- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 11,526
- Reaction score
- 874
- Country
I don't think anybody would disagree, but it's not enough to go to the top of the listI would have to say that the rules should be applied fairly to everyone.
I don't think anybody would disagree, but it's not enough to go to the top of the listI would have to say that the rules should be applied fairly to everyone.
You've got to love the irony that the man behind these rumours is Lord Ashcroft. The £1500 he is so worried about is roughly what he would pay a partner at a top City firm per hour for advice on avoiding UK tax.
![]()
Paradise Papers: Lord Ashcroft stayed non-dom despite pledges
Conservative donor continued to retain status despite assurances by the party.www.bbc.co.uk
![]()
Hourly rates for magic circle partners reach £1,500, analysis finds
Analysis of hourly rates suggests firms charge far more than the judiciary expects.www.lawgazette.co.uk
That reminds the Tory faithful to continue to try to make £1500 into a big thing.Dear oh dear
"Lord Ashcroft promised to become a permanent resident in the UK - a change that would have meant giving up his status as a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the country.
The then leader of the Conservative Party William Hague told Parliament that becoming a peer would "cost him [Lord Ashcroft] and benefit the Treasury tens of millions of pounds a year in tax".
"The tax was never paid because Lord Ashcroft, who was once Belize's ambassador to the United Nations and maintains links to the central American country, persuaded officials that he should be allowed to become a long term resident of the UK rather than a permanent one. A distinction that allowed him to retain his non-dom status.
The leaked documents show that between 2000 and 2010, Lord Ashcroft received payments of around $200m (£150m) from his offshore trust in the Bermuda.
The Tory Peer continued to sit in the House of Lords and as a non-dom he did not have to pay tax on these payments."
Tory sleaze.
They'd soon be after you or me I’d we short changed them £1500. Why should anyone else get away with it?I'm the scale of tax issues and mp scandals, how high on the list do you put it?
It needs investigating, but I doubt the hmrc would spend much time and money over it. Until now its been made into a political issue of course
I have never said they should get away with it.They'd soon be after you or me I’d we short changed them £1500. Why should anyone else get away with it?
1. The £1500 must be investigated.So £1500 is a not a trivial matter to you
but £200m is so trivial you make a joke of it
Deputy Leader of a political party that could be running the country soon? That should be at the top of the list things to be sorted.But it doesn't deserve to be at the top of any list does it? There are a few more, more important ones
Deputy Leader of a political party that could be running the country soon? That should be at the top of the list things to be sorted.
No. I am happy that it is being investigated. I will await any results as they are fed to us. Exactly the same as they do with all MP's, of any party.Deputy Leader of a political party that could be running the country soon? That should be at the top of the list things to be sorted.
Am I off your ignore list now? Still on the question ignore one though, I bet….There must be an election coming up.
She'd better not say "British Trains could do with improvement"
Or the Tory press will explode.
Your posts do not support that1. The £1500 must be investigated.
2. The £200m must be investigated.
They are both public servants and should come under higher scrutiny.
Where are we up to with the £200m - seems to have been talked about for ages. When is she due in court?
We don't know these things. The article you posted makes it clear that if either a modest amount of improvements were made, or if her house was nominated as the main residence, there would be no tax liability at all. Also, we don't know whether she made a declaration.
When two people who both already own their own properties get married, it is extremely common to keep both for a few years whilst they decide what to do in the long term. What she did isn't odd at all. Which rules do you think she was trying to avoid/leverage, and how did her behaviour achieve that?
And of course a married couple cannot have two home residences for tax purposes which is clearly the error she made. That has been jumped on by tax experts