‘Paradise Papers: Theresa May refuses to promise register of offshore trusts’

Offshore investing allows companies to avoid paying tax in the UK and is not illegal. Theresa May says she does not intend to change this so that it becomes tax evasion, which is illegal.

One can only assume that her investment banker husband has given her his professional advice.

Though:

“After his wife Theresa May, now the British Prime Minister, emerged as the only remaining candidate for the Conservative party leadership, his employer issued a statement saying that his current job does not make him responsible for investment decisions: “he is not involved with, and doesn’t manage, money and is not a portfolio manager. His job is to ensure the clients are happy with the service and that we understand their goals.”
(Wiki)

“Their goals”, right …

Guardian :

“Theresa May has refused to commit to a public register of the ownership of offshore companies and trusts in the wake of the Paradise Papers revelations but said new measures were already creating more transparency. …
… Corbyn called for a full public inquiry into tax avoidance and evasion, as well as a new tax enforcement unit at HMRC.

“Please understand the public anger and consternation at the scale of tax avoidance revealed yet again today,” he told the annual gathering of business leaders. “We are talking about tens of billions that are effectively being leached from our vital public services by a super-rich elite that holds the taxation system and the rest of us in contempt.

“We must take action now to put an end to this socially damaging and extortionately costly scandal.”

Offshore accounts and dodgy friends

Owl wishes it to be known that – unlike Lord Ashcroft, the Queen and the man who owns Everton – it has never had an offshore bank account nor has it had questionable relationships with Russian oligarchs or other dodgy people.

Could our councillors perhaps be made to confirm in their declarations of interest that they have no iffy external sources of income or very dodgy friends in whom MI5, HMRC or the police might be interested?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

Foreign companies pay no corporation tax on UK commercial property sales

“… According to the British Property Federation there is about £871bn worth of commercial real estate in the UK – 10% of our nation’s net wealth. Not only is this hugely important in its own right, its value impacts on the price of land, and hence of new homes. About 20% of commercial real estate is sold each year – worth an eye-watering £115bn in 2015, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

When a seller is a UK individual or company, they are subject to UK corporation tax on their capital gains. Yet where the seller is foreign they are not. Approximately one-third of all UK commercial real estate – including most high value property – is held through offshore companies. Typically these companies are in tax havens, or structured so they pay no tax on the capital gain. Indeed, British taxpayers should be asking tough questions as to why their government turns a blind eye to anyone who holds UK property in offshore companies. …

In 2015 the then chancellor George Osborne made a big deal of taking action against non-doms who avoided paying tax – ending permanent non-dom status and changing the rules on inheritance tax. He also introduced capital gains tax on residential property sales by non-doms – but crucially not commercial properties. This has created the world’s most obvious loophole where overseas individuals and companies can repurpose property as commercial to avoid it. Closing this loophole could be very lucrative – estimates suggest it would raise between £5bn and £8bn per year.

Those worried that this would put Britain itself at a disadvantage against our competitors can be reassured: the United States taxes foreigners making a capital gain on US real estate, as do Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rules explicitly allow nations to tax foreign-owned companies on the sale of their real estate. Yet successive UK governments have quietly let this injustice continue.

Last week I [Stella Creasey, Labour MP] tabled legislation to try to tackle this – but the government didn’t want to know. Treasury minister Mel Stride simply said it would be too “complex” to implement. With such sums at stake, our public services cannot afford for us to leave this in the “complicated” box any longer: the dividends could make a real contribution to our cash-starved schools and hospitals. In addition, it would improve the fairness of our tax system and help take some of the heat out of the UK’s inflamed property market.

We have another opportunity this coming week to finish what Osborne started. Parliament can act by supporting my amendment to the finance bill at its report stage on Tuesday 31 October. With cross-party support already building for it, this Halloween it’s time to give those overseas companies not paying their taxes a real nightmare.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/30/egregious-loophole-property-capital-gains-tax-close-foreign-owners-commercial

Former Prime Minister Blair’s property empire avoids tax

“Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a company to manage his £33 million property empire, joining a growing number of landlords who are opting for incorporation to beat tax rises on buy-to-let operations.

Blair, along with wife Cherie and eldest son Euan, are believed to own a total of 38 properties. The families’ property portfolio includes flats in north-west England which Mrs Blair and their son let out via an existing company, Oldbury Residential Ltd, which holds investments worth £2.4m in the year ending April 2016.

The family has reportedly banked at least £1.7m in profits from buying and selling nine properties, and they also have an extensive portfolio of private homes, including a £9m five-storey Georgian townhouse which they purchased in 2004 and a £10m Grade I-listed Buckinghamshire manor house.

Now Mr and Mrs Blair have set up another company, Harcourt Ventures Ltd, to let and manage properties, with Tony Blair owning half of the shares and his wife named as the sole director.

Setting up a limited company is one of several ways in which private landlords have responded to recent tax changes within the private rented sector. These changes include increases in stamp duty and cuts to mortgage tax relief introduced in April which no longer allow landlords to offset mortgage interest from their rental income. …

… Buy-to-let landlords are now incorporating their lettings operations as limited companies to avoid the tax changes and to secure additional finances to buy more properties according to industry statistics.

The proportion of homes available for rent in the UK, owned by a company landlord, reached 20 per cent in the first quarter of 2017 – the highest number since records began in 2010. …”

https://www.nationalrentersalliance.co.uk/news/landlord/tony-blair-sets-buy-let-property-company-avoid-tax-rises/

“Chancellor Philip Hammond faces backbench rebellion over £6billion tax loophole for foreign ‘non-dom’ property owners”

“Philip Hammond is facing a backbench rebellion over a £6billion tax loophole for foreign non-dom property owners.

They must pay tax on residential property sales but the government is not including profits made on commercial buildings.

It means that foreign owners can declare their flats and houses in Britain are for commercial use before they sell them- meaning they don’t have to pay a levy, reports The Sun.

The omission has created a loophole worth approximately £6billion that is set to spark a Commons showdown, according to campaigners.

Mr Hammond is now facing a rebellion from a cross-party coalition of Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs when the Finance Bill is put to a vote on Tuesday.

Labour MP Stella Creasy said: ‘Why should British businesses have to pay this tax but foreign ones get away with it? …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027167/Philip-Hammond-faces-rebellion-6billion-tax-loophole.html

“PFI: five firms avoid tax despite £2bn profits, BBC learns”

“Five offshore PFI companies paid little or no corporation tax during a five-year period despite making profits of nearly £2bn, the BBC has learned.
The five companies specialised in lending money through Private Finance Initiatives (PFI).

They own hundreds of public assets including schools, hospitals and even police stations.

The BBC has also learned that a small number of big offshore companies are currently on a buying spree.

They are buying up a number of the UK’s public buildings.

Research carried out by the think tank that investigates PFI deals, the European Services Strategy Unit, reveals the extent of the buy-up in Britain.

Nine off-shore infrastructure funds own between 50% and 100% of the equity in 335 PFI/Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. This amounts to 45% of all 735 current projects

12 offshore companies have bought equity in 74% of the 735 current projects
Education and health projects, including schools and hospitals, account for two-thirds of the purchases by offshore companies…

… Dexter Whitfield heads the European Services Strategy Unit which carried out the PFI research for public bodies and other organisations.

He said offshore companies were making huge profits from buying public assets, with annual average returns on their PFI investments as high as 28%.
But Mr Whitfield said the companies paid little or no UK corporation tax despite making huge profits.

He said: “PFI is essentially a private sector profit machine. If the government adopted a strategy of building the public infrastructure directly through public investment and operating it through their in-house services this whole edifice would not exist.

“All these transactions are a product of the fact that there is so much money to be made in PFI.”

Mr Whitfield said five offshore PFI funds made profits of £1.83bn over the five-year period ending in April 2015, but paid little or no corporation tax.

However, this was disputed by one offshore PFI giant, HICL Infrastructure Ltd, based in Guernsey.

It said Mr Whitfield’s research took no account of the fact that tax was paid both by the company’s subsidiaries and by shareholders on their dividends.

A spokesman said: “At the project level, HICL invests in a number of companies, which are incorporated in the UK and accordingly taxed by HMRC….”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41778609

Tory donor and tax avoider – go together like a horse and carriage

The Canary has provided a handy copy-and-keep list of the top Tory election donors, and it’s a real rogues’ gallery. Check out these creeps:

The Tories’ top donors included:

JCB Service – £1.5m. It’s owned by Anthony Bamford, who was not only named in the Panama Papers, but who operates JCB out of tax haven Bermuda.

John C Armitage – £1.1m. Armitage is the founder of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund that enables [xml] tax avoidance for investors.

John Griffin – £1.03m. Griffin and his private hire firm Addison Lee were caught up in a lobbying scandal in 2012.

Mark J. C. Bamford – £750,000. The younger brother of Anthony Bamford, owner of JBC Service, he was caught up in a row over a JCB subsidiary, JCB research, which, while only worth £27,000, was the biggest Tory donor in the run-up to the 2010 general election.

Andrew E Law – £525,000. Law is a hedge fund owner [paywall] whose firm Caxton Associates is registered in the US tax avoidance state of Delaware.
David J Rowland – £312,500. The Canary conducted a major investigation into Rowland in 2016, and described his offshore tax affairs as “mind blowing”.
Lord Michael Ashcroft – £500,000. Ashcroft has been involved in several tax avoidance scandals. He also co-authored the book at the centre of the David Cameron ‘Pig gate’ scandal.

Other Tory donors [pdf p3-5] during the election period included:

Sir Henry and Lady Keswick – £150,000. Keswick’s company Jardine Matheson was linked to tax avoidance via Luxembourg and has numerous subsidiaries in tax haven Bermuda.

Charles ‘Julian’ Cazalet – £10,000. Cazalet is a non-executive director of NHS private provider Deltex Medical Group.

Malcolm Healey – £100,000. Healey was fined by HMRC in 2015 for making £8.6m [pdf] by using a tax avoidance scheme.

Bruce Hardy McLain – £100,000. McLain’s private investment firm CVC Capital Partners is currently embroiled in a £5m bribery and tax avoidance scandal involving Formula One.

Ayman and Sawsan Asfari – £100,000. Ayman is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. He also runs oil company Petrofac, which avoids tax via Jersey.

Rainy City Investments – £100,000. Owned by Peter and Fred Done, who were fined £800,000 by the Serious Fraud Office over money laundering allegations.

Investors in Private Capital Ltd – £150,000. Co-owned by James ‘Jamie’ Reuben, family friend of George Osborne, it paid no UK corporation tax in 2014 [pdf p13], despite a turnover [pdf p17] of £35m.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/08/27/top-tory-election-donors-appear-to-be-tax-avoiders-money-launderers-and-private-health-bosses/

UK – tax avoidance hot spot

Almost 40% of corporate investments channelled away from authorities and into tax havens travel through the UK or the Netherlands, according to a study of the ownership structures of 98m firms.

The two EU states are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of being a preferred option for corporations who want to exploit tax havens to protect their investments.

The Netherlands was a conduit for 23% of corporate investments that ended in a tax haven, a team of researchers at the University of Amsterdam concluded. The UK accounted for 14%, ahead of Switzerland (6%), Singapore (2%) and Ireland (1%).

Every year multinationals avoid paying £38bn-£158bn in taxes in the EU using tax havens. In the US, tax evasion by multinational corporations via offshore jurisdictions is estimated to be at least $130bn (£99bn) a year. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/netherlands-and-uk-are-biggest-channels-for-corporate-tax-avoidance

Don’t let (tax avoiding) Google influence your views

Google spends millions on academic research to influence opinion, says watchdog

“Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed.

Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report.

“Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. “At a minimum, regulators should be aware that the allegedly independent legal and academic work on which they rely has been brought to them by Google.”

In its Google Academics Inc report, the CfA identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy that the company had funded. Such studies have been authored by academics and economists from some of the world’s leading institutions including Oxford, Edinburgh, Stanford, Harvard, MIT and the Berlin School of Economics.

Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report.

The CfA is calling for Google-funded academics to disclose the source of their funding to ensure their work can be evaluated in context.

Google described the report as “highly misleading” as it included any work supported by any organisation to which it has ever donated money. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion

Tax avoidance:
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-31/google-accused-of-being-less-than-transparent-after-revealing-latest-uk-tax-payments/

MP, want to conceal your financial (and other) affairs? Keep your dirty linen in Parliament!

An interesting remark in an article about millionaire former Cabinet Minister Cecil Parkinson (a favourite of Mrs Thatcher) where his former secretary and lover bemoans the financial plight of her disabled daughter, his acknowledged child, who was given minimal support during his lifetime:

“Cecil spent much of his time setting up offshore funds in the Bahamas and elsewhere,’ she says ‘He used to keep all relevant papers in the House of Commons as the Inland Revenue couldn’t raid it because it is considered a Royal Palace.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4414944/Cecil-Parkinson-s-daughter-scorned-Tory-minister-father.html

Wonder how many current MPs (so many, many of whom are millionaires) have their dirty linen stored in their filing cabinets in Parliament?

The tax woes of a big Tory donor

Lycamobile, the international phone call business and a major donor to the Conservative party, is embroiled in a £26m tax dispute with HMRC over VAT.

Accounts filed with Companies House show that Lycamobile’s UK division nearly doubled its pre-tax profits to £10.9m last year on turnover of £194m.

But the company, owned by Sri Lankan-born tycoon Allirajah Subaskaran, also revealed that it could face a bill of £26m from HMRC, including “potential penalties”, due to a dispute over VAT. …

… Auditors from KPMG have revealed that they are unable to form an opinion on the accounts due to a lack of “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

Last year, the accounting firm flagged up its confusion over £134m in funds owed to Lycamobile UK by related companies, adding that the knock-on effect on this year’s accounts meant it was still lacking information.

“Because of the significance of the matter […] we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion,” said KPMG. “Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial statements.”

It added: “We were unable to determine if adequate accounting records have been kept by the parent company.”

Lycamobile UK’s own directors’ report admitted that the tax dispute and complex structure create “material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

The Labour party and tax experts said the accounts raised questions for the Conservative party, which accepted £614,300 from Lycamobile in 2016 and nearly £1m the year before.

Tax accountant Richard Murphy said KPMG’s audit report and the VAT dispute raised “massive uncertainty” about Lycamobile’s financial position.

He said: “In the circumstances anyone dealing with the company has been given notice as to the risk they take. And the Conservative party is especially vulnerable. Taking donations from a company subject to this level of doubt as to its true financial position looks unwise. They’d do themselves a favour by saying no to further offers for the time being.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/03/tory-donor-lycamobile-in-26m-tax-dispute

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

What Trump tells us about global corruption, UK tax avoidance and government policies

Our own rich MPs (of all parties) hide their personal wealth by putting it in “blind trusts” for the duration of their parliamentary careers, supposedly not offering their “advice” on how the money is invested …. yeah, right!

“… Donald Trump is offering himself as president of a country whose federal income taxes he gives every appearance of dodging. He says he is fit to be commander in chief, after avoiding giving a cent more than he could towards the wages of the troops who must fight for him. He laments an America where “our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are in third world condition and 43 million Americans are on food stamps”, while striving tirelessly to avoid paying for one pothole to be mended or mouth to be filled.

Men’s lies reveal more about them than their truths. For years, Trump promoted the bald, racist lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and, as an unAmerican, was disqualified from holding the presidency. We should have guessed then. We should have known that Trump’s subconscious was trying to hide the fact that he was barely an American citizen at all.

He would not contribute to his country or play his part in its collective endeavours. Like a guest in a hotel who runs off leaving the bill, Trump wanted to enjoy the room service without paying for the room. You should never lose your capacity to be shocked, especially in 2016 when the shocking has become commonplace. The New York Times published a joint piece last week by former White House ethics advisers – one to George W Bush and one to Barack Obama, so no one could accuse the paper of bias. They were stunned.

No president would have nominated Trump for public office, they said. If one had, “explaining to the senate and to the American people how a billionaire could have a $916m ‘loss carry-forward’ that potentially allowed him to not pay taxes for perhaps as long as 18 years would have been far too difficult for the White House when many hard-working Americans turn a third or more of their earnings over to the government”.

Trump’s bragging about the humiliations he inflicts on women is shocking. Trump’s oxymoronic excuses about his “fiduciary duty” to his businesses to pay as little personal tax as he could are shocking. (No businessman has a corporate “fiduciary duty” to enrich himself rather than his company.) Never let familiarity dilute your contempt.

And yey, looked at from another angle, Trump is not so shocking. You may be reading this piece online after clicking on a Facebook link. If you are in Britain, the profits from the adverts Facebook hits you with will be logged in Ireland, which required Facebook to pay a mere €3.4m in corporate taxes last year on revenues of €4.83bn . If you are reading on an Apple device, Apple has booked $214.9bn offshore to avoid $65.4bn in US taxes. They are hardly alone. One recent American study found that 367 of the Fortune 500 operate one or more subsidiaries in tax havens.

Trump may seem a grotesque and alien figure, but his values are all around you. The Pepsi in your hand, the iPhone in your pocket, the Google search engine you load and the Nike trainers you put on your feet come from a tax-exempt economy, which expects you to pick up the bills.

The short answer to Conservatives who say “their behaviour is legal” is that it is a scandal that it is legal. The long answer is to invite them to look at the state of societies where Trumpian economics have taken hold. If they live in Britain or America, they should not have to look far.

The story liberal capitalism tells itself is heroic. Bloated incumbent businesses are overthrown by daring entrepreneurs. They outwit the complacent and blundering old firms and throw them from their pinnacles. They let creative destruction rip through the economy and bring new products and jobs with it.

If that justification for free-market capitalism was ever true, it is not true now. The free market in tax, it turns out, allows firms to move offshore and leave stagnant economies behind. Giant companies are no longer threatened by buccaneering entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses. Indeed, they don’t appear to be threatened by anyone.

The share of nominal GDP generated by the Fortune 100 biggest American companies rose from 33% of GDP in 1994 to 46% in 2013, the Economist reported. Despite all the fuss about tech entrepreneurship, the number of startups is lower than at any time since the late 1970s. More US companies now die than are born.

For how can small firms, which have to pay tax, challenge established giants that move their money offshore? They don’t have lobbyists. They can’t use a small part of their untaxed profits to make the campaign donations Google and the other monopolistic firms give to keep the politicians onside.

John Lewis has asked our government repeatedly how it can be fair to charge the partnership tax while allowing its rival Amazon to run its business through Luxembourg. A more pertinent question is why any government desperate for revenue would want a system that gave tax dodgers a competitive advantage.

What applies to businesses applies to individuals. The tax take depends as much on national culture as the threat of punishment, on what economists call “tax morale”.

No one likes paying taxes, but in northern European and North American countries most thought that they should pay them. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life, but I have no more heard friends discuss how they cheat the taxman than I have heard them discuss how they masturbate. If they cheat, they keep their dirty secrets to themselves. Let tax morale collapse, let belief in the integrity of the system waver, however, and states become like Greece, where everyone who can evade tax does.

The surest way to destroy morale is to make the people who pay taxes believe that the government is taking them for fools by penalising them while sparing the wealthy.

Theresa May promised at the Conservative party conference that “however rich or powerful – you have a duty to pay your tax”.

I would have been more inclined to believe her if she had promised, at this moment of asserting sovereignty, to close the British sovereign tax havens of the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Bermuda and the British Virgin and Cayman Islands.

But let us give the new PM time to prove herself. If she falters, she should consider this. Revenue & Customs can only check 4% of self-assessment tax returns. If the remaining 96% decide that if Trump and his kind can cheat, they can cheat too, she would not be able to stop them.• Comments will be opened later

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/08/free-market-in-tax-grotesque-idea-donald-trump-tax-havens

PFI (2) – Many Scottish schools owned and traded by offshore companies

“More than 200 schools built in Scotland under private finance initiative (PFI) schemes are now at least partially owned by offshore investment funds.
Under PFI, the private sector builds and manages school buildings in return for a fee, typically over 25-30 years.

In one project in Edinburgh, 17 new schools were built, with the council paying £1.5m a month.

Analysis for the BBC found there had been 13 trades involving equity in the Edinburgh schools scheme since 2001.

Although published data does not confirm the exact number of PFI schools owned wholly or partly offshore, it is clear they represent the vast majority.

Stakes in PFI building projects can be sold. They can then be traded on the secondary market to become parts of larger investment funds and pensions, as the monthly fees paid by councils provide a steady income.

Dexter Whitfield, from the European Services Strategy Unit, told a BBC Scotland investigation the Edinburgh PPP1 scheme was now owned by four different companies.

“Those four different companies are located offshore in Guernsey and Jersey, and they are basically controlled by shareholders,” he said.

A critic of PFI, he has described the projects as “wealth machines”, adding: “There are an awful lot of people making very substantial sums of money out of it.”

The 17 schools built in Edinburgh under PPP1 were closed for repairs earlier this year after construction faults were found.

The problems – with wall and header ties, used to hold exterior and interior walls together and attach them to the rest of the building – first became apparent when part of a wall at Oxgangs Primary fell during stormy weather.
About 7,600 primary and secondary school children in the capital were eventually affected.

An independent inquiry into the matter will consider whether the private finance method contributed to the structural issues with the buildings.

The City of Edinburgh Council said the schools would be safe and well-maintained for as long as the contract is in place.

Andrew Kerr, the chief executive of City of Edinburgh Council, said the terms of the contract ensured that schools are kept in a good condition.

“That’s something that was decided 10, 15 years ago. Our job is to make sure we manage that contract going forward as well as it can be,” he added.

There are 93 PFI projects in Scotland – responsible for hundreds of schools, road, hospitals and energy projects – and worth more than £6bn.”u

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37135611

PFI (1) – tax avoidance and rape of public assets by all mainstream political parties

“The scandal of Edinburgh’s unsafe schools is the last gasp of a discredited model of public finance, forced on us by a tax-avoiding governing class.

The Acronym Soup can get confusing. PPP, PFI, NPD – they are all hurled about, but there will certainly be no alphabet learning for more than 7,000 pupils across Edinburgh locked out of school since the Easter break as building safety standards are assessed and repairs undertaken. The schools were built under the controversial private finance initiative – PFI – by the Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood, and there’s now even talk that some of them may need to be knocked down and rebuilt.

Serious defects found at two more Edinburgh schools built using PFI
As a tangible symbol of rip-off Britain and the failed privatisation of the public sector, it is exemplary. In a week where the reality gap between rich and poor and the fetid reality of our tax-dodging governing class has been laid bare, it feels like the end of a really bad experiment. The system is discredited. The model is broken. It is crumbling before our eyes.

What have the Panama Papers got to do with schools in Edinburgh? It’s a perpetual circle. Tax avoidance drains money from society, forcing solutions that suit private contractors and let politicians off the hook.

These building problems raise significant wider issues about how we finance big public building programmes, and it’s not just about schools.

As early as 2011, BBC Alba’s Eorpa programme revealed that some contracts included leases lasting more than a century. The contract for the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary building lasts 25 years, but the lease on the land is for 130 years. It’s a debt we’ll have to pay for years to come.

George Monbiot has called PFI: “A racket, the legacy of 13 years of New Labour appeasement, triangulation and false accounting.” Certainly this scheme, which started under the John Major government, was enthusiastically embraced by Blair and Brown’s administrations. Scotland wasn’t just the testing ground for this disaster (the first PFI project in Britain was the Skye bridge), it has a far higher proportion than anywhere else. As the writer Gerry Hassan pointed out: “Scotland has 40% of PFI schools with 8.5% of the population.” Why is that? The journalist Mark Leftly suggests it was Brown who persuaded Blair to take PFI forward – resulting in a debt Leftly puts at a cool £222bn.

Predictably the political parties have been trying to blame each other. The beleaguered Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, said that “she had nothing too apologise for, for building schools”, and her Conservative counterpart, Ruth Davidson, had the brass neck to claim it was the Scottish government’s fault for not monitoring the building work. The Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry, a move they may regret.

Others have been dismissing the whole affair as simply a case of “poor construction”. Yet as many have pointed out, that’s a hell of a coincidence. Unison’s Dave Watson has argued that there’s a built-in likelihood of cost-cutting: “There is a profit incentive to keep costs to the minimum. Any saving that the construction partner can make increases profits to both the construction company and the other SPV [special purpose vehicle] partners. There is therefore a stronger cost-saving incentive than in conventional procurement.”

PFI was widely used by the Labour/Liberal Democrat executive and scrapped by the SNP when it came to power in 2007. The SNP then established the Scottish Futures Trust and introduced the non-profit distribution (NPD) model. NPD differs from PFI in that contractors invest solely in the debt of a project, not putting in any equity and not receiving returns on their capital investment. Critics argue that it’s not as different as its supporters make out.

But the sorry saga is not just about private solutions that don’t work. PFI fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, so that our public bodies, buildings and institutions are no longer owned by, or accountable to, us. It’s a failure of democracy, not just bad accounting. In this way it’s not just a turn away from public ownership, from the protection of a non-commoditised realm in areas of common good such as “health” and “education”. It’s a turn not just from public to private, but from public to secret.

That’s a defining characteristic of the tax-avoidance culture we’re getting a glimpse of. This is a world in which the Tory MP Alan Duncan warns us that “we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family and know absolutely nothing about the outside world” – and Fraser Nelson, the Spectator editor, can tell Channel 4 News: “In Britain we tend to keep these things private”.

It’s a world in which Toby Young pleads: “Winston Churchill was notoriously bad with money. He borrowed and spent with abandon, ran up huge debts, and was an inveterate gambler. If he’d been forced to ‘come clean’ about his financial affairs, he’d have been hounded from office.”

This week is reminiscent of the end days of Major’s sleaze meltdown, and it’s no coincidence that PFI is at the heart of the crumbing ideological shambles. Yesterday it emerged that a fund registered in a tax haven owns a 20% stake in the schools. Something called the John Laing Infrastructure Fund has its registered office in Guernsey, though a spokesman has said that the company pays tax in the UK.

We have a governing class that has been found out, and it needs to be dragged out of the shadows of backroom deals and casino culture. Why should our children have to put up with shoddy, potentially dangerous buildings? That’s a disgrace in 2016.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/edinburgh-schools-pfi-racket-crumbling-scotland-tax-avoiding-governing-classe

Companies House plan will hide Ministers’ links to firms, says Labour

“Historical links between ministers and former businesses will be hidden from the public if the government goes ahead with changes to Companies House, Labour has said.

Proposals to reduce the amount of time records of dissolved companies are retained could mean that the former directorships of 24 current Conservative ministers would no longer be accessible, research from the party suggests.

Their previous links to 48 now dissolved companies and organisations would be deleted either immediately or over the course of the parliament.

Ministers who could be affected include the chancellor, Philip Hammond, who is a former director of six dissolved companies; the home secretary, Amber Rudd; the defence secretary, Michael Fallon; and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/15/companies-house-plan-hide-tory-ministers-business-links-tom-watson-labour

Land value tax for developers, dukes and farmers?

” … In the 19th century landowners paid tax on their land. Today, so corrupt is our system of taxation, they actually receive subsidies for it. The rest of us, meanwhile, must pay council tax.

The largest landowners exploit a tax loophole. Land is passed from one generation to the next via the tax avoidance vehicle that is the trust. The rest of us must pay inheritance tax. …

… About the only way the person who starts out with nothing can improve his or her lot is through labour. And yet we tax labour constantly and heavily. The worker pays the vast majority of taxes: 40% of government revenue comes from income tax and national insurance, with another 20% from VAT.

The wealth of the super-rich does not derive from their labour, however. It derives from the appreciation in the value of their land, their houses, their stocks, their shares, their bonds, their fine art – what economists call their assets. These go untaxed, unless you sell. So most don’t. …

Instead of taxing our labour – what we produce – why don’t we tax what we use? Instead of taxing the wealth that is earned, why don’t we tax the wealth that is unearned? I’m talking about land. Nobody made the land. Nature gave it to us. By building on it, or farming it, or mining it, you have improved it, but the land itself was always there. So let us look solely at the unimproved value of the land. This is easy to assess.

If you want the right to occupy a piece of land, and you want the government to protect your title to that land, then a rent should be paid to the community that reflects the value of that land, because it is the needs of the community which have given that land value. What I’m describing might sound extremely left wing, but the granddaddy of rightwing economists, Milton Friedman, described it as the, “least bad tax”: that is LVT – land value tax.

Who would pay the most if we hand land value tax in the UK? The Queen (she owns most of it), the Duke of Buccleuch, the Duke of Atholl, Captain Alwyne Farquharson, pension funds, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the new Duke of Westminster – or rather the Grosvenor Trust, which owns the land. …

… There’s big money to be made in land banking but there is nothing creative about it. You are not bringing anything new to the world or improving it. It is simply exploiting the restrictive planning laws in this country that prevent progress. It is crony capitalism at its worst.

If you don’t want to pay land value tax, you don’t have to. This is a tax that is voluntary. You simply sell the land to someone who is prepared to.

The amounts of tax payable are clear. It’s an easy tax to administer. It doesn’t require 10 million words of tax code. And there need be no loopholes. The land is here – it is not in the Cayman Islands – and you are the owner.

The Green party actually has LVT in its manifesto, but it has it in addition to other taxes. LVT should replace other taxes. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/15/queen-duke-westminster-land-value-tax-distribute-wealth-super-rich

Lycamobile (one of the biggest donors to the Conservative Party: how do you get information on its UK business?

19 Lycamobile officials in France have been arrested in money laundering investigations.

Here is how ine UK person’s attempt to find out what goes on with the company in the UK went:

Dear National Crime Agency,

I note in recent revelations published by Buzzfeed news concerning Lycamobile, allegations that “the international telecoms group employs three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London”. (See *)

Buzzfeed quote a statement by a former manager, “The services would be intangible – consulting or IT services, for example. It would all be billed to London.”

In Lycamobile UK’s most recent annual accounts (**), filed at Companies House… the auditors identify significant sums for which the audit records are inadequate, including “an amount of £134,133,856 owed by related parties for which the audit evidence available to us was limited because of the complex nature of the related party structure the company operators within”.

Given the involvement of UK banks, the use of intangible services in London to spend the money deposited by Lycamobile, and the qualifications to Lycamobile UK’s accounts, please could you disclose to me;

1) Confirm or deny the National Crime Agency are involved in the investigation into alleged international money laundering by Lycamobile in London. If not, please could you indicate who is?
2) Confirm or deny the co-operation of Barclays Bank with any investigation into money laundering via UK bank accounts
3) The number of corresponding arrests made in the UK

France’s Parquet National Financier;-

“On Wednesday and Thursday, 19 people suspected of being involved in a money-laundering system implicating Lycamobile and Lycamobile Services were arrested. The arrests were part of a Paris judicial investigation into money laundering and VAT fraud. Several places in Paris and its outskirts were raided and police seized about 130,000 euros in cash and 850,000 euros from bank accounts. Nine people were brought in front of a judge on Friday and charged with money laundering among other things, and eight were released on bail while one man was remanded in custody. The charges relate to money laundering of at least 17 million euros and VAT fraud of several million euros”.
Yours faithfully,

P. John”
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-…
** https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/compa…

And the reply was:

OFFICIAL

Dear P. John

Thank you for contacting the National Crime Agency (NCA).

NCA is not listed in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and as such is not obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests. NCA is also not listed as a ‘Scottish Public Authority’ in the Freedom of Information (Scotland Act 2002).

Any information from, or relating to NCA has an absolute exemption from disclosure by other public authorities by virtue of Section 23 of the Act (as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013).

From time to time NCA will make limited information available on the web site http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk.

Whilst we will not respond to specific requests, we will consider written suggestions about information we may consider publishing in the future.

For more information about the Freedom of Information Act, please contact the Office of the Information Commissioner, or view their web site at http://www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Public Information Compliance Unit
NCA”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lycamobile_3

One of the largest donors to (both factions of) the Tory Party arrested in France over money laundering allegations

“Nineteen people working for the biggest donor to the Conservative Party have been arrested in France in connection with a multi-million pounds tax and money laundering scandal.

All are linked to Lycamobile, the multinational telecoms giant, which has given at least £2.2m to Prime Minister David Cameron’s party since 2011, including half-a-million last year alone.

Lycamobile also allowed Boris Johnson to use one of their call centres during his successful 2012 campaign to become Mayor of London. …

… Mr Jochimek [a director] appeared in a Paris criminal court on Friday, along with nine others who have been charged with a variety of offences related to financial fraud.

They specifically relate to alleged illicit transactions of 13 million pounds, but the French authorities believe the figure could be far higher.

It follows an investigation by BuzzFeed that caught Lycamobile ‘employing three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London,’ according to the news site.

Bundles of cash were seized in raids on Lycamobile’s Paris headquarters, and a series of residential and business addresses across the city, while the company’s French bank accounts have since been frozen.

Lycamobile’s Sri Lankan-born owner, Subaskaran Allirajah, is a member of the exclusive Leader’s Group for top Tory donors.

He has dined with Mr Cameron or members of his cabinet twice in the past six months, and is also close to Mr Johnson, after bankrolling his campaign.

None of those involved admit any wrongdoing, with Lycamobile previously claiming that the filmed cash drops were just ‘day to day banking’.

But according to Buzzfeed investigators the French authorities have identified money coming from shell companies suspected of acting as fronts for ‘various networks laundering profits from crime.’

Buzzfeed probed 19 companies that allegedly funnelled tens of millions of euros into Lycamobile’s French accounts.

All but one ‘was registered at PO boxes, vacant offices, derelict buildings, or a construction site.’ David Cameron pledged to crack down on money laundering and offshore tax avoidance at the global anti-corruption summit in London last month.

He said he wanted to ‘send a clear message to the corrupt that there is no home for them here’.

According to the Buzzfeed investigation, Lycamobile is selling its prepaid calling cards on the black market in Paris for cash, and is then using a ‘a vast system of false billing’ to invoice fake companies for the sales in order to conceal other illicit payments.

Lycamobile’s own auditors declared over the past two years that they could not account for total of £646 million that moved through 10 companies in its complex corporate network.

Lycamobile is the world’s largest mobile virtual network operator, buying international airtime in bulk and selling it to millions of customers around the world on relatively cheap prepaid calling cards.

It has reported an annual turnover of 1.5 billion pounds, while legally avoiding corporation tax in the UK and Ireland by moving its money to the tax haven of Madeira.

Following the original Buzzfeed enquiry, the Labour Party wrote to the Conservatives demanding that the party freeze all donations from Lycamobile pending further investigations, but the letter was ignored. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3649301/Offices-Conservative-Party-s-biggest-donor-Lycamobile-raided-French-police-nine-people-charged-suspicion-money-laundering-tax-fraud.html

Google and our Government – a cosy relationship

“New concerns have been raised about the political influence of Google after research found at least 80 “revolving door” moves in the past decade – instances where the online giant took on government employees and European governments employed Google staff.

The research was carried out by the Google Transparency Project, an initiative run by the Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a US organisation that scrutinises corporations and politicians. The CfA has suggested that the moves are a result of Google seeking to boost its influence in Europe as the company seeks to head off antitrust action and moves to tighten up on online privacy.

In the UK, Google has hired people from Downing Street, the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport. Overall, the company has hired at least 28 British public officials since 2005.

Those hired have included Sarah Hunter, a senior policy adviser to Tony Blair when prime minister, who became head of public policy for Google in the UK. Hunter is now head of policy for Google X, the arm that deals with new businesses such as drones and self-driving cars.

In 2013 Google hired Verity Harding, a special adviser to former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. Harding is now policy manager for Google DeepMind, its artificial intelligence arm, which recently secured a contract with the NHS.

Overall, the research suggests that Google, now part of parent company Alphabet Inc, has hired at least 65 former government officials from within the European Union since 2005. These include Tomas Gulbinas, a former ambassador-at-large for the Lithuanian government, and Georgios Mavros, a former adviser to a French member of the European parliament: both became Google lobbyists.

During the same period, 15 Google employees were appointed to government positions in Europe, gaining what the CfA claims are “valuable contacts at the heart of the decision-making process”.

In the UK, appointments include that of Baroness Joanna Shields, a former managing director for Google, who was made minister for internet safety, and Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, who David Cameron appointed to his business advisory council. Dame Margaret Hodge, former head of the Commons’ public accounts committee, told the CfA that the appointments were part of a deliberate strategy by Google to gain influence in the public sphere. “I have absolutely no doubt it’s part of their strategy,” Hodge said. “Google deliberately nurtures that culture, and I have absolutely no doubt that they see it as strategically important to be as close as they can to government.”

She added that, unlike other large American companies, such as Apple, “one gets the impression that [government] ministers are in awe of Google”. …

… In the UK, Google has been moving into a raft of new areas now being heavily promoted by the government. “We need to rethink how we view Google,” said Tamasin Cave of the campaign group Spinwatch. “It’s not a search engine, it’s a political beast that has captured the attention of our policy-makers. Most worryingly in health and education, where privatisation through technology is gathering pace. Even if our politicians have bought into its thinking, we as a public should be asking how Google’s involvement in the NHS and schools will impact them, what are the consequences, and who benefits: us or Google?””

http://gu.com/p/4k9je

Wonder if any of our LEP members have Google associations!