David Cameron has to resign.

[PirateSmile]

If there is any evidence he has had even one penny of benefit from his father's dodgy tax arrangement, surely Cameron has to go?
He's saying 'it's a private matter' whilst presumably working on his notes for next month's conference on cracking down on such tax scams. You really couldn't make it up. He will no doubt plead ignorance but that's no defence. He is the PM. He should know he's benefiting from is essentially large scale fraud.
Are we really going to let him get away with this?

I think the more important issue re offshore investment funds is not what they are invested in but who the fellow investors are. So a London investment manager sets up an offshore fund because it will attract non-doms or anyone who wants to hide their assets or the source of them along with UK resident investors.

Candy you keep yawning, maybe you need more sleep and to stop worrying about what DC does :)

People like Elon musk are worse than DC - they have millions salted away and minimise their tax like the plague.

Peggy I definitely need more sleep

The government also said they'd crack down on immigration. And they have. With their fairly odd system of deporting non-EU residents earning less than 35k. So I don't really trust that the government will do anything that's actually of any use to the general population. We say that 'something must be done' and then that 'something' turns out to be a load of crap.

You're right, it doesn't trickle down. But this problem is so much bigger than David Cameron. It's like saying that Gordon Brown caused the recession, it's a small piece of a bigger picture.

I just don't believe that if DC resigns and/or stops these funds from existing that everyone using them will suddenly start investing their money in ways other than making as much profit as possible. In fact I'm really not sure what the people calling for his resignation are proposing should happen.

Howmanyminutes, I think it is now accepted by the media that DC paid all the taxes he should have paid, and he wouldn't have paid any more taxes had he invested in a UK fund.

If you're saying that he still participated in tax avoidance because the fund avoided being a UK resident fund, then I would say that's simply not true.The whole point of a fund is to basically help investors invest cost efficiently by pooling money so a principle most funds don't pay tax because governments want to encourage saving and being a fund shouldn't add an extra layer of tax. Most governments do it by not taxing the fund at all, the UK government does it by giving exemptions and deductions. As a result most funds don't pay tax.

Bottom line, the fund wouldn't have paid a penny in UK taxes if it was here. Whatever this fund was doing in Panama it wasn't to avoid UK tax.There just is no UK tax evasion here no matter how much people want there to be.

There is a vast between offshore funds (which most people's pension funds are invested in, and you're usually allowed to stick in your ISA) which is what DC was in and offshore family/personal trusts and companies, which is what Jimmy Carr was involved in.

Oh and DC's fund was actually registered with HMRC. Every year, they submitted their accounts and a tax calculation (this exactly what a UK fund would have done). HMRC examined what was submitted and issued them with a certificate. We know this because the fund is on HMRCs website - both before it was in Panama and since its been in Ireland. HMRC didn't see avoidance (again contrast that with Jimmy Carr) and neither can any of the experts who have commented in the media over the weekend. You wouldn't find any of these people coming out to say that what Carr did was legit.

i think it remains a very legitimate question of what the fund was doing in that dodgy environment that is Panama in the first place but my repeated point is that whatever the reason it wasn't for tax reasons! Sometimes I find people are determined to regurgitate stuff that's based on a misunderstanding (I am generalising here) hence my regurgitating the same point. my prerogative!

Panama fund what donyoubthink is the reason for holding the fund in a dodgy environment?
If it's not tax avoidance, is it because some of the investment was in ethically dubious companies?

The reason for the fund being set up in Panama had more to do with company law than tax law. For exactly the same reason many funds are set up using Scottish limited partnerships. It's all completely legitimate.

Thanks *anthony^ it's been established its legitimate.
PanamaFund has been vey informative and I've enjoyed reading PF's posts which has been fairly unbiased and ii am interested in their response because if this.
Legitimacy is not what's upsetting people. If it was illegal he'd be under investigation. As it is, he's under scrutiny which is different.

I have no special regard for DC or the Conservative party. However, I do think the furore is about Brexit. If nothing illegal was done, why is it being implied that there was? The gift from his mother to minimise tax paid is the stuff of newspaper column advice and things in daily life are done by all and sundry to minimise their tax burden. If you have a ISA or any special savings account, you are doing the same thing. It is as valid to say 'you squirrelled your money into an ISA and avoided paying tax, you blasted tax dodging hypocrite'.

Look at all the non-dom newspaper owners and their influence over the masses with their headlines and perspective given via media. I do wonder how their own activities would measure up if looked at openly? And maybe the real smart -one could say dodgy-- tax dodgers have their money better hidden in other ways than panama or the Channel Islands.

Lord Rothemere. "He ranked fourth in the Publishing, Advertising, and PR section of the Sunday Times Rich List 2013 with an estimated wealth of £720 million.[4] In April 2015, the Sunday Times estimated his net worth at £1 billion[5] He has non-domicile tax status." From Wiki, but you get the gist.

Of course there was a tax exile accusation posed wrt the Barclay Brothers who I think are also non- dom. They reside in Monaco allegedly and also allegedly have paid no corporation tax in the UK on the Ritz. Legally of course.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31517392

All these chappies have enormous influence on opinion of poor suckers who have to pay tax and don't have such arrangements.

Murdoch, non-dom too. All these multi millionaires or billionaires have their own interests they protect. Maybe or more likely probably not the same as the interest of ordinary people who reside and/or pay tax in the country.

Interestingly, computer changed chappies to crappies. Does it know something I don't?

Blah blah ISA blah blah Pension blah blah not illegal blah blah

Hmm.

I can still only see Dodgy Dave though.

And I'm sure the furore has been helped along by many interested parties to make sure people can only see that too and concentrate specifically on that. Even if nothing done has been illegal in any way or things done by many people are magnified and declared dodgy when done similarly by DC.

I don't know anything about DC's tax affairs, but in the interests of openness and in light of the public opinion on this exposure should be extended to all in parliament. In fact, DC may look like a choir boy in comparison. Lords would be very interesting. All those 'scratch my back' political appointees' and people who have inherited great wealth and/or property. I wonder how many russian doll shells or layers of obfuscation would be revealed. It would probably make your hair stand on end with the unfairness of it. Tax avoidance could be the least of it.

I don't know if DC has done anything dodgy. I don't think anything illegal has been revealed yet. Maggie opened those doors to deregulation.

In fact, if people go through avenues that are subject to less tax, you could say people who had the right to buy council houses are dodgy. They didn't pay market price and didn't have to earn difference in price (with extra tax to pay to revenue) to pay market price.

Of course, if I was preferentially offered a council house at a knock down reduced price, I would grab it with both hands too. I wouldn't say 'I must pay the full market price, because the revenue should get the same tax as if I had paid full market price along with higher stamp duty'.

Just an example of how lots of people do things that favour them tax wise. They are not all dodgy people because of it.

I think this scandal has highlighted probably one of the top issues facing this country: taxation rules and laws. They must be changed if we don't want to end up with this unsustainable system of running the country where no matter what the politicians say, wealth is not trickling down in the end.
I have to respond to Eustace (I think). I am trying to write it down. Will reply to you later tonight but thanks because your question made me sit down and write all my thoughts in order and helped me learn quite a few things too.

blah blah no answers other than Dave should go.

He had a gift of £200K from his mother. There are restrictions on giving away small amounts.

AllMy I've answere extensively over three heads over the last three days.
So I've noticed the same arguments being repeated quite a lot.

The gift from his mother appears in the Telegraph.