If only Mrs. Phillip Green's wife would pay her taxes in the UK

[EggFriedRice]

I have read about Mrs.Phillip Green's wife who lives in Monaco, she is also the owner of Topshop in the UK and has been paid the biggest ever dividend in UK history, over £1 billion pounds, now what I fail to understand is why does she not live in the UK where her businesse's are located? why does she choose to live as a tax exile? Does this not lead many people to believe that she is deliberately trying to avoid paying UK tax? Yes of course we are not stupid, I have destroyed my Topshop card & will never buy another item from Topshop again, I think that Mr. & Mrs. Green are hypocrites, end of

nancydrew - he took dividends of £1.2 billion in 1992. £400m is a drop in the ocean compared to that, I'm sure you'll agree (even if we disagree on whether it's okay to channel taxable income offshore)

Ladybiscuit- Tax avoidance reduces the amount of profit that you lose to the taxman and so is good business practice as it allows you to make more profit.

Not if you fraudulently say someone is working for you when they're not huddspur. As a number of MPs found out the other year

Thats not tax avoidance thats tax evasion

Isn't that what Philip Green is doing (albeit a legalised version of it)? Like I said, our corporation tax laws were not designed for people to amass that amount of cash without having institutional shareholders to call them to account. There are none in Arcadia.

Tax on dividends up to the higher rate is effectively 0%. Above that, something like 20%+.

The headline rates are higher, but there is a 10% credit because dividends have already had corporation tax applied.

Lovely business model Takver. Will you be distributing the money you get for the business when you sell it?

ccpccp, hopefully dd will decide that what she wants to do with her life is take over our business and run it (rather than going to university, of course!).

I don't think it would be sellable - not sure how you would sell a business, so I suspect if she doesn't want to (not that I am really expecting her to do so ) it will either be taken over by someone who works with us or be wound down.

In terms of a business model, I think it makes a lot of sense. We all go home with plenty to live on, and everyone is motivated to make things run well.

I should say that it is not that altruistic - we did talk about turning it into a workers co-op, which would obviously be the consistent thing to do - but we didn't want to give up being in charge in case the other co-op members decided at some point to throw us out

ladybiscuit assuming we are talking US billions here £400 million would be 1/3.

I have no idea as to preceeding years dividends etc, but actually (and I am not deliberately picking holes) I am not sure I can agree that 1/3 can be construed as a "drop in the ocean". Although I will certainly concede that both £400 million and £1.2 billion are huge sums of money .

I think there is a very valid argument for making foreign investment in UK companies a sound economic prospect. I also think there are valid arguments for permitting asset sharing with marriage etc. If you agree with those principles then I don't see how you can penalise one individual/couple because your perceive him to be "too rich".

nancydrew, the argument is about tax havens, rather than foreign investment, or asset sharing within marriage.

If Mrs Green lived in Germany or France, this would not be an issue.

Takver- But posters here are moaning about the fact that Arcadia operate in the Uk and so for some reason think that Mrs Green should pay UK income tax on her divedends. If she lived in France or Italy then she still wouldn't pay Uk income tax on her divedends.

Now I'm itching to know what business you are in Takver :)

Its easy enough to sell a business, happens all the time and many are created with this in mind. It can be hugely profitable to sell a business thats on the up.

I doubt anyone taking over would be quite so generous to the workers though! I think you are right to be wary of allowing others near the controls if this is your priority.

Takver sounds a little too generous for her own good although it is an interesting business model

No Takver it isn't.

The argument, without exception, throughout this entire thread has been how dare a woman who is not a UK citizen or a UK resident not pay UK income tax on the dividends she receives from a UK company.

The very clear reason she doesn't is because she doesn't live in the UK and those who don't live in the UK don't pay UK income tax. Other posters brought the issues of asset sharing up as further evidence of the unfairness of the situation - hence my comments.

nancy - I don't mean US billions, I mean £1.2 billion. UKP if that makes it clearer. And I don't have a beef with a non-UK person not paying UK tax, my issue is that her husband is using her as a vehicle to avoid paying tax which he really should. It's tax avoidance/tax evasion grey area stuff.

And while I'm here briefly, dertitude, you should be very careful indeed to openly admitting to tax evasion on the internet!

Why too generous for my own good, Byrel?

ccpccp - I guess we could sell our business, but tbh it is very much part of our family, it would be a bit like selling the dog (was about to say like selling dd, but that would be overstating it rather, she would definitely come first!). . .

Nancydrew - if she were paying tax in Germany, I very much doubt there would be the same outrage - people would be far more convinced that it was simply family / personal reasons, and not tax avoidance.

Ahh Takver - I have just remembered who you are :) So glad your business is doing so well

Many thanks LadyBiscuit. We only found out about being one of the fast growing businesses because we were in the Western Mail (well, its a sort of fame )

The thing is, a la John Lewis (and even going back to Henry Ford), what looks like an ethical-for-the-sake-of-it business model is often a great deal more successful than a lets-screw-every-last-penny-out-of-the-workers model.

I say that because its you who will be carrying the can if the business gets into difficulty not your employees and surely you deserve more of the profits for undertaking this risk

I have also featured in the Western Mail for a slightly less illustrious reason

But yes, I absolutely agree with you re different business models - the ability to retain staff is proven to be critical. Maintaining staff morale in a time of recession (eg staff voting for a four day week rather than striking against it being imposed on them) means that you are in really good shape to take advantage of the upturn when it comes. If you are hanging on by your nails because you've got rid of your staff or most of them are just waiting for the opportunity to jump ship, you're going to be massively behind the curve.

Ladybiscuit thanks for reminding us about John Lewis i am going to try and do most of my Christmas shopping there ! Can you name any more companies that also have good business practice . Am i right in thinking the Co op is a mutual too ?

nancy - that's missing the point by a country mile. The issue is Philip Green is dodging taxes that are rightfully due by pretending the company is owned by his wife who oh-so- conveniently just happens to live in a tax haven.

It may be legal but it ain't right. He's ripping off every other UK taxpayer.

Oddly enough the legality of tax loopholes is determined by the sort of people who stand to benefit from tax loopholes. You don't get many benefits claimants donating to political parties or being given seats in the House of Lords or acting as government 'advisers'... unlike tax dodgers.

ladybiscuit I realise you meant 1.2 billion pounds and not 1.2 million dollars.

I was referring to the US billion v the UK billion as a number rather than a currency and assuming that the reports referred to a US billion rather than a UK billion.

Hope that clarifies - unless we are totally at cross purposes.

Takver point taken but it is really no ones business where she lives is it and a moot point since provided she is not resident in the UK she wont be paying UK tax anyway. Posters are explicitly objecting to her not paying UK tax not tax generally.

STANDS UP AND APPLAUDS EDAM !

edam they are not "pretending" she owns the company. She does own the company.

Assets can be given to anyone. Or are we now objecting to wives owning anything?