Always the caring one

‘If she’d paid the tax she owed at the time, she wouldn’t have been in this mess,’ says chartered accountant and political economist Richard Murphy. ‘It’s just greed that makes the wealthy invest in these schemes, then it comes back to haunt them. I’ve got no sympathy. Where is the rest of her money? Has she spent it?’

31 comments on “Always the caring one

  1. The odious turd. I can almost see him indignantly hoiking his panto bosoms, his lips curled downwards in disdain.

  2. “the wealthy” wouldn’t invest in these schemes, people who are born without much money might though. Really he’s just enjoying the downfall of someone who tried to make something of their life in, God forbid, commerce.

    You can practically see him turning his nose away in disgust through the page. However being handed ermine for doing fuck all would of course be quite alright.

  3. ‘It’s just greed that makes poor people put all their dole on the 3:15 at Chepstow, then it comes back to haunt them. I’ve got no sympathy. Where is the rest of her money? Has she spent it?’

    No more benefits for anyone seen near a William Hill.

  4. I once knew a chippy who worked on the “palatial £3 million Georgian mansion in Kent — complete with swimming pool, lake and helipad”, it’s the little things that really bring the tragedy close.

  5. To be entitled to have no sympathy one would need to know the workings of the scheme enough to say with authority that it was wholly artificial and motivated by pure greed. A tax expert might be able to have no sympathy but, as he isn’t one of those and wouldn’t have a clue how it worked Murphy is just an impertinent little nobody from an end terrace in Ely.

  6. Karen was a local girl with an eye for design who finding she do better making and selling her own rather than being at the beck and call of the chains did well. Then when the business got to the point of being big she sold out looking to invest the money sensibly according to the ways and means of the time. A decade and more on, during a bad time in world finance, the people she relied on have messed it up. She joins a long line of pools winners, lottery winners and other entrepreneurs who found that their yellow brick road led not to the wizard but to the bankruptcy court.

  7. She probably wasn’t as rich as she thought she was and burnt through cash like it was going out of fashion over a 10 year period (this is easily done, stuff is expensive if you look like you are rich, everybody wants a piece).

  8. In 2004 the rate on business asset disposals held for 2 or more years was 10% (it was during the time that New Labour were happy with people becoming stinking rich), so one has to ask WTF was she doing trying to save 10% by getting involved in some dodgy offshore tax avoidance scheme?

    I mean, just pay the 3.5m and pocket north of 30m for your troubles. It pains me to say, but Spud has a point (I know I know) – if you can’t see that a 10% CGT rate is a great deal for the taxpayer you really don’t deserve much sympathy.

  9. @jim
    But people in her position don’t do their own tax, do they? Her field of expertise is frocks not financial affairs. So somewhere there’s some “tax expert” who’s put this up to her as all perfectly kosher & pocketed his fee. Who’ll now be shrugging his well suited shoulders & saying “they win some, they lose some. But I win every time”

  10. Isn’t the point that a whole lot of money disappeared down a Kaupthing black hole? (Icelandic Banks stole a whole lot of money, and even Brown saw that).

    I say go and steal their cod!

  11. BiS>

    As usual, you’re living in a fantasy world. Professionals responsible for that advice will have seen potentially career-ending repercussions, and possibly personal bankruptcy too, as a result of their failures. Simply being involved in a case like this sends PI premiums through the roof, losing one makes you uninsurable. Not only the end of any future business, but also full personal exposure to any further cases that are brought.

  12. In 2004 the rate on business asset disposals held for 2 or more years was 10% (it was during the time that New Labour were happy with people becoming stinking rich), so one has to ask WTF was she doing trying to save 10% by getting involved in some dodgy offshore tax avoidance scheme?

    Not sure this is true.

  13. One is touched by Tim’s deeply felt humanitarian concern for the travails of the very rich.

  14. Oh well, look on the bright side. Rich single women often complain that men are put off by their wealth. She won’t have that problem now.

    Elsewhere, as people have said, Murphy’s gloating over the downfall of someone hugely successful is nauseating. You can just imagine the envious little turd’s pompous expression as he pronounces on (yet another) issue on which he will not have any actual knowledge.

  15. It appears that his understanding of Quakerism is at about the same level as his understanding of taxation. No doubt the Religious Society of Friends meetings he blights would approve of his attitude and behavior.

  16. It may well be that she put shares in the business into an offshore trust at an early stage of the business only to see the tax law change very unfavourably which led her and her advisers to unlock the trust in a tax efficient manner using what was termed a round the world scheme. This involved trustees being appointed in a treaty jurisdiction (Mauritius was favoured) for a period while a gain was realised subsequent to which the trustees resigned in favour of UK resident trustees. I believe the Smallwood case refers.

  17. Lizardking

    Any jurisdiction with a suitable DTA with the UK would have done to put the scheme in place; Canada for example. I’m not personally up to speed on the Mauritius agreement – I’m sure you’re right.

  18. Ironman: true but had Canadian trustees been appointed the gain would likely have been taxed there at rates higher than Mau (nil). I believe the Mau/UK DTA got amended as a result of Smallwood (as did various others). FYI New Zealand was an alternative to Mau back in the heady round the world days.

  19. Not to forget the utter ridiculousness of any singular human being getting slapped with a tax bill of £6m. Shades of the Trumps’ $36m-in-one-year.

    “questions are being asked about why she entered an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in the first place”

    Because it makes sense to try to protect your property from thieves.

  20. ‘Tso Kou
    April 1, 2017 at 3:13 pm
    One is touched by Tim’s deeply felt humanitarian concern for the travails of the very rich.’

    She is not very wealthy, you twat, she’s broke. Can you actually read?

  21. You mean Tim makes a habit of demanding sympathy for broke people generally? Or can you not actually think?

  22. Tso Kou – yes, of course he does, you stupid cunt. This whole blog is about finding ways to maximise human happiness. Capitalism and trade have lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than any other system devised or even imagined. Tim espouses both. Dickhead.

  23. And by the way, your reply was a non sequitur. I point out that the woman is broke, not very rich, because she’s the instant case and the one upon which you base your sneer, and you switch to a general (and also stupid) criticism. You twats would be better off admitting your errors with good grace, because we all make them, but you appear constitutionally incapable.

  24. Espousing economic policies you think generally desirable is not the same as expressing sympathy for broke people. Which would be obvious to anyone willing to engage their brain.

    However, I admit that I made an error. I should have written “the travails of the (formerly) very rich”. Obviously in context it’s implicit that a bankrupt is no longer very rich, and any intelligent human being would realise that. But I was writing for Tim’s commentators.

  25. “Espousing economic policies you think generally desirable” tends to be policies that have a meaningful positive impact

    “expressing sympathy for broke people.” is just virtue signalling.

    As a beneficiary of the social mobility that came from the former, I’d take Maggie and Timmy over Corbyn and Murphy any day.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.