Im surprised there hasnt been a thread on this already...

Im never really one to get involved with these threads on the forum but i was kind of hoping to find one on here to read others views.

Personally having seen the protests over the weekend i think the whole thing is ridiculous.

Really Interesting article here about the difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...s-a6974791.html

Im not a huge cameron fan however i dont feel he has done anything wrong here. People seem to believe that "off shore" means Tax Evasion. From what i understand Cameron paid capital gains on the shares when he sold them. Therefore he has paid what was owed.

Interesting to hear others views and those who are more qualified than me in this area ...

I also think he hasn't done anything wrong and think it's all being blown out of proportion.

He's paid what he's supposed to pay and it doesn't seem like he's avoided anything.

The only mistake was not to have been completely open from day 1

Anyone here got a pension? An ISA? Premium Bonds? Money saved in the NSI? Congratulations - you're avoiding tax.

This is classic politics: try and make your opponent look foolish and/or embarrassed. Pah.

I agree, he hasn't done anything wrong with regard to this particular item. It's just a nice excuse to call for his head.

Just another example of politicians having no clue about the subject they're discussing.

As a retired IFA (independent financial advisor ) I advised clients how to order their affair to avoid taxation, perfectly legal, and amongst that advising people to set up "offshore" fund ...in the Isle of Man with very proper insurance companies and totally legally. These are very ordinary people who live in the suburbs not rich or special..the whole thing is ludicrous..
How many people have paid a builder or mechanic in cash ....tax evasion...

Although the dismally predictable attack on Cameron is nothing more than cheap political opportunism, there are a few points where he is a legitimate target: firstly, there is no denying that involvement in tax avoidance looks bad, be it ever-so-legal. Remember Cameron's words about Jimmy Carr? That Jersey scheme was (I believe) legal - by the skin of its teeth - and yet Cameron (ill-advisedly) laid into Carr in no uncertain terms. If you are going to target someone from a position of high office, then you have to be whiter than white in your own affairs. Secondly, there is every reason to investigate the tax affairs of the Prime Minister, given that other powerful figures have been forced to resign. There still appear to be anomalies in some of the transactions (the amount invested by Mr & Mrs Cameron appears to be below the minimum threshold for that scheme), so any investigative journalist worth his salt is going to be interested in that.
Finally, if you remember the family values campaign by John Major's administration, swiftly followed by the revelation that he himself had had an affair with (married) Edwina Currie, it brings the lesson home that if you set yourself up as a guardian of certain values, then your fall will be swift and covered in schadenfreude if you are then seen to be abusing them.

Unless something very smelly emerges, then Cameron (rightly) won't resign over this. But he (and all politicians of every persuasion) should expect to be very thoroughly scrutinised. Talking of which, I'll bet myself a large glass of red wine that at least one figure from "the left" is found to have been playing around in Panama, to give Cameron's apologists some "tit" for his "tat".

I'm not even sure what Cameron has done is avoidance of any sort (at least not on his part). He paid tax on the investment in the UK - and, as such, it's no different to me owning (as I once did) Johnson & Johnson shares in the US. Certainly most of the tax advisors interviewed on R4 thought it to be particularly poor from a tax "efficiency" point of view.

This is probably why focus has now turned onto inheritance tax and the gift from his mother.

Not Panama Jim but for an example of the left using tax avoidance have a look at Tony Benn (and politicians don't get much more left than he was) and his planning to minimise inheritance tax.

Personally, I think inheritance tax is the least justifiable tax going as somewhere along the line the wealth will have been generated from income that has already been taxed (at least, if the system works as it should) so it is double taxation.

I don't think there's any doubt that some of the people and schemes revealed in the Panama leaks have been unsavoury and illegal. For the Prime Minister of the UK to have links - however tenuous - to such things was always going to be newsworthy (depending on your definition of news).

The question in my mind is that if - as alleged - the scheme that the Cameron family had a part in was so poor from a tax point of view, what were they doing in it in the first place? It seems odd that a businessman with the acumen of Cameron senior would have gone to the trouble of investing in offshore accounts unless there were sound reasons. If not tax "efficiency", then what?

While we're on the subject of Tony Benn, etc...

http://newsthump.com/2016/04/11/ken-livingstone-breaks-expensive-new-hypocrisy-o-meter/

The reason he was involved in it is that they are very well-run. Apparently most pension schemes invest in the same way. What they aren't is tax avoidance vehicles.

It is unfortunate to be tied up in such dodgy dealings

I think that's the point; legitimate schemes will be judged by the shady company they keep...

Step forward VW drivers....

I wonder if any of the opposition have ISAs...

If they do, they can be accused of avoiding tax, as they would have to pay income tax on interest earned on a normal bank or building society account.

An ISA is an accepted savings / investment vehicle with tax advantages.

An offshore fund is a variation on the same theme.

And as for the "evasion" of IHT caused by his mother gifting him £200k, its a system that is legislated for by HMRC using the 7 year tapering relief facility (ie if Mrs Cameron snr dies within 7 years of making the gift, some IHT is still payable).

Indeed, Roy Jenkins said in 1986 that IHT is "a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue"

Avoiding IHT is simply a matter of prudent planning - Cameron (and anyone else for that matter) cannot be taken to task for not paying a tax that is broadly voluntary

What Cameron has done isn't even close to tax avoidance. It's just standard practice. We've all done it, even Jeremy Corben's street-cleaners. Whereas Jimmy Carr will (should) have been told this is tax avoidance pure and simple. He had a choice of how much tax to pay and he chose the lowest rate Still legal, but it's purely a moral choice.

You are undoubtedly right. But my point (or a hybrid of my points!) stands: if you criticise others from high office you must be whiter than white in your own dealings, and if your affairs are found to be associated (however remotely) with potentially dodgy entities, you must be prepared for this to be exploited by your opponents.

This is all just tiresome political nonsense, with little connection to the actual, financial minutiae. If the positions were reversed, Cameron's political allies would waste no time putting the exact same boot into the exact same part of Jeremy Corbyn's anatomy.

But that's the point, he is whiter than white on this occasion from what I can see. No association with anything remotely dodgy. Someone should pull up details on where all Jeremy Corben's pensions are invested. He'd be shocked!

I am certain that a small, but zealous, army of interns are beavering away diligently on this as we speak.

One question that no-one (well, no-one in my office) has been able to answer yet, is how can it be possible for a 'shell' company be set up and not be directly attributable to someone?

Sure, there are people named (family/friends/housekeepers/cats etc..) but no-one seems to be have overall responsiblilty for it.

Is this the actually the case? Even if its in someone else's name (i.e Friend gives you £100m to invest ofshore), then the named party should have to prove how they got that money - and if you have paid taxes.

Its just come out that Jeremy Corben can't find his tax return...after making a big song and dance about it last week...!!! I will make no comment!

Have I missed Jeremy Corbyn changing his name? (For tax purposes, I presume...)

They (family/friends/cat etc) are not legally responsible and will(should) have a legal document to prove it. The ultimate owner is responsible for it. But of course it depends on the local tax/company laws as to what those rules are and how transparent the business is.

New rules are being introduced in the UK to counteract nominee shareholders such as those above.

http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/legal-...ificant-control

The most important question about the whole farce is - why are all the other politicians and the press suffering from amnesia? I have known since at least 2009 - 2010 about Cameron's family tax shelter business, it was common knowledge, so why all the faux outrage?

Pin-headed political point-scoring.

Slightly less difficult to address than "What are we actually going to do about Syria"

Never thought I'd say this but I actually feel a bit sorry for ol' Dave. He's paid his dues, shame his first statement wasn't more open, then he is in the lying game and probably can't help it.

Cant wait to see some of the tax returns with six figure expenses claims on them.

Slightly less difficult to address than "What are we actually going to do about Syria" [/quote]






Yes my thoughts also. It's all red herrings and bolox. They should be ashamed of thier childish postering while people in other parts of the world are in dire straights.