FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Zahawi's taxing problem

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

"

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law' "

So he has paid a tax shortfall of millions due to shares held in an offshore account relating to polling firm yougov.

He denies any illegal activity, but has still paid millions, due to being innocent.

If I am innocent of a crime I would not pay full stop let them take me to court so I can prove myself innocent.

Is this why the government will not listen to the opposition and curb this way of tax avoidance as they are all in it together?

this government is corrupt to its very core, disgusting comes to mind, and when it is presented to their supporters, and they deny it, then they are part of the issue or are complicit in it.

When I say your time will come, it will and it will come from those you support as it is always the case when there is nothing more to take from those who have been exploited.then in reason its your turn, and from what I see it has already started.

"Tax payer follows tax law after, being caught with hand in offshore accounts", I think would be a fairer title thread, thanks OP as I missed that piece of news.

But.... you are entitled to your view as always.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law' "

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

PS nice attempt at painting me as a racist there

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am lost. It looks like he is paying tax on behalf of an offshore company he is not a beneficiary of. It's not even clear if that company had a tax liability. There's only tax if had owned the shares.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"I am lost. It looks like he is paying tax on behalf of an offshore company he is not a beneficiary of. It's not even clear if that company had a tax liability. There's only tax if had owned the shares. "

You're lost because there's no story. None of the resident anti-Tory forumites have rushed here to join in on this nasty attack on Zahawi (they might now, as they'll hate to see one of their peers losing the thread) which hitherto tells you much.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"PS nice attempt at painting me as a racist there "

I never mentioned skin colour? I must have hit a nerve

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily..."

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

So he has paid a tax shortfall of millions due to shares held in an offshore account relating to polling firm yougov.

He denies any illegal activity, but has still paid millions, due to being innocent.

If I am innocent of a crime I would not pay full stop let them take me to court so I can prove myself innocent.

Is this why the government will not listen to the opposition and curb this way of tax avoidance as they are all in it together?

this government is corrupt to its very core, disgusting comes to mind, and when it is presented to their supporters, and they deny it, then they are part of the issue or are complicit in it.

When I say your time will come, it will and it will come from those you support as it is always the case when there is nothing more to take from those who have been exploited.then in reason its your turn, and from what I see it has already started.

"Tax payer follows tax law after, being caught with hand in offshore accounts", I think would be a fairer title thread, thanks OP as I missed that piece of news.

But.... you are entitled to your view as always."

What evidence of illegal activity do you have? Accounts were submitted, HMRC reviewed them and as they often do on any tax return, advised more tax needed. He paid it. That's the kind of person I want making money in the UK

Actually, if you have additional information, you can always call HMRCs fraud hotline. I won't in fact ask you to 'copy' the rest of us in as he'd still be innocent until proven guilty.

A bit of advice though, HMRC are not interested in class division, political differences or green-eyed jealousy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"PS nice attempt at painting me as a racist there

I never mentioned skin colour? I must have hit a nerve "

Ohhh you certainly hinted, though, didn't you?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Anyway, as I said in the first post nothing to see here. Zahawi is completely above board. No financial dodginess. And if any of us had millions unpaid in tax, HMRC absolutely wouldn't come down us with a fucking hammer. They'd absolutely just negotiate with us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that "
so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?"

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual."
I'm intrigued to hear cheshires answer here.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

And there's really nothing to see about the time Zahawi used thousands of quid of public money to pay to heat his stables.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual."

When you say 'looking into it' what enquiries have you undertaken to establish incontrovertible evidence that tax fraud has been committed? It's insufficient for a British Court to try cases on the 'it sounds a lot like' basis.

The second home (stables) heating claim you refer to was a genuine mistake and paid back promptly, like dozens of Labour MPs and Tory MPs had to do.

Of course, where there was incontrovertible evidence that fraud had been committed, the cases were tried at Court and, as you will remember but will hide from here for political reasons, five Labour MPs were sent to jail.

Naturally, you race on here again to bring up Zahawi's case, which never went to Court, rather than the Labour 5. What can it all mean?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.

When you say 'looking into it' what enquiries have you undertaken to establish incontrovertible evidence that tax fraud has been committed? It's insufficient for a British Court to try cases on the 'it sounds a lot like' basis.

The second home (stables) heating claim you refer to was a genuine mistake and paid back promptly, like dozens of Labour MPs and Tory MPs had to do.

Of course, where there was incontrovertible evidence that fraud had been committed, the cases were tried at Court and, as you will remember but will hide from here for political reasons, five Labour MPs were sent to jail.

Naturally, you race on here again to bring up Zahawi's case, which never went to Court, rather than the Labour 5. What can it all mean? "

100%

We should ignore this, and all government corruption and only focus on Labour.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.I'm intrigued to hear cheshires answer here. "

I don't have to 'answer' for Zahawi or defend him. It's up to others to prove what they're alleging against him. I've seen nothing that remotely does that and I note the Labour Party are not running with this and there's no sense that there's going to be a Boris Becker /Lester Pigott trial ahead.

Here on this forum, the usual anti-Tory brigade are silent. Surely if the original poster is bang on the money, they'd be out in force? Or are they afraid of the City lawyers who sent warning letters to an online blogger, sowing similar smear stories about Zahawi, last summer?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.

When you say 'looking into it' what enquiries have you undertaken to establish incontrovertible evidence that tax fraud has been committed? It's insufficient for a British Court to try cases on the 'it sounds a lot like' basis.

The second home (stables) heating claim you refer to was a genuine mistake and paid back promptly, like dozens of Labour MPs and Tory MPs had to do.

Of course, where there was incontrovertible evidence that fraud had been committed, the cases were tried at Court and, as you will remember but will hide from here for political reasons, five Labour MPs were sent to jail.

Naturally, you race on here again to bring up Zahawi's case, which never went to Court, rather than the Labour 5. What can it all mean?

100%

We should ignore this, and all government corruption and only focus on Labour. "

No, that would not be even-handed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.

When you say 'looking into it' what enquiries have you undertaken to establish incontrovertible evidence that tax fraud has been committed? It's insufficient for a British Court to try cases on the 'it sounds a lot like' basis.

The second home (stables) heating claim you refer to was a genuine mistake and paid back promptly, like dozens of Labour MPs and Tory MPs had to do.

Of course, where there was incontrovertible evidence that fraud had been committed, the cases were tried at Court and, as you will remember but will hide from here for political reasons, five Labour MPs were sent to jail.

Naturally, you race on here again to bring up Zahawi's case, which never went to Court, rather than the Labour 5. What can it all mean?

100%

We should ignore this, and all government corruption and only focus on Labour.

No, that would not be even-handed "

Seriously though. What about Labour?

Corbyn?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Nothing to see here. I've said that plenty of times. No idea whay a certain poster seems so angry.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

So he has paid a tax shortfall of millions due to shares held in an offshore account relating to polling firm yougov.

He denies any illegal activity, but has still paid millions, due to being innocent.

If I am innocent of a crime I would not pay full stop let them take me to court so I can prove myself innocent.

Is this why the government will not listen to the opposition and curb this way of tax avoidance as they are all in it together?

this government is corrupt to its very core, disgusting comes to mind, and when it is presented to their supporters, and they deny it, then they are part of the issue or are complicit in it.

When I say your time will come, it will and it will come from those you support as it is always the case when there is nothing more to take from those who have been exploited.then in reason its your turn, and from what I see it has already started.

"Tax payer follows tax law after, being caught with hand in offshore accounts", I think would be a fairer title thread, thanks OP as I missed that piece of news.

But.... you are entitled to your view as always.

What evidence of illegal activity do you have? Accounts were submitted, HMRC reviewed them and as they often do on any tax return, advised more tax needed. He paid it. That's the kind of person I want making money in the UK

Actually, if you have additional information, you can always call HMRCs fraud hotline. I won't in fact ask you to 'copy' the rest of us in as he'd still be innocent until proven guilty.

A bit of advice though, HMRC are not interested in class division, political differences or green-eyed jealousy "

Why would I be jealous?

He has an offshore account, and I remember a poster reminding us that is money that was made here so should be banked here.

If I had an offshore account I can borrow money, but not pay it back which is a money laundering technique.

No wonder they will not change this law as the elite can benefit from it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.I'm intrigued to hear cheshires answer here.

I don't have to 'answer' for Zahawi or defend him. It's up to others to prove what they're alleging against him. I've seen nothing that remotely does that and I note the Labour Party are not running with this and there's no sense that there's going to be a Boris Becker /Lester Pigott trial ahead.

Here on this forum, the usual anti-Tory brigade are silent. Surely if the original poster is bang on the money, they'd be out in force? Or are they afraid of the City lawyers who sent warning letters to an online blogger, sowing similar smear stories about Zahawi, last summer?

"
bless you. The story seems to be that a man pays a tax liability he once tried to say he didn't have, and instead applied a slapp notice to the blogger who raises the suspicion.

It is interesting how once suddenly becomes liable to a huge tax bill. I'm sure we will get details .... It's all above board.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

Nothing to see here, as I said above. Thank you for agreeing so angrily...

PS nice attempt at painting me as aggressive there

There's nothing aggressive about holding a view that differs to yours

There really is nothing to see here, so we're agreed on that so was it his tax liability he's paid ?

Arising from what ?

Looking into it, it sounds a lot like Zahawi did his best to dodge paying these taxes + he also seems to have lied about the whole affair previously.

But what am I saying? There's nothing to see here, as usual.I'm intrigued to hear cheshires answer here.

I don't have to 'answer' for Zahawi or defend him. It's up to others to prove what they're alleging against him. I've seen nothing that remotely does that and I note the Labour Party are not running with this and there's no sense that there's going to be a Boris Becker /Lester Pigott trial ahead.

Here on this forum, the usual anti-Tory brigade are silent. Surely if the original poster is bang on the money, they'd be out in force? Or are they afraid of the City lawyers who sent warning letters to an online blogger, sowing similar smear stories about Zahawi, last summer?

bless you. The story seems to be that a man pays a tax liability he once tried to say he didn't have, and instead applied a slapp notice to the blogger who raises the suspicion.

It is interesting how once suddenly becomes liable to a huge tax bill. I'm sure we will get details .... It's all above board.

"

This months-old 'story' just won't get going for lefty bloggers.. .might it be it never had any legs?

So, as regards your first paragraph, that's merely your opinion. I have a different one.

Cannot comment on 'It is interesting how once suddenly becomes liable to a huge tax bill' as it is nonsense.

Under no circumstances will we get all the details. HMRC have seemingly accepted the revised payment, there are no plans to prosecute and HMRC never comment on the tax affairs of identifiable individuals. All of that suggests your view of this is flawed, lazily following a trail of lefty smears and jealousy. Time will tell which one of us has this right, but it's clear even you have your doubts with 'seems' and 'sounds a lot like'!!!

Stop the waffle and defame him properly! It's doubtful his solicitors are on here to apply a slapp notice to you and even if they did, looking at your interests.......

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Strange little man. How many times have I said there's nothing to see here? Zahawi is clearly as honest & upright as can be.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Hmmm how to reassure him? I know. When all is done and dusted, when the history books have been written, Zahawi may even be as lauded and beloved as Boris Johnson himself. Ther you go. High praise,

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

A suspicious person might think Zahawi is a liar & a tax avoider who only paid up millions in tax over Yougov to avoid an enquiry by HMRC.

Not me of course. I'd never think such a thing. I simply think his silvery beard reminds me of Santa Clause.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

So, you move from Sunak and on to Zahawi. This time it's effectively 'News Flash, man receives amended tax bill & discharges it!'

The money was auditable, was not used or gained illegally but sadly, having money makes you public enemy number one in the eyes of lefties, unless it's themselves of course in which case it's all OK. You might think the left would admire Zahawi's story, as a refugee from Iraq who has been very successful, paid significant amounts of tax and who, as Vaccines Minister, oversaw our world-leading vaccine programme.

We have a British Asian PM and a wonderfully diverse cabinet. Zahawi is Chairman of the Conservative Party. What motivates you to race on here with such monstrous, jealous attacks on people like Sunak and Zahawi?

The thread title should be changed to 'Taxpayer follows tax law'

So he has paid a tax shortfall of millions due to shares held in an offshore account relating to polling firm yougov.

He denies any illegal activity, but has still paid millions, due to being innocent.

If I am innocent of a crime I would not pay full stop let them take me to court so I can prove myself innocent.

Is this why the government will not listen to the opposition and curb this way of tax avoidance as they are all in it together?

this government is corrupt to its very core, disgusting comes to mind, and when it is presented to their supporters, and they deny it, then they are part of the issue or are complicit in it.

When I say your time will come, it will and it will come from those you support as it is always the case when there is nothing more to take from those who have been exploited.then in reason its your turn, and from what I see it has already started.

"Tax payer follows tax law after, being caught with hand in offshore accounts", I think would be a fairer title thread, thanks OP as I missed that piece of news.

But.... you are entitled to your view as always.

What evidence of illegal activity do you have? Accounts were submitted, HMRC reviewed them and as they often do on any tax return, advised more tax needed. He paid it. That's the kind of person I want making money in the UK

Actually, if you have additional information, you can always call HMRCs fraud hotline. I won't in fact ask you to 'copy' the rest of us in as he'd still be innocent until proven guilty.

A bit of advice though, HMRC are not interested in class division, political differences or green-eyed jealousy

Why would I be jealous?

He has an offshore account, and I remember a poster reminding us that is money that was made here so should be banked here.

If I had an offshore account I can borrow money, but not pay it back which is a money laundering technique.

No wonder they will not change this law as the elite can benefit from it."

I suspect you're jealous because you haven't provided any evidence of illegal activity.

Either that or you're politically motivated to denigrate a Tory politician, who is not subject to any criminal investigation and who has settled a tax liability properly.

You also appear to be confused about tax mitigation, tax evasion and tax avoidance, simply throwing libellous terms like 'crime' and 'illegal activity' about with wild abandon online, coating it all, almost certainly, with faux moral outrage.

If you have evidence of his tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance, you should publish!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 17/01/23 15:11:38]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd...

What am I thinking? Zahawi's as honest as the day is long. Yup. Nothing to see here at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd...

What am I thinking? Zahawi's as honest as the day is long. Yup. Nothing to see here at all."

In what specific way do you think it is odd?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd...

What am I thinking? Zahawi's as honest as the day is long. Yup. Nothing to see here at all.

In what specific way do you think it is odd?

"

I don't. I think there's nothing to see here. I keep saying that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd...

What am I thinking? Zahawi's as honest as the day is long. Yup. Nothing to see here at all.

In what specific way do you think it is odd?

I don't. I think there's nothing to see here. I keep saying that. "

Why have you changed your mind on this? You don't seem confident on this. Is it a taxing problem for you?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd...

What am I thinking? Zahawi's as honest as the day is long. Yup. Nothing to see here at all.

In what specific way do you think it is odd?

I don't. I think there's nothing to see here. I keep saying that.

Why have you changed your mind on this? You don't seem confident on this. Is it a taxing problem for you? "

I haven't changed my mind. I've been saying all along there's nothing to see on this apparent tax dodging story. Nothing at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich

Best contact Admin then - your profile is shown as having made the comments "Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd" which is not consistent with your constantly-held view that there's nothing to see here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze."

I've read this 3 times now, what is the point you are trying to make?

!) I read, investigated and no issues found.

2) Johnson took that as a green light.

3)His parents had accounts offshore and you don't agree with that.

Is it sleaze or your mind creating the sleaze?

Let me know what I'm missing

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Best contact Admin then - your profile is shown as having made the comments "Hmmm why did a Gibraltar company come to hold Zahawi's founder shares in Yougov? That seems odd" which is not consistent with your constantly-held view that there's nothing to see here "

Ah but I immediately went on to say there's nothing to see here.

Hmmm but the BBC says:

Unusually, Mr Zahawi did not take any shares himself. However, a similar size shareholding was allocated to Balshore Investments Ltd, based in Gibraltar.

YouGov's 2009 annual report said: "Balshore Investments Ltd is the family trust of Nadhim Zahawi, an executive director of YouGov PLC."

A representative for Mr Zahawi said: "Neither he nor his direct family are beneficiaries of Balshore Investments or any trust associated with it.

How strange. Ah well. You know the drill. Nothing to see here etc...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze.

I've read this 3 times now, what is the point you are trying to make?

!) I read, investigated and no issues found.

2) Johnson took that as a green light.

3)His parents had accounts offshore and you don't agree with that.

Is it sleaze or your mind creating the sleaze?

Let me know what I'm missing"

Your missing that the P.M promised honesty, accountability in government, but is powerless to act.

Anyway its no point to this, time will tell.

So really you agree with the O.P when he says there's nothing to see here I take it, as that how it reads to me nothing to see here all above board.

ok lets leave it there unless you have anything else to say, then we can leave it there.

Thanks for the input.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess."

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze.

I've read this 3 times now, what is the point you are trying to make?

!) I read, investigated and no issues found.

2) Johnson took that as a green light.

3)His parents had accounts offshore and you don't agree with that.

Is it sleaze or your mind creating the sleaze?

Let me know what I'm missing

Your missing that the P.M promised honesty, accountability in government, but is powerless to act.

Anyway its no point to this, time will tell.

So really you agree with the O.P when he says there's nothing to see here I take it, as that how it reads to me nothing to see here all above board.

ok lets leave it there unless you have anything else to say, then we can leave it there.

Thanks for the input."

What evidence of dishonesty do you have that breaks Sunak's promise of honesty.? How has Sunak broken his promise of 'accountability'?

In what sense is he 'powerless to act'? Such is the status and executive powers of the British prime minister, Sunak is one of the most powerful democratically elected leaders in the world, never mind the UK!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ustintime69Man
over a year ago

london


"I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze.

I've read this 3 times now, what is the point you are trying to make?

!) I read, investigated and no issues found.

2) Johnson took that as a green light.

3)His parents had accounts offshore and you don't agree with that.

Is it sleaze or your mind creating the sleaze?

Let me know what I'm missing

Your missing that the P.M promised honesty, accountability in government, but is powerless to act.

Anyway its no point to this, time will tell.

So really you agree with the O.P when he says there's nothing to see here I take it, as that how it reads to me nothing to see here all above board.

ok lets leave it there unless you have anything else to say, then we can leave it there.

Thanks for the input.

What evidence of dishonesty do you have that breaks Sunak's promise of honesty.? How has Sunak broken his promise of 'accountability'?

In what sense is he 'powerless to act'? Such is the status and executive powers of the British prime minister, Sunak is one of the most powerful democratically elected leaders in the world, never mind the UK!

"

He wasn’t elected though was he

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"I was going to direct you to politics live, but it seems that only one question was asked, which was your defence of him as in its private to him.

But I researched him and was surprised that the National Crime Agency had run an investigation into his affairs, they found no evidence "that met criteria for criminal charges", so they handed the file to HMRC,

The article I read comes from the daily mail dated 10/7/22, last year but we are only hearing it now?

Finally Boris Johnson was informed, but still appointed him Chancellor wow.

The offshore account was in his parents name they live elsewhere in the world, so the money he made went out of the country, when it should be been banked here ethnically speaking.

to me its another case of sleeze.

I've read this 3 times now, what is the point you are trying to make?

!) I read, investigated and no issues found.

2) Johnson took that as a green light.

3)His parents had accounts offshore and you don't agree with that.

Is it sleaze or your mind creating the sleaze?

Let me know what I'm missing

Your missing that the P.M promised honesty, accountability in government, but is powerless to act.

Anyway its no point to this, time will tell.

So really you agree with the O.P when he says there's nothing to see here I take it, as that how it reads to me nothing to see here all above board.

ok lets leave it there unless you have anything else to say, then we can leave it there.

Thanks for the input.

What evidence of dishonesty do you have that breaks Sunak's promise of honesty.? How has Sunak broken his promise of 'accountability'?

In what sense is he 'powerless to act'? Such is the status and executive powers of the British prime minister, Sunak is one of the most powerful democratically elected leaders in the world, never mind the UK!

He wasn’t elected though was he "

It's a technicality but yes, he was elected. We elect members not Prime Ministers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening? "

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Hmmm but if there truly is nothing to see or worry about, why have Zahawi's lawyers apparently been hounding Mr Neidle?

A bit posted on Neidle's investigation:

he instructed Osborne Clarke to write to me demanding that I retract. And their letter claimed that I could not publish the letter, or even tell anyone I’d received it. It was an attempt to silence criticism which had no basis in law, and for which Zahawi and his lawyers should be ashamed.

Very strange. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice making clear that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Why aren't these people acting as if there is nothing to see here? They should surely know the mantra by now.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I know how this can all be settled once and for all. News media should just approach Zahawi's toasty warm horses & ask if they've witnessed any wrongdoing. I'm sure the horses would say: neigh.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"I know how this can all be settled once and for all. News media should just approach Zahawi's toasty warm horses & ask if they've witnessed any wrongdoing. I'm sure the horses would say: neigh."

Strong and stable

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Hmmm but if there truly is nothing to see or worry about, why have Zahawi's lawyers apparently been hounding Mr Neidle?

A bit posted on Neidle's investigation:

he instructed Osborne Clarke to write to me demanding that I retract. And their letter claimed that I could not publish the letter, or even tell anyone I’d received it. It was an attempt to silence criticism which had no basis in law, and for which Zahawi and his lawyers should be ashamed.

Very strange. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice making clear that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Why aren't these people acting as if there is nothing to see here? They should surely know the mantra by now."

They are

As there's nothing to see, they are warning people that smears are unacceptable and probably libellous.

It's therefore an attempt to silence smears which have no basis in law

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

"

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *9alMan
over a year ago

Bridgend

another tory caught with his hand in the till, no wonder the country is broke!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted? "

Oh you're strongly implying I'm a racist again, I see. Whyever did I complain about Johnson, Truss & Trump so much then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The Guardian:

Labour has called for an inquiry into whether Nadhim Zahawi broke the ministerial code or misled the public over his tax affairs during his time as chancellor.

And more and places seem to be reporting on Zahawi. Can't all these people just tug their forelocks, bury their heads in the sand & admit there is nothing to see here?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hmmm but if there truly is nothing to see or worry about, why have Zahawi's lawyers apparently been hounding Mr Neidle?

A bit posted on Neidle's investigation:

he instructed Osborne Clarke to write to me demanding that I retract. And their letter claimed that I could not publish the letter, or even tell anyone I’d received it. It was an attempt to silence criticism which had no basis in law, and for which Zahawi and his lawyers should be ashamed.

Very strange. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice making clear that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Why aren't these people acting as if there is nothing to see here? They should surely know the mantra by now.

They are

As there's nothing to see, they are warning people that smears are unacceptable and probably libellous.

It's therefore an attempt to silence smears which have no basis in law "
afaik there are no legal proceedings against Neidle, therefore we should not take them to be smears. Especially given legal action was threatened.

I'm sure it's all innocent tho. The offshore account was set up for other reasons rather than tax avoidance. And both Zahawi and his accounts were unfortunate to have misinterpreted HMRC rules and are grateful for a niedle to have shone a light on it. And OC were meant t write a thank you letter not a threatening letter.

Or maybe it's not even this. Maybe he did his self assessment and has a 1m tax bill for other reasons. After all, all his financial interests were proipely declared last year, so it can't be historic reasons....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Again I direct everyone to news nights story.

He has paid what they estimate 3.7 million in capital gains taxes, which he used a offshore account to hide.

this was reported by the sun newspaper and he does not deny he has paid them.

It matters due to accountability, transparency and professionalism.

They point to the ministerial code as he may have broken this code.

He has questions to answer, if he does not there mat be an inquiry.

But all is strong and stable, with nothing to see here.

Lets hope this sleeze brings this tory gov down, come on the next GE.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"

Lets hope this sleeze brings this tory gov down, come on the next GE."

The one thing we learn from these threads is that Conservative voters will continue to vote Conservative regardless. This latest dodgy behaviour is like water off a ducks back.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"afaik there are no legal proceedings against Neidle, therefore we should not take them to be smears."

In the same way that there are no legal proceedings against Zahawi, so we should not imagine that any criminality took place?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"afaik there are no legal proceedings against Neidle, therefore we should not take them to be smears.

In the same way that there are no legal proceedings against Zahawi, so we should not imagine that any criminality took place?"
we are going full circle as I'm echoing Cheshire's line back to him.

But yes.

However, I also don't expect MPw to be involved on aggressive tax avoidance. Nor try and use lawyers to shut down criticism.

So I still have concerns about about this without legal proceedings.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"afaik there are no legal proceedings against Neidle, therefore we should not take them to be smears."


"In the same way that there are no legal proceedings against Zahawi, so we should not imagine that any criminality took place?"


"we are going full circle as I'm echoing Cheshire's line back to him."

Ah! I see. I didn't make the link.


"However, I also don't expect MPw to be involved on aggressive tax avoidance. Nor try and use lawyers to shut down criticism."

So the question is - was it legitimate criticism, which Zahawi tried to silence? Or was it malicious muck-spreading, which Zahawi was right to stop before it got to legal action?

Without the details, we'll just have to guess

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted? "

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"afaik there are no legal proceedings against Neidle, therefore we should not take them to be smears.

In the same way that there are no legal proceedings against Zahawi, so we should not imagine that any criminality took place?

we are going full circle as I'm echoing Cheshire's line back to him.

Ah! I see. I didn't make the link.

However, I also don't expect MPw to be involved on aggressive tax avoidance. Nor try and use lawyers to shut down criticism.

So the question is - was it legitimate criticism, which Zahawi tried to silence? Or was it malicious muck-spreading, which Zahawi was right to stop before it got to legal action?

Without the details, we'll just have to guess "
we are guessing. If the latter the timing is unfortunate, the lack of follow through of legal action may be seen as miscalculated (niedle hasn't stopped and shared the letter he was told allowed to talk about) and evasive press updates raise suspicion.

Me, I don't need details. Just a statement that it's nothing to do with the offshore company. Not vague statements about not needing to use lawyers.

For me, the balance is towards aggressive tax evasion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"For me, the balance is towards aggressive tax evasion. "

I'm sure you meant "aggressive tax avoidance".

In my eyes the balance is closer to 'legitimate, but mistaken tax avoidance'. Either way, it's foolish behaviour for a member of the cabinet.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

I suspect that more will come on this story and Zahawi will ultimately resign for the good of the Party.

How many times before have we seen this kind of stuff from Conservative MP’s in recent years, and it always follows the same pattern:

1) Gets caught

2) Denies any wrongdoing

3) Faux outrage

4) Journo’s dig deeper

5) Embarrassment in Parliament

6) MP resigns

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For me, the balance is towards aggressive tax evasion.

I'm sure you meant "aggressive tax avoidance".

In my eyes the balance is closer to 'legitimate, but mistaken tax avoidance'. Either way, it's foolish behaviour for a member of the cabinet."
I did. More coffee is needed. And more care when fabbing !

I'm not sure if it was legitimate if its resulted in a tax bill. But that's secondary for me given he's an MP.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"I'm not sure if it was legitimate if its resulted in a tax bill. But that's secondary for me given he's an MP. "

Bad choice of words. I was going to use 'honest', but I realised that would be misunderstood.

What I meant was that I think he did something that he genuinely thought would be acceptable to HMRC, but they disagreed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm not sure if it was legitimate if its resulted in a tax bill. But that's secondary for me given he's an MP.

Bad choice of words. I was going to use 'honest', but I realised that would be misunderstood.

What I meant was that I think he did something that he genuinely thought would be acceptable to HMRC, but they disagreed."
aha. I'm sure he had professional advice too.

However

It's clearly a convoluted scheme that plays on the edge.

So

His aggressive legal action to silence, while as an MP, is very poor. As is his subsequent lack of engagement with the public.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The details of his tax affairs came to light firstly by the national crime agency.

Who did not gain enough evidence, to bring charges against him, so passed what evidence they had to HMRC, who demanded the tax shortfall to be paid.

if a benefit claimant was caught in fraud, they would most likely go to prison, even for amounts of 5,000 pounds and a fine on top to cost of the investigation

but he gets away with just paying what he owed, no prison or fine, I would expect a fine on top to cover the NCA cost.

he will have to go as the PM stated in his first speech, accountability, transparency and intergerty in office what a crock.

but nothing to see here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"His aggressive legal action to silence, while as an MP, is very poor. As is his subsequent lack of engagement with the public. "

Lack of engagement is his only option. If he says that he knew it might be questioned, the press will jump on him as a 'tax cheat'. If he says he didn't know that, the press will jump on him as 'the incompetent chancellor'.

(I know he's not chancellor any more, but that's how the press headlines would read)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"if a benefit claimant was caught in fraud, they would most likely go to prison ..."

But zahawi hasn't been caught in fraud. There was a full police investigation, which uncovered no evidence of fraud.


"but he gets away with just paying what he owed, no prison or fine"

What makes you think that he didn't pay a fine?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"His aggressive legal action to silence, while as an MP, is very poor. As is his subsequent lack of engagement with the public.

Lack of engagement is his only option. If he says that he knew it might be questioned, the press will jump on him as a 'tax cheat'. If he says he didn't know that, the press will jump on him as 'the incompetent chancellor'.

(I know he's not chancellor any more, but that's how the press headlines would read)"
I do understand... However that's how he is painted as now. He can throw his accountan under the bus. I'd have more sympathy to his position if he didn't go SLAPPing. Aggressive tax avoidance followed by aggressive legal action.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"if a benefit claimant was caught in fraud, they would most likely go to prison ...

But zahawi hasn't been caught in fraud. There was a full police investigation, which uncovered no evidence of fraud.

but he gets away with just paying what he owed, no prison or fine

What makes you think that he didn't pay a fine?"

sorry of course your right, nothing to see here, strong and stable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irtysnapperMan
over a year ago

Nottingham

Zahawi’s a crook. Just like Sunak and his wife. And Johnson, and Rees-Mogg, And Gove, and Jenrick and Shapps…

If you think these people are in in for any other reason that to enrich themselves and their mates, you’re not paying attention. We live in one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also to have the NCA who's remit is to deal with top levels of crime, investigate a serving M.P is very serious and in itself a red flag.

They didn't have enough evidence to charge but gained enough evidence to pass to HMRC who demanded he pay the shortfall of capital gains tax.

Watch last nights news night, its a pitiful report, but the tax alliance interview sheds some light.

strong and stable, but we paid to heat the stable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"His aggressive legal action to silence, while as an MP, is very poor. As is his subsequent lack of engagement with the public.

Lack of engagement is his only option. If he says that he knew it might be questioned, the press will jump on him as a 'tax cheat'. If he says he didn't know that, the press will jump on him as 'the incompetent chancellor'.

(I know he's not chancellor any more, but that's how the press headlines would read)"

Surely the “rub” here is that for the last few years HMRC ave been deliberately conflating “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion” where for many years prior to that the former was considered legal and the latter illegal. Their comms/nudge people have now coined the phrase “aggressive tax avoidance” what a complete load of tosh that is designed purely to make people unsure on where they stand.

Add to that the Loan Charge scandal with the introduction of retrospective tax for those caught up in it (so far resulting in 10 suicides) and it has created an environment where normal people are increasingly, and justifiably, angry at what appears to be a different treatment of the rich and powerful. There is a them and us approach becoming ever more apparent.

As Chancellor you are ultimately responsible for tax law and HMT coffers with your agency HMRC executing the powers for enforcement and collection.

So no matter how anyone tries to excuse it, Zahawi’s actions are not a good look and even if they did turn out to be legal, the initial position was one of avoidance and I would say using an offshore/tax haven to hold shares is at least “aggressive avoidance”. Now if HMRC are now saying “aggressive avoidance” is ok for him then surely it is ok for all of us?

It also then starts the whole “no smoke without fire” thing. If Zahawi avoided tax on this, then what else has he done?

Frankly, I do not want to having those sort of thoughts about members of my Government!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Now if HMRC are now saying “aggressive avoidance” is ok for him then surely it is ok for all of us?"

I think the point of the story is that HMRC have said that it isn't OK, for him or anyone else. That's why he's had to pay them some money.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Now if HMRC are now saying “aggressive avoidance” is ok for him then surely it is ok for all of us?

I think the point of the story is that HMRC have said that it isn't OK, for him or anyone else. That's why he's had to pay them some money."

As he is in the public eye / is a public servant there needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement about what has happened.

Zahawi aside though, HMRC need to stop conflating and creating new categories!

Tax Avoidance = legal (ISAs, paying Directors with Dividends, increasing/maxing pension contributions etc)

Tax Evasion = illegal (lying about or hiding income, undeclared income etc)

Aggressive Tax Avoidance = WTF? Why is that even a thing? An activity or financial instrument is either legal or it isn’t! If HMRC decide something that was previously legal is now illegal than that should only be applied going forward not retrospectively!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Zahawi aside though, HMRC need to stop conflating and creating new categories!

Tax Avoidance = legal (ISAs, paying Directors with Dividends, increasing/maxing pension contributions etc)

Tax Evasion = illegal (lying about or hiding income, undeclared income etc)

Aggressive Tax Avoidance = WTF? Why is that even a thing? An activity or financial instrument is either legal or it isn’t! If HMRC decide something that was previously legal is now illegal than that should only be applied going forward not retrospectively! "

I completely agree with all of this.

HMRC are a law unto themselves, acting in court cases as both the applicant, and the expert witness.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!"

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

"

Who is Mavis Riley?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

"

I see what you did there. Not good to twist what I said. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive. I said...


"Next YOU will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!"

I changed the capitalisation to ensure you get the emphasis.

For the record I think Diane Abbot is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Seems like the Zahawi thing is gathering momentum now. For ages, 1 guy seems to have been pushing this investigation. He was basically ignored. Then suddenly it's as if lots of media woke up all at once.

V odd the way this sort of thing goes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

An interesting snippet from journalist Michael Crick on twitter:

Amid answering questions about his tax, Nadhim Zahawi might also like to respond in detail to the allegations carried by the Sunday Times in 1999 that he admitted twice forging signatures on business documents, when he was involved in business with Jeffrey Archer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I'm not worried though. Nothing to see now or then. I'm sure Zahawi's as honest now as he has ever been.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

Who is Mavis Riley? "

I don't really know

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

I see what you did there. Not good to twist what I said. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive. I said...

Next YOU will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

I changed the capitalisation to ensure you get the emphasis.

For the record I think Diane Abbot is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!"

Not good to capitalise and therefore shout at me. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive either.

And what on earth does 'Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!' mean

There's so little English in that remark that Nicola Sturgeon would be happy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *queakyclean69erCouple
over a year ago

Torquay / Fleet


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

"

Here we go again! The socialist rant

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

I see what you did there. Not good to twist what I said. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive. I said...

Next YOU will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

I changed the capitalisation to ensure you get the emphasis.

For the record I think Diane Abbot is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!

Not good to capitalise and therefore shout at me. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive either.

And what on earth does 'Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!' mean

There's so little English in that remark that Nicola Sturgeon would be happy "

Seriously is that the level of discussion? Ok, so apart from my typo, prey tell me what is the issue with my English?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant "

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?"

Apparently so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

I see what you did there. Not good to twist what I said. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive. I said...

Next YOU will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

I changed the capitalisation to ensure you get the emphasis.

For the record I think Diane Abbot is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!

Not good to capitalise and therefore shout at me. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive either.

And what on earth does 'Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!' mean

There's so little English in that remark that Nicola Sturgeon would be happy

Seriously is that the level of discussion? Ok, so apart from my typo, prey tell me what is the issue with my English?"

Prey tell you? Seriously?

Try 'pray'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?"

No, but being jealous of higher earners almost certainly helps!

Don't forget, the highest earning 1% in the UK pay an estimated 28% of all income tax and people earning the top 10% of incomes pay about 27% in total of most direct and indirect taxes, according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) data.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

Apparently so."

Do you think the socialist Jeremy Corbyn reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party after the EHRC's report on anti-semitism in said party? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

I doubt there is any racism at play from people criticising Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak. It is far more likely it is because they are dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity. Nothing remotely to do with skin colour, after all they share these traits with the majority of the Cabinet.

The idea that someone in public office cannot be called out for being any or all of those things simply because they are not white is patently stupid.

Next you will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

The way to stop being criticised is to stop being dreadful, thieving, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, assholes who are devoid of empathy or humanity and you know, actually start being good!

The idea that someone in public office on the left cannot be criticised simply because they are not white is patently alive and well. Just look at how the left punch down on Tories or their supporters justifiably criticising Lammy or Abbott! All hell breaks loose!

You are also surprisingly naive if you think none of the criticism levied at ladies like May, Harman, Truss or Abbott doesn't come from a place called misogyny.

I watched Newsnight as recommended by FF and still saw nothing to get excited about. I'm surprised a programme like this covered waffle and over-the-fence gossip for as long as they did, wheeling in Thangam Debbonaire who could paint Mavis Riley as dishonest. Note how she failed to answer Kirsty's questions on a number of occasions, squirming when it was suggested the shadow cabinet should publish their tax affairs in full!

There really is no more to this than meets the eye

I see what you did there. Not good to twist what I said. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive. I said...

Next YOU will be implying someone is sexist for calling out female ministers for being shit at their job!

I changed the capitalisation to ensure you get the emphasis.

For the record I think Diane Abbot is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!

Not good to capitalise and therefore shout at me. Very poor form. I am certainly not remotely naive either.

And what on earth does 'Couldn’t care less whether she us a woman or PoC!' mean

There's so little English in that remark that Nicola Sturgeon would be happy

Seriously is that the level of discussion? Ok, so apart from my typo, prey tell me what is the issue with my English?

Prey tell you? Seriously?

Try 'pray' "

Awww you spotted it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

No, but being jealous of higher earners almost certainly helps!

Don't forget, the highest earning 1% in the UK pay an estimated 28% of all income tax and people earning the top 10% of incomes pay about 27% in total of most direct and indirect taxes, according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) data.

"

What’s that got to do with being angry about “aggressive tax avoidance”? Are you saying that the 1% and the 10% should be let off the hook and allowed to dodge tax because they already pay a lot?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

Apparently so.

Do you think the socialist Jeremy Corbyn reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party after the EHRC's report on anti-semitism in said party? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?"

Didn’t you already cut n paste this one? Might have been on another thread? What has that got to do with tax issues?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

Apparently so.

Do you think the socialist Jeremy Corbyn reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party after the EHRC's report on anti-semitism in said party? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?"

We should ignore everything going on in government and just talk about Labour.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Apparently, Zahawi has agreed to pay millions in tax after an investigation. This is a guy who was chancellor, remember.

Nothing to see here, as always etc

Here we go again! The socialist rant

Why do people keep suggesting things like this.

Does being against tax dodging make someone a socialist?

No, but being jealous of higher earners almost certainly helps!

Don't forget, the highest earning 1% in the UK pay an estimated 28% of all income tax and people earning the top 10% of incomes pay about 27% in total of most direct and indirect taxes, according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) data.

"

Whats this got to do with the weird comments implying only socialists are concerned with tax avoidance?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The point of the news night piece for me is.

The man was under investigation for his tax affairs.

He was made Chancellor despite this.

He has been under investigation sine June last year, and news outlets are only now reporting the story.

The situation is like, I take your cash criminally, then I do not even have to sneak in to the police station, im invited in and put in charge of my investigation.

Then I get the evidence as im am privy to it, as to control it.

Eventually the story comes out and I just pay what owe and deny everything, as the HMRC cannot comment on named accounts.

Anything else for me is a distraction.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago

ayrshire

Hes a corrupt tory cnt

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hes a corrupt tory cnt"

And really it is that simple, if one can see through all the smoke.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted? "

You are implying that criticising someone for their poor behaviour and lack of competence is racist.

Does that mean that anyone in the Tory party from an ethnic minority cannot be criticised? Lucky for them that they have filled many of their senior posts with people from ethnic minorities. Good to know that this is similar to Papal infallibility.

Was Kwasi Kwartang's tenure as Chancellor laudable? Did he do a great job? Did it help the performance of the FTSE 100?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity."

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous."

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion."

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

You are implying that criticising someone for their poor behaviour and lack of competence is racist.

Does that mean that anyone in the Tory party from an ethnic minority cannot be criticised? Lucky for them that they have filled many of their senior posts with people from ethnic minorities. Good to know that this is similar to Papal infallibility.

Was Kwasi Kwartang's tenure as Chancellor laudable? Did he do a great job? Did it help the performance of the FTSE 100?"

I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence. You've described him as hitherto competent.

Moreover, I've seen no evidence he's broken the law.

All I see here is a considerable amount of speculation and twaddle.

You will have to speak to the OP to confirm exactly what motivated him opening this thread. I have a view on that, to which I'm entitled. But as he might say, implying he's racist? Not a bit of it. Nothing to see here, move along

We're not discussing Kwarteng

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion."

Absolutely spot on

The following statement is utter twaddle:

"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion"

He adds "in fact" when it's nothing of the sort!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

Absolutely spot on

The following statement is utter twaddle:

"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion"

He adds "in fact" when it's nothing of the sort!

"

This won’t go away, more will follow , he will be forced to resign

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion."

You can quibble all you want.

You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight.

I know you like your pedantic details, so really cannot be bothered to enter into one of your interminable debates about something you are no more of an expert in than anyone else.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

If Zahawi was just avoiding tax then virtually all avoidance is legal so no story.

“If” however he has received a fine which it is alleged then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that his actions went beyond legal avoidance and into the realm of evasion.

If this proves to be the case then it’s a different matter.

Also a couple of points to note

1. Boris appointed him as chancellor whilst he was potentially under investigation for tax evasion

2. As chancellor he oversaw rules regarding tax which enabled him to avoid paying taxes whilst any employee is banned by law from paying anything less than the set PAYE rates.

He keeps more of his money and avoids paying taxes which in turn could enable government workers such as nurses or soldiers to be paid more.

He then claims those workers should exercise restraint and the government cannot afford to give ordinary tax payers anything like the benefits he receives.

I’m alright Jack.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

You are implying that criticising someone for their poor behaviour and lack of competence is racist.

Does that mean that anyone in the Tory party from an ethnic minority cannot be criticised? Lucky for them that they have filled many of their senior posts with people from ethnic minorities. Good to know that this is similar to Papal infallibility.

Was Kwasi Kwartang's tenure as Chancellor laudable? Did he do a great job? Did it help the performance of the FTSE 100?

I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence. You've described him as hitherto competent.

Moreover, I've seen no evidence he's broken the law.

All I see here is a considerable amount of speculation and twaddle.

You will have to speak to the OP to confirm exactly what motivated him opening this thread. I have a view on that, to which I'm entitled. But as he might say, implying he's racist? Not a bit of it. Nothing to see here, move along

We're not discussing Kwarteng "

Not Corbyn, but Kwarteng is actually pertinent to the "point" which you are claiming to make by way of diversion from the OP

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

Absolutely spot on

The following statement is utter twaddle:

"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion"

He adds "in fact" when it's nothing of the sort!

"

Pointless "point" which addresses nothing.

Yet another attempt at distraction from your attempt at defending the indefensible.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

You are implying that criticising someone for their poor behaviour and lack of competence is racist.

Does that mean that anyone in the Tory party from an ethnic minority cannot be criticised? Lucky for them that they have filled many of their senior posts with people from ethnic minorities. Good to know that this is similar to Papal infallibility.

Was Kwasi Kwartang's tenure as Chancellor laudable? Did he do a great job? Did it help the performance of the FTSE 100?

I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence. You've described him as hitherto competent.

Moreover, I've seen no evidence he's broken the law.

All I see here is a considerable amount of speculation and twaddle.

You will have to speak to the OP to confirm exactly what motivated him opening this thread. I have a view on that, to which I'm entitled. But as he might say, implying he's racist? Not a bit of it. Nothing to see here, move along

We're not discussing Kwarteng "

The interesting point here is:

"I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence."

This is why for the past age I've been saying there is little to no hope of any positive change. People who vote Tory are relentless. Doesn't matter what.

They could break into this guys gaff, smash the place up, shit on his floor and still count on his vote.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"While there is obviously nothing to see here, people with fully declared & paid taxes tend not to approach HMRC & negotiate a multimillion quid settlement...

Ah well, just 1 of those mysteries I guess.

When did Zahawi 'approach' HMRC and who told you that he negotiated a 'multimillion quid settlement'. How many millions precisely? HMRC never disclose these details. Do you work there?

Of course, due to the nature of our judicial system, we will get the details if it comes to Court. Is this happening?

Mr Neidle, the tax expert who has been pursuing this story doggedly, said Zahawi approached HMRC. Why not ask him about it?

It's also been reported now in various places Zahawi agreed to pay millions. Why don't you ask the people reporting that? It seems rather unlikely they'd report such a thing & risk being sued unless they were rather sure. It's also interesting that Zahawi has not denied an agreement to pay millions here. And a representative of his was asked if it was true, according to BBC news.

Still nothing to see here, I'm sure though.

I'm asking you because you keep gaslighting this non-story on their behalf on here.

I'm not aware of any legal action being taken against Zahawi. Are you and Neidle in possession of information that suggests it is? What evidence do you have of criminality rather than 'hmmm' and 'seems odd' and 'interesting' and 'rather unlikely' and other over-the-fence waffle and gossip? You do realise that over-the-fence waffle and gossip is not the bar set by criminal courts?

Do you appreciate some people may have concerns about why you race on here to denigrate members of the culturally diverse Cabinet like Braverman, Patel, Zahawi and Sunak, yet Corbyn is seemingly excused from your censure, following the anti-semitism debacle? Do you think he reacted well to being suspended from the Labour Party over that? Do you think Starmer over-reacted?

You are implying that criticising someone for their poor behaviour and lack of competence is racist.

Does that mean that anyone in the Tory party from an ethnic minority cannot be criticised? Lucky for them that they have filled many of their senior posts with people from ethnic minorities. Good to know that this is similar to Papal infallibility.

Was Kwasi Kwartang's tenure as Chancellor laudable? Did he do a great job? Did it help the performance of the FTSE 100?

I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence. You've described him as hitherto competent.

Moreover, I've seen no evidence he's broken the law.

All I see here is a considerable amount of speculation and twaddle.

You will have to speak to the OP to confirm exactly what motivated him opening this thread. I have a view on that, to which I'm entitled. But as he might say, implying he's racist? Not a bit of it. Nothing to see here, move along

We're not discussing Kwarteng

The interesting point here is:

"I don't believe Zahawi has exhibited poor behaviour and a lack of competence."

This is why for the past age I've been saying there is little to no hope of any positive change. People who vote Tory are relentless. Doesn't matter what.

They could break into this guys gaff, smash the place up, shit on his floor and still count on his vote."

True, they know their place

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again "

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to."

We don't know the details, but it looks like Zahawi tried to avoid paying tax. HMRC appear to have decided that his avoidance was non-compliant, but that doesn't make it 'evasion'. From the scant details available, it looks like he agreed to pay. There's been no suggestion that he was compelled.


"I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight."

You did? Perhaps you'd like to quote what you said so that we can all see how clear your statement was.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"If Zahawi was just avoiding tax then virtually all avoidance is legal so no story.

“If” however he has received a fine which it is alleged then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that his actions went beyond legal avoidance and into the realm of evasion."

That's not how it works. If you are found by HMRC to have avoided tax in an unacceptable manner, they calculate what you should have paid, and ask for that. They also add a late payment charge of 5%, and they charge interest for the period of non-payment.

We don't know if Zahawi did pay a fine, but even if he did, that doesn't indicate any legal wrongdoing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous."

Aggressive tax avoidance is walking into your bank and shouting 'I want to open a F-ing ISA and hurry up'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"If Zahawi was just avoiding tax then virtually all avoidance is legal so no story.

“If” however he has received a fine which it is alleged then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that his actions went beyond legal avoidance and into the realm of evasion.

That's not how it works. If you are found by HMRC to have avoided tax in an unacceptable manner, they calculate what you should have paid, and ask for that. They also add a late payment charge of 5%, and they charge interest for the period of non-payment.

We don't know if Zahawi did pay a fine, but even if he did, that doesn't indicate any legal wrongdoing."

It was reported that he paid a "penalty", not sure if that's a "fine" or not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

"

Let’s wait and see, we have heard all this BS before,

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If Zahawi was just avoiding tax then virtually all avoidance is legal so no story.

“If” however he has received a fine which it is alleged then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that his actions went beyond legal avoidance and into the realm of evasion.

That's not how it works. If you are found by HMRC to have avoided tax in an unacceptable manner, they calculate what you should have paid, and ask for that. They also add a late payment charge of 5%, and they charge interest for the period of non-payment.

We don't know if Zahawi did pay a fine, but even if he did, that doesn't indicate any legal wrongdoing.

It was reported that he paid a "penalty", not sure if that's a "fine" or not. "

Tbh, If he hasn’t done anything ‘wrong’ why is he having to pay more than what he owes,

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

"

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Let’s wait and see, we have heard all this BS before, "

Exactly, let's wait and see.

Is that even possible round here?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"If Zahawi was just avoiding tax then virtually all avoidance is legal so no story.

“If” however he has received a fine which it is alleged then that leads to the inevitable conclusion that his actions went beyond legal avoidance and into the realm of evasion.

That's not how it works. If you are found by HMRC to have avoided tax in an unacceptable manner, they calculate what you should have paid, and ask for that. They also add a late payment charge of 5%, and they charge interest for the period of non-payment.

We don't know if Zahawi did pay a fine, but even if he did, that doesn't indicate any legal wrongdoing."

I said realms of evasion and I pointed out “if” in quotes so have not claimed he broke any law.

The interpretation of law breaking or intent to prosecute will at the discretion of HMRC. As part of that decision they will take into account costs against benefit so “may” have said either you pay all that’s due plus a fine or we prosecute you for evasion so in fact he may have been involved in illegal evasion. I doubt we will ever know.

In any case he was forced to pay tax which he had not voluntarily done so. It would not be be believable that such a wealthy man did not have sufficient tax advice to know the actions he was taking in not paying that tax in the first instance and on time.

Please give your thoughts on Boris appointing him whilst this was possibly going on and the morals of a chancellor supporting legal avoidance schemes for the wealthy including scheme which directly benefits himself but having no such schemes for the tax payers under PAYE?

As we know not paying due tax on time or at all reduces money for public services.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html"

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though."

*paywall

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Tax Policy Associates

"Nadhim Zahawi – the whole story"

Interesting read.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall"

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"It was reported that he paid a "penalty", not sure if that's a "fine" or not. "

"Penalty" is the word that HMRC use to describe late payment fees:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/penalties-an-overview-for-agents-and-advisers

Having read that page it seems that there is a special 'offshore' penalty that would have applied as well as any others.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste."

Didn't realise that, it first popped up with a subscription box.

Anyway, I've now read it and I agree, he isn't going to say anything though, seeing as he isn't chancellor anymore.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

Does anyone on here think our avoidance tax rules are a good thing?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste.

Didn't realise that, it first popped up with a subscription box.

Anyway, I've now read it and I agree, he isn't going to say anything though, seeing as he isn't chancellor anymore.

"

Of course he isn't going to say anything. He's tried not to for many months.

He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party though and therefore very involved in fund raising.

He is also a Cabinet Minister.

Is financial propriety important for somebody in that position? If so, then it won't go away unless a substantially bigger story emerges...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


" he may have been involved in illegal evasion. I doubt we will ever know."

Given that we don't know all the details, and he's unlikely to reveal them, I agree.


"It would not be be believable that such a wealthy man did not have sufficient tax advice to know the actions he was taking in not paying that tax in the first instance and on time."

True, and if it was evasion I would agree. But this is avoidance, and it's very easy to believe that you've found a clever mechanism, and later on find that HMRC disagree. Look at Jimmy Carr, who thought that he'd got good tax advice, and turned out to be wrong.


"Please give your thoughts on Boris appointing him whilst this was possibly going on ..."

If Boris was told that Zahawi had been investigated by the police, and they had not found any evidence of criminal acts, then I imagine that Boris wouldn't have considered it any further.


"... and the morals of a chancellor supporting legal avoidance schemes for the wealthy including scheme which directly benefits himself but having no such schemes for the tax payers under PAYE?"

But this wasn't a special scheme for rich people. If the accusations are correct, it was a loophole that anyone could have taken advantage of.

But I think that you're asking about the morals of what he is alleged to have done. If it's legal, he can do it. I have no problem with that. It has subsequently been determined to be unacceptable, and by all accounts he has paid over what they have asked for. I have no problem with that.

Is it a foolish thing for an MP in the spotlight to have done, yes. Should be have been more careful with his tax affairs, yes. Does this whole affair look bad, yes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Does anyone on here think our avoidance tax rules are a good thing? "

That's the problem. We don't have any tax avoidance rules.

Tax evasion is clearly defined in the law, and there are no excuses for breaking them. But unacceptable tax avoidance is determined by HMRC decision, and there are no written hard and fast rules.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste.

Didn't realise that, it first popped up with a subscription box.

Anyway, I've now read it and I agree, he isn't going to say anything though, seeing as he isn't chancellor anymore.

Of course he isn't going to say anything. He's tried not to for many months.

He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party though and therefore very involved in fund raising.

He is also a Cabinet Minister.

Is financial propriety important for somebody in that position? If so, then it won't go away unless a substantially bigger story emerges..."

Of course financial propriety is important for someone in that position but let's face it, without any sort of criminal proceedings the only way we can voice our opinions is at the polls.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste.

Didn't realise that, it first popped up with a subscription box.

Anyway, I've now read it and I agree, he isn't going to say anything though, seeing as he isn't chancellor anymore.

Of course he isn't going to say anything. He's tried not to for many months.

He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party though and therefore very involved in fund raising.

He is also a Cabinet Minister.

Is financial propriety important for somebody in that position? If so, then it won't go away unless a substantially bigger story emerges...

Of course financial propriety is important for someone in that position but let's face it, without any sort of criminal proceedings the only way we can voice our opinions is at the polls."

There was a time that there would be no debate about a Minister resigning under these circumstances.

Yet here we are. The bar lowered to a lower level than a normal civil servant.

No criminal proceedings therefore "nothing to be done" except at the next election.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"What I ‘like’ about this current bunch of tories is just how often they make a fool out of their die hard fanboys. He will be forced to resign and those defending him will look like idiots again

Will he?

The independent states 'There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi', along with the fact that the NCA didn't find enough, if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Independent has a lot else to say too.

Propriety in public office is not about criminal investigations and convictions.

"The tax affairs of Nadhim Zahawi raise important questions about propriety"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/nadhim-zahawi-pay-taxes-rishi-sunak-tories-b2265419.html

It does. It's locked behind a payroll though.

*paywall

You can sign up for free access if you choose to. A bit too much to cut and paste.

Didn't realise that, it first popped up with a subscription box.

Anyway, I've now read it and I agree, he isn't going to say anything though, seeing as he isn't chancellor anymore.

Of course he isn't going to say anything. He's tried not to for many months.

He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party though and therefore very involved in fund raising.

He is also a Cabinet Minister.

Is financial propriety important for somebody in that position? If so, then it won't go away unless a substantially bigger story emerges...

Of course financial propriety is important for someone in that position but let's face it, without any sort of criminal proceedings the only way we can voice our opinions is at the polls.

There was a time that there would be no debate about a Minister resigning under these circumstances.

Yet here we are. The bar lowered to a lower level than a normal civil servant.

No criminal proceedings therefore "nothing to be done" except at the next election."

Let me be clear. We, as the electorate, cannot do anything other than vote. If the party choose to do nothing then we're stuck with him, or anyone else for that matter.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?"

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Does anyone on here think our avoidance tax rules are a good thing? "

The tax avoidance rules are now under the control of people who wish to avoid paying taxes. Which is a problem, unless you vote Tory, in which case, it's cool.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Does anyone on here think our avoidance tax rules are a good thing?

That's the problem. We don't have any tax avoidance rules.

Tax evasion is clearly defined in the law, and there are no excuses for breaking them. But unacceptable tax avoidance is determined by HMRC decision, and there are no written hard and fast rules."

Yep and HMRC have form for changing the rules and retrospectively apply them.

My accountant just completed my SA and sent to me to check and sign. One very clear area on the form that stands out is income from overseas/foreign territories (ie dividends from shares held overseas in a tax haven). Zahawi was advised and thought he could get away with it. Turns out he couldn’t.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

You can quibble all you want.

You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight.

I know you like your pedantic details, so really cannot be bothered to enter into one of your interminable debates about something you are no more of an expert in than anyone else."

But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous posts like yours above where you have actually accused me personally of trying to avoid paying tax and that I did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

It would be helpful if your posts were of a higher grammatical standard and not full of nonsense preceded by 'in fact' or, worse still, didn't libel other users of this site.

Neidle is a Labour member and labour activist and the allegations are merely taken from his blog. There's still nothing in this thread but idle gossip and twaddle. It's a Friday, so of course Angrier Rayner has called for a Tory to resign!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

Aggressive tax avoidance is walking into your bank and shouting 'I want to open a F-ing ISA and hurry up' "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe Zahawi is simply stupid and didn’t know how much tax he was supposed to pay , incompetent rather than malicious

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

You can quibble all you want.

You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight.

I know you like your pedantic details, so really cannot be bothered to enter into one of your interminable debates about something you are no more of an expert in than anyone else.

But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous posts like yours above where you have actually accused me personally of trying to avoid paying tax and that I did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

It would be helpful if your posts were of a higher grammatical standard and not full of nonsense preceded by 'in fact' or, worse still, didn't libel other users of this site.

Neidle is a Labour member and labour activist and the allegations are merely taken from his blog. There's still nothing in this thread but idle gossip and twaddle. It's a Friday, so of course Angrier Rayner has called for a Tory to resign!

"

Deflection.

Bless. You have just defined pedantry with your post.

Weren't you going to try and get me banned before too?

I provided the reference to find the timeline and events.

Tax Policy Associates

"Nadhim Zahawi – the whole story"

It doesn't matter if Neidle is a Labour member or not, but well done for writing some words

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

You can quibble all you want.

You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight.

I know you like your pedantic details, so really cannot be bothered to enter into one of your interminable debates about something you are no more of an expert in than anyone else.

But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous posts like yours above where you have actually accused me personally of trying to avoid paying tax and that I did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

It would be helpful if your posts were of a higher grammatical standard and not full of nonsense preceded by 'in fact' or, worse still, didn't libel other users of this site.

Neidle is a Labour member and labour activist and the allegations are merely taken from his blog. There's still nothing in this thread but idle gossip and twaddle. It's a Friday, so of course Angrier Rayner has called for a Tory to resign!

"

Grammar police, oh the irony...


"But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous..."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time). "

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

That's not accurate.

Tax Evasion is conducting your tax affairs in a manner that is not compliant with the law. Tax Avoidance is acting within the law, but structuring your activities to pay less tax.

If HMRC decide that your tax avoidance method is designed to comply to the law, but to work in a manner that subverts the intent of that law, they call that 'aggressive tax avoidance', and will demand the tax that you should have paid. Your only choice is to pay it, or to enter a long and complex court case.

HMRC's decisions on whether a tax avoidance method is acceptable or not are not legal rulings, and they don't determine the difference between avoidance and evasion.

You can quibble all you want.

You tried to avoid paying tax. You did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

I clearly stayed that there was no legal action or court case, but you chose to leave that out to give your reply more weight.

I know you like your pedantic details, so really cannot be bothered to enter into one of your interminable debates about something you are no more of an expert in than anyone else.

But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous posts like yours above where you have actually accused me personally of trying to avoid paying tax and that I did so in a non-compliant way, so evaded paying tax until compelled to.

It would be helpful if your posts were of a higher grammatical standard and not full of nonsense preceded by 'in fact' or, worse still, didn't libel other users of this site.

Neidle is a Labour member and labour activist and the allegations are merely taken from his blog. There's still nothing in this thread but idle gossip and twaddle. It's a Friday, so of course Angrier Rayner has called for a Tory to resign!

Grammar police, oh the irony...

But it's not pedancy....accuracy is important. Without out, we get ridiculous... "

Is pedancy a word?

Who's been "libelled"?

Why are you so angry and desperate to deflect from the fact that a serving Government Minister and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer has such murky financial arrangements.

Surely it's better to get rid of people who attract scandal and distract from the true work of the party that you support? Whatever that may be...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation "

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Gosh. Too many news posts to properly read the lot. But I got the gist. And 1 person on here really seems to be in love with Zahawi. It's very odd to read his desperate distractions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Another interesting bit from that tax expert Neidle:

New development. Guardian reporting Zahawi paid the tax plus interest, plus a 30% penalty - over £5m.

30% is at the lower end of what I'd expect. But the obvious point: people whose taxes are "fully up to date" don't pay 30% penalties to HMRC.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity."

I agree with this nothing more is required, we would not be discussing him if this had not occurred.

With regard to the news night program i refer to the interview with the tax alliance spokesmen, who pointed out the chancellors position at the time and the whilst under investigation for tax he was chancellor.my point of reference is not to the shit show of prove your tax labour, before you accuse others to me that is a given and im sure labour has their secrets on tax. In other words could labour provide a different version, its not the point.

I refer to a M.P who is under investigation for off shore accounts, in which British money, made from his company YouGov is being hidden offshore in his family account.

Anyone who can justify this behaviour and encourage its advancement, might as well get on a plane to Rowanda.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. "
is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC."

You're wrong. HMRC cannot create legislation, and the government does not place HMRC decisions into law. If they did, you wouldn't be able to move for all the new laws that needed to be created.


"I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation"

Fines are for tax evasion, and are legislated by parliament in the appropriate criminal laws. Penalties are decided by HMRC. Obviously, they're a government agency, so there's a lot of government input into what the penalties should be, but the penalties aren't written into legislation, so effectively HMRC gets to decide what they should be.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back."

That's about it. It sounds ludicrously dodgy, but it was accepted a while back that this was a legal method of paying someone, so much so that agencies openly stated how much they could save you if you signed up for it.

But HMRC decided that it shouldn't be allowed, and so they asked for a clause to be added to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017. It had the effect that anyone that had received a dodgy loan since the beginning of the millennium would have all the amounts added up, and then charged as if they were all received in the 2018-2019 tax year, with an extra 45% loan charge applied.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back.

That's about it. It sounds ludicrously dodgy, but it was accepted a while back that this was a legal method of paying someone, so much so that agencies openly stated how much they could save you if you signed up for it.

But HMRC decided that it shouldn't be allowed, and so they asked for a clause to be added to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017. It had the effect that anyone that had received a dodgy loan since the beginning of the millennium would have all the amounts added up, and then charged as if they were all received in the 2018-2019 tax year, with an extra 45% loan charge applied."

Yes and a few additional interesting points...

1) When reading this most people assume this only affected highly paid freelance consultants (eg IT consultants/contractors) and therefore have little sympathy as they should have known better EXCEPT it affected 000s of locum nurses and supply teachers etc

2) Many of these lower paid agency workers were forced to work through specific agencies to secure the roles and these agencies operated loan schemes and assured the workers that it was perfectly legal and compliant with current tax law (it was).

3) HMRC, as you said, years later decided to clamp down on this practice but instead of going after the scheme operators, who they have steadfastly ignored, they have gone after the workers demanding retrospective tax, fines, and interest going back many years.

4) One of the key players in these agencies operating the schemes was one Doug Barrowman. Yep the same chap who is married to Baroness Mone and was a major Tory party donor.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back. "

Nothing I can point towards. Can't really be bothered this time as Zahawi has been deliberately as dodgy as f*** on this.

Did you read the Tax Alliance timeline?

That's more pertinent to the OP.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back. "

Just to be clear, do you think that HMRC defines its own objectives and priorities?

You do not think that they are defined by the Minister responsible

You think that tax inspectors go after contractors rather than the super rich and big corporations because they love screwing the little guy?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back.

Just to be clear, do you think that HMRC defines its own objectives and priorities?

You do not think that they are defined by the Minister responsible

You think that tax inspectors go after contractors rather than the super rich and big corporations because they love screwing the little guy?"
not sure who this is directed at.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back.

Just to be clear, do you think that HMRC defines its own objectives and priorities?

You do not think that they are defined by the Minister responsible

You think that tax inspectors go after contractors rather than the super rich and big corporations because they love screwing the little guy?not sure who this is directed at. "

You and Birdln.

Who decides HMRC's priorities?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Zahawi aggressively avoided paying tax.

If he ultimately had to pay that tax it was, in fact, tax evasion.

Let's put it another way; he actively tried to avoid paying tax that was due.

That does not require legal action or a conviction to clarify.

We do not know if he paid a penalty in addition to the taxes owed.

Mr Sunak declared: “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned.”

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in this way does not "earn trust".

Disappointingly he has been one of the few competent members of Government in recent years. However, competence does not imply any level of integrity.

I agree but to my earlier points... WTF is “aggressive tax avoidance”?

All that is is the Comms team and Behavioural Insights team playing with words to create a sense of utter confusion over what is and isn’t legal. You either owe tax or you don’t. It is black & white. You cannot maybe owe tax depending on interpretation or what way the wind is blowing!

HMRC’s behaviour is scandalous.

I don't think it's actually HMRC. They have to apply the legislation with the resources available and the enforcement emphasis defined by the Minister.

Perhaps aggressive tax avoidance advice should be taxed to fund more and better HMRC staff?

Sorry but that is not correct. Policy makers within HMRC are defining the punitive action that can be taken. Have a look into the Loan Charge scandal and then tell me HMRC are acting appropriately. Their actions have led to 10 suicides. They have applied retrospective tax law changes (ie the situation was legal at the time).

Retrospective taxation is legislated. It's not at the discretion of HMRC.

I don't actually know if they set their own fines and penalties though. Do you? I've not considered it before, but cannot find any information on it, and am not inclined to look at the primary legislation

If you are interested look into the Loan Charge. Not going to type loads here but it isn’t as simple as you are implying re legislation. HMRC have been acting very inappropriately and being steered by the Behavioural Insights team to cause maximum distress. is there something you can point towards?

What I think I have just read is rather than receiving pay directly for contract work, the payment went to an offshore company, who then gave a loan to the contractor that wasn't ever going to get paid back.

Just to be clear, do you think that HMRC defines its own objectives and priorities?

You do not think that they are defined by the Minister responsible

You think that tax inspectors go after contractors rather than the super rich and big corporations because they love screwing the little guy?not sure who this is directed at.

You and Birdln.

Who decides HMRC's priorities?"
I have no idea. I've not even offered a view on HMRC here. So I'm not sure what there is just to be clear on.

I just asked about this loan charge. As the bit I found suggested it was suss. Ppl have taken the time to clarify with extra info.

As you ask, It wouldn't surprise me if hmrc have targets that mean the little man is the one to target. Intended or unintended consequence of what gets measured, gets managed. I don't know.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

When/if he's found guilty of anything, proceed with the appropriate punishment

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"When/if he's found guilty of anything, proceed with the appropriate punishment "

Missing the point, as he's already had to pay tax on something he tried to avoid.

Why does that require a conviction?

Interesting that you find that a thing to defend.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

A new snippet from tax guy Neidle:

Quick note to people reporting on Zahawi. If he did fail to pay £3.7m capital gains tax, that likely means he failed to report receiving ***£27m***.

He presumably claimed this was merely “careless” (and so not tax fraud). How plausible is that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Who among us hasn't accidentally failed to report close to 30 million quid? Happens all the time. This bloke is just unfairly suspicious.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

So it appears Zahawi has paid a 30% penalty. That is in the zone for deliberate action to not pay owed tax. It means he is in the zone for criminal charges. It means he is added to a list of people that are not allowed to be company Directors or Financial Directors. In which case he has to resign as Chairman of the Conservative Party.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

I have just quickly read the BBC latest report. It seems it stems from when he originally set up 'you gov' and his father having a stake in the company. I don't quite understand but seems to be a dispute over how much of a stake his father was entitled to. HMRC say it was careless but not deliberate. HMRC also co firm that he has not set up an offshore structure. Obviously this is his side of the story and maybe more revelations to come but so far I'm not sure it's been proven to be false

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"I have just quickly read the BBC latest report. It seems it stems from when he originally set up 'you gov' and his father having a stake in the company. I don't quite understand but seems to be a dispute over how much of a stake his father was entitled to. HMRC say it was careless but not deliberate. HMRC also co firm that he has not set up an offshore structure. Obviously this is his side of the story and maybe more revelations to come but so far I'm not sure it's been proven to be false"

According to an HMRC investigator on LBC today, a 30% fine is a “deliberate” not “careless” level of fine/penalty.

Also months back Zahawi’s lawyers issued a statement saying neither he nor any of his family benefitted from this offshore trust (name begins with B but cannot remember). Well that turned out to not be true!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"I have just quickly read the BBC latest report. It seems it stems from when he originally set up 'you gov' and his father having a stake in the company. I don't quite understand but seems to be a dispute over how much of a stake his father was entitled to. HMRC say it was careless but not deliberate. HMRC also co firm that he has not set up an offshore structure. Obviously this is his side of the story and maybe more revelations to come but so far I'm not sure it's been proven to be false

According to an HMRC investigator on LBC today, a 30% fine is a “deliberate” not “careless” level of fine/penalty.

Also months back Zahawi’s lawyers issued a statement saying neither he nor any of his family benefitted from this offshore trust (name begins with B but cannot remember). Well that turned out to not be true!"

That's definitely in conflict to the BBC report and what they say HMRC are saying. The company you mention maybe Balshore as that's in the BBC report to but again that say HMRC agree he has neither set it up or benefited from it. I'm not for one minute saying this is true and he is innocent, I'm just saying what I have read seems to be different to other reports.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"I have just quickly read the BBC latest report. It seems it stems from when he originally set up 'you gov' and his father having a stake in the company. I don't quite understand but seems to be a dispute over how much of a stake his father was entitled to. HMRC say it was careless but not deliberate. HMRC also co firm that he has not set up an offshore structure. Obviously this is his side of the story and maybe more revelations to come but so far I'm not sure it's been proven to be false

According to an HMRC investigator on LBC today, a 30% fine is a “deliberate” not “careless” level of fine/penalty.

Also months back Zahawi’s lawyers issued a statement saying neither he nor any of his family benefitted from this offshore trust (name begins with B but cannot remember). Well that turned out to not be true!

That's definitely in conflict to the BBC report and what they say HMRC are saying. The company you mention maybe Balshore as that's in the BBC report to but again that say HMRC agree he has neither set it up or benefited from it. I'm not for one minute saying this is true and he is innocent, I'm just saying what I have read seems to be different to other reports."

There definitely is conflicting reports. I would say however, that Zahawi has clearly been fined/paid a penalty which means he did do something wrong and I doubt very much a multi-millionaire business man is lacking in advisors and decent accountants informing him about tax issues (AND he was Chancellor).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

The fund was in the family holding of Zahawi so the fact his family benefited is the same as him benefitting isn’t it??

If dad earns the cash and spends it on his kids or in fact puts it in accounts for his kids isn’t that Zahawi indirectly benefitting? He’s decided I’m not paying tax on that and giving it to my family instead.

Just thinking out loud!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"I have just quickly read the BBC latest report. It seems it stems from when he originally set up 'you gov' and his father having a stake in the company. I don't quite understand but seems to be a dispute over how much of a stake his father was entitled to. HMRC say it was careless but not deliberate. HMRC also co firm that he has not set up an offshore structure. Obviously this is his side of the story and maybe more revelations to come but so far I'm not sure it's been proven to be false

According to an HMRC investigator on LBC today, a 30% fine is a “deliberate” not “careless” level of fine/penalty.

Also months back Zahawi’s lawyers issued a statement saying neither he nor any of his family benefitted from this offshore trust (name begins with B but cannot remember). Well that turned out to not be true!

That's definitely in conflict to the BBC report and what they say HMRC are saying. The company you mention maybe Balshore as that's in the BBC report to but again that say HMRC agree he has neither set it up or benefited from it. I'm not for one minute saying this is true and he is innocent, I'm just saying what I have read seems to be different to other reports.

There definitely is conflicting reports. I would say however, that Zahawi has clearly been fined/paid a penalty which means he did do something wrong and I doubt very much a multi-millionaire business man is lacking in advisors and decent accountants informing him about tax issues (AND he was Chancellor)."

He has done wrong. I don't think that is in doubt and is why he has to pay what he owes plus extra. He admits his error as far as I see but has claimed it was a mistake as opposed to deliberate. It seems HMRC agree though the cynic in me wonders what pressure they are under to come to that conclusion. I'm not sure who needs to provide proof on such things. Is it HMRC need to prove he done it deliberately or is it Zahawi who needs to prove it was an honest error.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Other than the headline story, it seems he frequently used legal pressure on various people who first brought light to his carelessness... And also seems to have negotiated the settlement while chancellor.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Bis defenders have gone quiet?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Bis defenders have gone quiet?"

Worry not. I'm sure the guy who strongly hinted I was racist for highlighting this story will still defend Zahawi. He seems in love with the man.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top