Panama tax evasion

[Ad Lib]

When people with power to influence tax laws are exploiting loop holes in them you have to question their morality, especially as these vehicles are only available to the wealthy. And ISAs are nothing like hiding your money offshore.

As long as you aren't breaking any laws, morally it is exactly the same.

[Ad Lib]

If a UK citizen has earned money from offshore and not declared it, then this is tax evasion.

There isn't the suggestion in most of these cases that there has been a failure to comply with HMRC's income disclosure requirements.

[Peppino Impastato]

But tax avoidance, aggressive or otherwise, isn't immoral.

in your amoral opinion.

[Ad Lib]

Bit of a redneck for the PM though, getting all worked up about being tough on off-shoring and aggressive tax-avoidance while his Da's fortune is hidden in the BVI's. I wonder if Dave inherited anything from him?

David Cameron is not morally responsible for the way his dad has chosen to structure his affairs and assets. He had no involvement in the investment, management or realisation of, the assets.

[welshbairn]

The best thing about this is not the fact that these people have been caught hiding money, as Ad Lib said, quelle suprise, but the questions they're going to get about where it came from in the first place. And of course all the politicians who have insisted that ordinary people pay their taxes while avoiding it themselves.

[ICTChris]

The best thing about this is not the fact that these people have been caught hiding money, as Ad Lib said, quelle suprise, but the questions they're going to get about where it came from in the first place. And of course all the politicians who have insisted that ordinary people pay their taxes while avoiding it themselves.

 

Vladamir Putin saved up $2bn though shrewd investments, careful saving and a frugal lifestyle.

[Ross.]

But tax avoidance, aggressive or otherwise, isn't immoral.

 

I would say that in the context of contemporary western politics, where the general public have had to swallow several years of austerity off the back of the financial system being bailed out, tax avoidance by people and entities that have absolutely no real world need to avoid tax and who will not suffer the austerity being forced on the general populace is immoral.

 

If they paid what was due, the rest of us would be far better off.

[strichener]

There isn't the suggestion in most of these cases that there has been a failure to comply with HMRC's income disclosure requirements.

Most or All?  There are only three reasons why you would keep your name away from these activities.

 

1. They were not legal.

2. You do not want to pay tax

3. Competative advantage.

 

Now, we have seen evidence of 1 and 2.  Not so much of the only one that has no legal implications.

[P45]

Not a single person, out with the the commies on here, would pay more tax than they legally need to.

 

Tax avoidance is heroic.

[welshbairn]

I don't fancy the head of the Panamanian firm's head of IT's chances of living a long and happy life.

[Ross.]

Not a single person, out with the the commies on here, would pay more tax than they legally need to.

 

Tax avoidance is heroic.

 

I agree with the first sentence, but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical or immoral.

[Wee Willie]

Not a single person, out with the the commies on here, would pay more tax than they legally need to.

 

Tax avoidance is heroic.

 

Like this c**t

 

MPs challenge tax exemptions for Prince Charles's estate

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/15/tax-exemptions-prince-charles-estate-duchy

 

It's an auld link but still appropriate.

[Ad Lib]

Most or All? There are only three reasons why you would keep your name away from these activities.

1. They were not legal.

2. You do not want to pay tax

3. Competative advantage.

Now, we have seen evidence of 1 and 2. Not so much of the only one that has no legal implications.

I said most because I haven't read them all but very few specific allegations of criminality have actually been alleged by those who have and many of those allegations did not even relate as such to tax evasion.

Corporate secrecy is something there are many reasons for wanting that are still legal.

[williemillersmoustache]

David Cameron is not morally responsible for the way his dad has chosen to structure his affairs and assets. He had no involvement in the investment, management or realisation of, the assets.

 

How do you know that? Did he benefit from it?

 

Probably best we ask, open up his accounts and audit the living f**k out of him and every single tory donor above £25.00 (and LibDem by the smell of it) to find out.  

[strichener]

I said most because I haven't read them all but very few specific allegations of criminality have actually been alleged by those who have and many of those allegations did not even relate as such to tax evasion.

Corporate secrecy is something there are many reasons for wanting that are still legal.

List them.

 

ETA: It would also be helpful if you limited your reasons to ownership as this is the relevant aspect of the topic.

[Crossbill]

Quote

It is true that tax avoidance is – whatever you think of its moral quality – legal. And it is true that people living in the UK might have assets in or that have passed through Panama for perfectly proper reasons. True, but not very likely.

 

And here’s why.

 

For the purposes of UK tax law, most tax havens are the same. There is no magic effective in UK tax terms that can only be performed in Panama. Moreover, Panama is not next door. It is not a British tax haven with the comforting familiarity such brings. It does not enjoy an especial reputation for trust and solidity.

 

People think of these things when they are choosing where to put their money. They are big disadvantages for Panama.

 

So there has to be a reason why you go there.

 

What Panama has offered – its USPs in the competitive world of tax havenry – is an especially strict form of secrecy, a type of opacity of ownership, and (if the reports of backdating are correct) a class of wealth management profession some of whom have especially compromised ethics.

 

You go to Panama, in short, because, despite its profound disadvantages, you value these things.

 

And the question you should be asking is, what is it about this Mr X or that Mrs Y and his or her financial affairs that causes them to prioritise secrecy or opacity or (if the reports are correct) ethically compromised professionals above all else?

 

Perhaps it is not because the behaviour is criminal: tax evasion or money laundering or public corruption. Perhaps it is not. But – and especially in the case of Panama – very possibly it is.

http://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/04/some-thoughts-on-the-panama-papers/

[printer]

Pep making an arse of himself (yet again).

First time I've noticed his posts. Seems a bit thick.

[Miguel Sanchez]

List them.

 

ETA: It would also be helpful if you limited your reasons to ownership as this is the relevant aspect of the topic.

[Alan Stubbs]

The coverage of this does seem a bit fishy. The folk getting most of the column inches seem to be those already firmly on the British media's naughty list (Putin, FIFA etc) whilst old Liz gets the odd mention and no Americans get any coverage at all. Cameron and his da seems to be the only establishment figure catching any coverage and he has his enemies.

 

People with lots of assets and income engage in aggressive tax avoidance shocker.

 

You could take that tone with about 90% of all news items, couldn't you?

 

Not hard to understand why a contrarian wee Tory sook chooses that response to this story though.

 

Proof of what though? As far as I understand it almost all of this "exposé" relates to legal activity.

 

Prime Ministers and Presidents having huge amounts of money slushing about overseas almost certainly relates to illegal actvity. That seems really obvious to me but I'm not P&B's resident legal eagle, so maybe I've misunderstood.

[Ad Lib]

List them.

ETA: It would also be helpful if you limited your reasons to ownership as this is the relevant aspect of the topic.

1. Tax avoidance, for instance by making it harder for countries whose tax laws you are successfully circumnavigating to know what changes they need to make to compel the relevant disclosures or to change the relevant tax rules to close loopholes and make you liable for higher tax in future.

2. Confidentiality as to who your business associates are.

3. To make trading with countries or corporations in other parts of the world that otherwise wouldn't want to trade with you easier. This is especially relevant when carrying out exploratory ventures in the developing world

4. To get around the letter of international economic sanctions without the political cost of it being in the public domain

5. Basic confidentiality: the idea that how you store and generate your wealth isn't inherently anyone else's business and that as long as the minimum requirements of the relevant tax code(s) is/are met, the state is not entitled to know what you are doing absent reasonable grounds for suspicion of criminality.