather than a contrived, artificial tax avoidance scheme.

    If it wasn't an artificial method designed to reduce a potential future tax liability, why didn't Mrs Miliband simply make a declaration of trust or an equitable assignment of the beneficial interest she took under the will to the children? That would have been far more mundane, especially as it would not have had to be served on the Board of the Inland Revenue under the Inheritance Act Act 1984, s. 142(2) as the deed of variation had to be? Nor would such a declaration or assignment have had to be made by deed (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 53(1)). Let's face it. This was a legitimate and sensible tax avoidance scheme, which I wouldn't criticise the Miliband's for for a second, but for the Leader of the Opposition's preposterous faux outrage about people doing the same thing.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    SouthamObserver said:

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

    I think you mean "at the time, how much did they think they were saving as a result of this Deed" surely?
    They could not know what they were saving, other than "we might save something."

    At the time they saved nothing...
    Subsequently they have saved nothing...
    If Mrs Miliband has been well-advised over the past 20 years, they will have saved nothing...
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    SouthamObserver 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.
  • Barnesian
    Barnesian Posts: 9,221
    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    One of the key points is that if HMRC has been aware of a form of tax planning for a number of years, and it's neither been legislated against, nor challenged in the courts, nor treated as a prescribed scheme for various purposes, nor had a scheme number issued under the DoTAS regime, you're probably on pretty safe ground saying it's not avoidance.

    That maybe the case, but since this isn't AccountancyBetting or TaxAdviceBetting, the question is how it will play with the man on the Clapham Omnibus, will he "understand" what EdM has done, will it seem reasonable to him, or will he think its the sort of wheeze those "rich" people get up to, and will they think he is a hypocrite for doing this and then criticising other peoples arrangements.
    I agree that is the political question.

    I think the reminder that he lives in a £2m+ house like the rest of the political elite is more damaging. "Politicians are all the same. That's why I'm voting UKIP/Green or whatever."
  • OblitusSumMe
    OblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The general public are not experts in tax law (and neither am I). When I hear talk about tax avoidance I do not think about things like ISAs, or duty free booze. I think about expensive tax lawyers creating bureaucratic fictions that enable wealthy people to access a different tax system to me, one that bypasses the normal rules on income tax, inheritance tax, etc, that I cannot escape.

    The impression has been created that these paper fictions are a way for the wealthy to chest the normal system. What I can't understand is why the public debate is about the morality of using these tax avoidance schemes, rather than simply shutting them down.

    Under PAYE the system is pretty simple. Receive an income - then pay tax on it. I don't see why this should be any different if your income is £millions. The same applies for IHT. Seems like the situation now is that if the estate is worth a few hundred thousand you end up paying 40% on the amount over the threshold, but if the estate is worth several million then it ends up in a series of trust funds and no tax at all is paid.

    All I want is for everyone to play by the same rules.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    SouthamObserver said:

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

    Zero.
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OSM..Could you explain that to the Wedgewood Benns..nowt paid when dear old Wedgie popped off..on a 5 mil estate..Nowt like socialism for the top socialists
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    richardDodd said:

    Dan Hodges..Just to be clear..When Gordon Brown said Deeds of Variation were Tax Abuse..he didn't mean Eds Deed of Variation..just all the others.
    Sort of sums it up really.

    Indeed. I applaud Ed for signing up to this deed of variation. It's his abusing others for following the same path as him that is so ridiculous.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    surbiton said:

    SouthamObserver said:

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

    Zero.
    Lefties deliberately desperately missing the point.... see my more pertinent question... all tax planning is done based on the rules as you know them at the time.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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 !
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
  • rottenborough
    rottenborough Posts: 66,864
    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
    I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.

    As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.

  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    rottenborough said:

    As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.

    Again, from 1994...
    Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    CarlottaVance said:

    surbiton said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    surbiton said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Tax Lesson for Ed:

    Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.

    Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.

    Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.

    Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.
    Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.

    Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?

    Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......

    A simple test for Tax Avoidance:

    Was the method used created by Parliament ? If YES, then it is NOT Tax Avoidance
    A simpler method; 'Did it avoid tax'?
    That's not the definition of tax avoidance. There is a definition laid out in law.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    surbiton said:

    SouthamObserver said:

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

    Zero.
    Lefties deliberately desperately missing the point.... see my more pertinent question... all tax planning is done based on the rules as you know them at the time.
    Yes the hypocrisy is stunning they want a mansion tax on unearned wealth but not a Miliband tax on unearned Miliband houses.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.

    Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.
  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
    Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
  • OblitusSumMe
    OblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    richardDodd said:

    OSM..Could you explain that to the Wedgewood Benns..nowt paid when dear old Wedgie popped off..on a 5 mil estate..Nowt like socialism for the top socialists

    This is precisely the problem. This issue should not have anything to do with individual morality. If everyone has to pay tax under the same rules then morality doesn't come into it - but at the moment the rules appear to be very different on a £5million estate and a £500k estate.

    That is what stinks. I note that Labour appear not to be suggesting any remedies to this situation. They're happy to play the morality game because they know the other side has more rich people, and so will come off looking just slightly worse - and that's good enough for them.
  • Barnesian
    Barnesian Posts: 9,221
    rottenborough said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
    I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.

    As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
    And AIM shares.
  • SouthamObserver
    SouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.

  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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....
  • FrankBooth
    FrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.

    Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.

    This guide should help you out @Scrapheap

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372502/Tempted_by_Tax_Avoidance.pdf
  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    Funny to watch the lefties scrabbling about saying tax avoidance isn't an issue. Tied up in knots doesn't even come close.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
  • BenM
    BenM Posts: 1,795
    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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 ;) ?
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    saddened said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
    Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
    Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.

    Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.

    When Mrs. Milliband dies, the sum that was the subject of the D o V won't be subject to IHT. I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.
  • john_zims
    john_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Surbiton

    'That assumes his Mother will let Ed or ED and David inherit the property. Too many assumptions are being made here.'

    Yes, that's a massive assumption that two sons would inherit their mother's property.

    Pure comedy gold watching the PB Kinnocks trying to defend Ed.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BenM said:

    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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 ?
  • BenM
    BenM Posts: 1,795
    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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 ?
    Boots customers going to run off somewhere are they?
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.

    Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.

    This guide should help you out @Scrapheap

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372502/Tempted_by_Tax_Avoidance.pdf
    I interpret those schemes as aggressive tax avoidance and would never touch them. GAAR helps on this... unless the claim is now that tax avoidance is as illegal as tax evasion and thus the same word could be used for both? Is that the claim?
  • FalseFlag
    FalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    rottenborough said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
    I'm expecting something on IHT from Tories to be in their manifesto.

    As far as the rich avoiding IHT goes, I think trusts are an old story. I gather all the 'action', as it were, revolves around agricultural land these days.
    You give the Tory leadership too much credit. They should have kept the 50% income tax and raised IHT allowance, they did the opposite.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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).

    That's not accurate. If they had not executed the DOV, the Finance Act 2008 would ride to the rescue.

    There is only one notional saving, in fact, although it is remote.

    The nil-rate band has not kept pace with inflation, and certainly not with London house-price inflation.

    Therefore, by removing shares in the property in 1994 from the scope of IHT, their position is more favourable now than it would be by simply using two nil rate bands under the provisions of the FA 2008.

    But

    i) they could not have known that in 1994
    ii) all these pseudo calculations are based on the assumption that Mrs Miliband has done nothing to further mitigate her liability.
  • frpenkridge
    frpenkridge Posts: 670
    "Tax avoidance" is like "multicultural". Most people think they know what it means but actually don't.
  • SouthamObserver
    SouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    TGOHF said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheWatcher said:

    saddened said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
    Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
    Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.

    Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
    Is this attack on foreigners and citizens having the temerity to work abroad a feeble attempt by the left to shore up the Kipper vote ?
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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.
  • JonnyJimmy
    JonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    What was the reason for the deed of variation if it wasn't to avoid a future tax liability?

    Any lefty hypocrites got an answer to that?
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    BenM said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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 ?
    Boots customers going to run off somewhere are they?
    They could all go to Superdrug (Ultimate owners Hutchison Whampoa, headquartered in Hong Kong).
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sean_F said:

    I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.

    And everyone agrees with you. Except Ed.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    JonnyJimmy said:

    What was the reason for the deed of variation if it wasn't to avoid a future tax liability?

    Performance art perhaps?
  • BenM
    BenM Posts: 1,795
    Out there a few thousand Mail readers are scratching their heads thinking:

    "I signed a deed of variation the other day. Just wanted to tie up loose ends from a dearly departed loved one's will. Didn't know I was a major hypocrite indulging in high flying tax avoidance."

    (Don't worry you're not - the Mail and all the other Tories dragging this up are just smarting from the drubbing they got yesterday after Fink backed down and are flinging mud all over the place in the hope some if it sticks).
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    Indigo

    "How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?"

    A very strange tactic from the Tories. The public don't believe Ed to be a tax avoider. So there is no narrative to build on. By contrast the the Tories and their supporters at the Mail are believed to be unscrupulous mud slingers and this actually builds on the narrative.

  • SouthamObserver
    SouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver 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.

    When Mrs. Milliband dies, the sum that was the subject of the D o V won't be subject to IHT. I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.

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


  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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 :)
  • SouthamObserver
    SouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    I reiterate that this is a legitimate means of saving tax.

    And everyone agrees with you. Except Ed.

    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?

  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    it's weird discussing this - we all agree (I think) it's legitimate tax planning and yet the reds are denying it's tax planning as it hasn't saved anything yet and may never do so. I don't see much if any difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.

    Undeniably it has carved out money which might otherwise fund her future care fees costs should the need arise.

    This guide should help you out @Scrapheap

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372502/Tempted_by_Tax_Avoidance.pdf
    I interpret those schemes as aggressive tax avoidance and would never touch them. GAAR helps on this... unless the claim is now that tax avoidance is as illegal as tax evasion and thus the same word could be used for both? Is that the claim?
    Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.
  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    BenM said:

    Indigo said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
    Government policy will have no impact on his business in the UK? Not sure many people would agree with you.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    SouthamObserver 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.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    saddened said:

    surbiton said:

    Indigo said:

    How long do we have to wait before EdM has something to say about his brother's arrangements ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1373092/How-David-Miliband-Ltd-pays-tax.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090047/David-Miliband-takes-lucrative-new-job-Pakistan-based-City-firm-backed-Swiss-playboy-brother-Ed-rails-Capitalist-predators.html

    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.
    Where was Fink living at the time his affairs where used for purely political advantage by Ed?
    Switzerland, where what he did was perfectly legal, but that's irrelevant where Labour's meme is concerned.

    Lefties defending tax avoidance. What a hoot.
    Is this attack on foreigners and citizens having the temerity to work abroad a feeble attempt by the left to shore up the Kipper vote ?
    Possibly. Still fun to watch them twisting themselves in more knots than a barrel full of angry pythons.

    The next challenge is to ask them to examine the morality of John Mills share donation to Labour, and the structure that Party advisers knocked up to save him £1.5 million.

    That would pay for a few nurses!
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    FrankBooth said:

    SouthamObserver 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?
  • marktheowl
    marktheowl Posts: 169
    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
This discussion has been closed.

Categories