David Cameron has published his tax return

[Zak33]

Go find it on bbc news or any.other channel.

I feel that he's been cornered on this and is publishing something that no.one really has any right to know....
He's been very very transparent now and I think he's a brave man.

You'd struggle to get many important people to tell you ANYTHING about their income let alone expose everything from rental income to inheritance to salary and work expenses.

I'm genuinely excited to.see Corbyn doing the same.

Now I forsee the masses moaning about the wealthy benefitting from vast wealth......

But this isn't vast wealth. It's a bloke running a country and trying to do the stuff that people argue about all the time.

Compare his income to Google directors or large coffee chain bosses.. To Intel or Nvidia directors.....to British gas or BT bosses.. To virgin media bosses.....

I don't agree with everything he says....nor do I agree with Corbyn. But I think to expose his salary income tax affairs and inheritance is about as crystal as the bloke can every be asked

Imagine his next global summit. How much does Merkel earn? Cos she knows Camerons income now! What about Obama?

Braver man than me.

[Andy3536]

The problem here is double standards and hypocrisy.
He's claiming to be trying his best to clamp down on tax havens, he was even first in line to slam people like Jimmy Carr over their tax affairs.
But he appears to behave in a different manner himself to the view of himself he's trying to project.
He's personally intervened to water down EU legislation that would have forced banks to name the beneficiaries from trusts.
Aswell as his family, and himself benefiting from off shore trusts.
When he says he's coming down hard on those that avoid tax, it's hard to believe he's being genuine.

Mabee he's only skirting round the edge as many of those that would be benefiting from tax havens would also be friends and Tory party donors?

[Zak33]

K2 involved having jimmy's salary paid off shore. He resigned from.his own company I think and was paid abroad (channel Islands I think)

David Cameron purchased an investment offshore using his own money.
Then he sold them for a profit and paid income tax on them here in the UK when they made a,goid profit

Don't think they're quite the same, in same way that I'd not be paid abroad to avoid tax but I would buy investments offshore and then finally pay income tax on thr profit.

I.know the press and jimmy will play the cards well and gain great comedy value from them....I would too.... But it's not the same I don't think.

[Zak33]

And I'm.genuinely looking forward to Jeremy C publishing his incomes

[Ferral]

The bloke is a hypocrite, simple as that.

If anyone else done something like that you would have bailiffs braying on your door and prison if you couldn't afford to pay it, how is he any different. I honestly think if it came down to it he shouldn't be allowed to resign, he should be treat in the same way the rest of us normal folk would be and fired on the spot and money retreived by the courts.

It all boils down to the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, cut the NHS and other much needed services (ambulance, fire, schools & police) but would any of those in power ever consider a wage decrease to put money into areas of the country that really need it, no they wouldn't. I personally think that the MP's should be forced to take a normal job for the time they aren't doing government stuff not forgetting paid minimum wage for their time given to the government and so called running of this country. I just wonder how many would actually stick around when they weren't being given hundreds of thousands per year to just sit on their backsides in the commons, you know if they had to actually work for it.

[Andy3536]

K2 involved having jimmy's salary paid off shore. He resigned from.his own company I think and was paid abroad (channel Islands I think)

David Cameron purchased an investment offshore using his own money.
Then he sold them for a profit and paid income tax on them here in the UK when they made a,goid profit

Don't think they're quite the same, in same way that I'd not be paid abroad to avoid tax but I would buy investments offshore and then finally pay income tax on thr profit.

I.know the press and jimmy will play the cards well and gain great comedy value from them....I would too.... But it's not the same I don't think.

I know they're not quite the same, and arguably. The issue of investing 12K in an offshore fund (legally) isn't inherently a terrible thing.
I was trying more to get across the fact that this guy is the PM, and there appears to be a big difference in the way he's trying to present himself, and the way he actually behaves.
He talks about being tough on tax havens without necessarily being tough on them.
He's talking it up to try and sound good to the electorate, but not implementing any real change as that would upset his friends and party donors.

As for Jeremy Corbyns tax returns, i'd imagine they're probably going to be the one thing more boring than he is ;-)

[Zak33]

Corbyn will work home now going through his lever arch files....checking his accounts;-)

[Saracen]

The bloke is a hypocrite, simple as that.

If anyone else done something like that you would have bailiffs braying on your door and prison if you couldn't afford to pay it, how is he any different. I honestly think if it came down to it he shouldn't be allowed to resign, he should be treat in the same way the rest of us normal folk would be and fired on the spot and money retreived by the courts.

It all boils down to the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, cut the NHS and other much needed services (ambulance, fire, schools & police) but would any of those in power ever consider a wage decrease to put money into areas of the country that really need it, no they wouldn't. I personally think that the MP's should be forced to take a normal job for the time they aren't doing government stuff not forgetting paid minimum wage for their time given to the government and so called running of this country. I just wonder how many would actually stick around when they weren't being given hundreds of thousands per year to just sit on their backsides in the commons, you know if they had to actually work for it.

Cameron has done .... what?

From the details published so far at least, NOTHING he has done would require bailiffs at the door, or a bill from HMRC, or any chance whatever of ending up in court.

There is NOTHING illegal about having foreign investments, provided you declare all the income required by HMRC and pay tax on it. He did. When you sell (almost) any asset (except exempted items like private domestic residence) you oay CGT (Capital Gains Tax) on any gain above the annual allowance. His gain (difference between sale proceeds and purchase cost) was less than the CGT allowance, so no CGT was due.

In both cases, the tax on the dividends and the gain, tax due was paid and you or I would have been treated EXACTLY the same by HMRC.

On the 2x £100,000. given to him by his mother, there are two points. First, the explanation is that Dad gave elder brother the house, and mum gave DC money so that the total DC got was equalised with the value of the house. My parents adopted the same principle, as would most, which is to treat kids alike. It wasn't a tax dodge. Or at a minimum, there is NO evidence that it was about tax. Even if it was, it was utterly in line with not just a technical interpretation of IHT rules, which even so-called aggressive tax avoidance also are, but in DC's case, with the express intent of the tax law, which aggressive avoidance schemes are definitely not.

Finally, re IHT, with very limited exceptions, it isn't the person gettingvthe inheritance that pays the tax. It's the executors of the estate, from estate funds, before it gets to the beneficiaries. One exception to that is "gifts" like that of his mother to DC, but IHT dies not become due on those gifts UNTIL her death, and even then, only if it is within 7 years of the gift. Should she pass before that date, IHT will be due within a specified period, and statutorily mandated interest will accrue if it isn't received by that date. He can't pay it yet, because as of now, no liabity has occurred, and there's no way to know how much it'll be when, and indeed if, it ever does. This is also EXACTLY the same way you or I would be treated in the same circumstances.

From what I've seen of the Panama papers, there's a whole mountain of very dubious, at best, dealings and no doubt vast amounts of illegality. But not with DC, and to be fair, not with his Dad's investment fund either.

Remember, this fund was set up overseas, shortly after UK foreign exchange regulations were relaxed, to buy foreign currency stocks, like dollar shares. It could have been set up in and run from the US, in which case, US company tax would have applied and been charged, which would reduce both profits available for distribution to unit holders, and the value of the company.

Then, the UK tax would have been lower because dividends would be smaller. On disposal, because US tax had been paid the value of the fund would be lower, and any UK CGT less likely, and if it was due, would be lower. Yet, the newspapers seem to be implying that because Panama has a tax regime that only taxes companies on Panama-sourced income, anyone using it must automatically be up to no good and fiddling taxes. There are legitimate reasons for using Panama (as well as, yes, illicit ones) and one is privacy.

But there are legit reasons for valuing privacy. One is to hide, from all and sundry, where you live. It's not unknown for very wealthy people, like say Madonna etc, to want to mask where they live from intrudive fans, or even stalkers. Or journalists. So when you buy a property, it's not a good idea having your name on a public database. Another is business-oriented. If company A is buying company B, doing it through offshore companies protected by privacy might stop price inflation if the seller knew the uktimate buyer had Google or MS type funds. It also protects from A's competitors finding out who they're seeking to buy, or even what type of company or industry segment they're interested in.

Anyway, while no doubt huge sums of tax are evaded using tax "havens", tax is far from the only reason for using them. Investors with money in companies located in Panama or the Bahamas aren't doing ANYTHING illegal provided they declare income and capital gains to HMRC. In the same way, I could start a company in Delaware, buy a property in Florida and rent it out. Providing I pay all IRS and local property taxes in the US, and HMRC taxes on income and any CGT on disposal, I'm doing nothing illegal, and still wouldn't be if the company was based in the UK or Panama.

DC is certainly an idiot for having badly mishandled this, but at least so far, there is ZERO evidence of him having done anything at all wrong.

[herulach]

The interesting thing about this is that I find it amazing that people would be satisfied with someones tax return as evidence of not dodging tax. As others have said, Cameron has not only not done anything wrong, he hasn't even done anything morally ambiguous.

The offshore fund thing is frankly drivel, I own shares in various non UK businesses, as well as direct (via ISA) & indirect (via pension) investments in hedge funds, anyone with a decent 2 earner income who doesn't is probably not great at managing money. Similarly estate planning makes sense, the 7 year rule is there because its the best balance between allowing people to mitigate tax.

Its all perfectly legitimate acticity the red tops are trying to drum up something on the basis of Money = evil.

The activity he's criticised people for previously are (still legal IIRC) but aren't even approaching the same thing morally.

Never mind Corbyn's tax return, I'd love to see Murdochs.

[Spreadie]

How about we lighten the mood, whilst (sorta) remaining on topic?

Re-written song lyrics

Some of them are priceless.

[malfunction]

I have to admit my gut reaction looking at the released figures was "is that it?" - as in he isn't 'earning' anywhere near as much as I thought he would be.

Though of course his tax liability doesn't show how much wealth he has - only his income - or indeed whether or not (for example) his family members have assets or income above and beyond what you would expect. Though given the links discovered around others (e.g. Putin) I imagine if there was anything in this leak there we would have heard about it or will do shortly. Plenty of other tax havens and ways to skin a cat and all that though - and to be honest I'm more worried about the pain inflicted on the rest of us than his 'private' (or otherwise) finances.

[Saracen]

...

The activity he's criticised people for previously are (still legal IIRC) but aren't even approaching the same thing morally.

....

Exactly.

It seems to me that a large part of the problem is that there is no comprehensive definition of where tax planning becomes avoidance, or where avoidance becomes aggressive avoidance, which then somehow morphs into evasion.

Tax planning = legal and "fair", moral.

Avoidance = legal, but some people think is unfair. The line moves, though.

Aggressive avoidance = potentially illegal and HMRC will come after you. A court ultimately decides, often by interpreting the intent of Parliament when writing law.

Evasion = outright illegal.

At it's most mild, putting money in an ISA or topping up pension contributions is avoidance, because it is an action designed to avoid tax. But, it's also taking action that was not only envisaged when those tax facilities were created, byt was the explicit intent in creating them. For ISAs, to encourage savings, and for pension provisions, to encourage pensions. Is it unfair to do what the government were trying to get us to do? Hardly, IMO.

And exactly that principle applies to using absolutely standard IHT rules, and rules that have been in place for years, decades even.

So far, and I stress SO FAR, because it may be there's more to come, DC appears to have done nothing that wasn't not only legally valid, but also in line with the intent of those provisions.

This is very different from setting up complex structures designed to exploit loopholes in complex law, in order to minimise tax in a way that arguably might be within the letter oc the law but emphatically wasn't the intent of Parliament. That's the "aggressive" avoidance.

The other yardstick might be whether you have to pay accountants or lawyers large sums to set up complex structures to reduce your tax bill. If you do, it may well be "aggressive" avoidance, but if you're merely applying basic IHT rules that any chartered accountant is likely to cover in IHT lesson one, then it's hardly sophisticated tax planning.

[Jowsey]

Storm in a teacup. As yet, David Cameron has a)committed no crimes or b)done anything that's even borderline immoral. The only thing he can be found guilty of is not being upfront about his involvement, and even then I struggle to get angry at him as no matter what, when they discovered he was somewhat related, then there was going to be an absolute frenzy!

He has used his capital gains allowance and the 7 year inheritance tax "ticking clock" rule, just as we all use ISAs and salary sacrifice pensions schemes. And even some here (if not most, as this forum's typical member is a bit older and wiser than most IMO) will be or will have used these exact same rules to their own benefit.

Why does the PM not get judged by the same laws every other citizen get judged by?

Whatever, I'd now like to see all party leaders disclose there tax returns, as what DC did took serious guts!

[big_hairy_rob]

Surely however we would need them to submit ALL their tax returns in order to check for irregularities? More to a point, why should all politicians not have this information available for the public? It's a little like the expenses scandal, you don't know they've done anything until they are caught doing it.

[SeriousSam]

Surely however we would need them to submit ALL their tax returns in order to check for irregularities? More to a point, why should all politicians not have this information available for the public? It's a little like the expenses scandal, you don't know they've done anything until they are caught doing it.

Implicit within your post is the assumption that the HMRC isn't doing its job properly. If that is the case then there is a simple solution... go Scandinavian where EVERYONE'S taxes are a matter of public record. Then we can all satisfy our curiosity to the nth degree. "Oh look Mrs Smith is going on another holiday, how does she pay for it all... snoop snoop".

As far as I am concerned if we expect politicians to be held to the same standard as ourselves then the opposite should also stand. Now I accept that there will always be that nagging "but they are in charge of the system so they might manipulate things such as tax returns". Certainly their self regulation for expenses leaves a lot to be desired. So why not find a "halfway" point where both ours and their tax affairs are private, but independent scrutiny of those in public office ?

[malfunction]

To be honest, much like the corporate tax avoidance 'scandal', what you really have to question is the fairness of the system (and those that put it in place / maintain it). Both in terms of the rules applied and the intelligence and resources required to avoid tax to some degree (whether moral or not).

I also question how effective publishing the data would be* - but I can see an argument for making it a condition of public office - and possibly even directorships - though there's a wealth of corporate data available now, and even when highlighted in the press it hasn't made a massive impact on how much tax corporations 'volunteer' to pay, nor the rules stating how much they should pay (not yet anyway).


* Though it would be nice to at least have everyone's data available - anonymously - split out by job, sector, location, etc.