but whatever happens i am certain i am not tax avoiding by being self employed when the law has specifically allowed it
As the law specifically allows the transfer of assets between wives and husbands, as the law specifically allows Vodafone to only pay tax on profits repatriated, as the law specifically allows royalty payments as….well, you get the picture.
Isn’t his wife the other “partner” of Tax Research LLP?
Oh well, he’s certain, so that’s all right then.
Not really on point, but now is the time to compare different legal systems:
1. Under English law, everything is allowed unless it is specifically forbidden;
2. Under German law, everything is forbidden unless it is specifically allowed;
3. Under Italian law, everything is allowed, especially if it is specifically forbidden ;
4. Under soviet law, everything is forbidden, especially if it is specifically allowed.
Not sure where murphy fits in. Probably soviet.
Oh where to start?
Tim stole my first line: the weapons grade hyprocracy of his appeal to the letter of the Law. Where the hell was that principle when Starbucks was being boycotted?
So anyway, how about a question for Ritchie, just for the sport really; in what meaningful, commercial way Ritchie is your wife a “partner” in Tax Research LLP?
Would anyone mind if I kept coming back on? Ritchie’s posting and the thread that follows is just a gold mine.
The word is hypocrisy, the defining action of a hypocrite. Hypocracy is a political system of rule by hypocrats – from the Greek hypo, meaning under, and crat meaning power. So when you say hypocracy you’re referring to government by wind turbines.
Now I wait for Muphry’s law to bite me.
It’s fortunate I wasn’t planning on giving any lectures on spelling then wasn’t it. By the way, have you read the post and do you have any thoughts on it?
I’m shocked no one has thought to suggest that Ritchie should boycott himself until he complies with the spirit of the law (as defined by, say, Tim).
Sorry Ironman, didn’t mean to single you out. I’d just seen that particular misspelling dozens of times today (I follow Australian political blogs…) and I guess Tim’s blog drew the short straw. No offence intended.
Ironman@4 To be fair to Rich he has been posed that question before and answered it as best he can.
The short of it (AFAIR) was that the wife challenges, provides input into health/NHS type issues and proofreads. Therefore partner.
Not a compelling answer IMO (I could pay a subcontractor to do that) but that’s his answer.
Typical of those on the left: Do as I say, not as I do.
Gary
A subcontractor or indeed an employee! However, my point wasn’t really the legitimacy of her status. Rather it how Ritchie would react to the partnership claims of a senior executive from Evil Big Business. Those guys will be making far more defining strategic decisions than Mrs Murphy (just one of a number of tests I would imagine) but that wouldn’t cut any ise with him.
No, Ritchie talks about this measure attacking the wrong thing. In truth he first decides WHO he wants to attack, who he hates, then he decides HOW to attack them. Tax avoidance is just the peg he chooses to hang his hat on.
@Gary
Further to that, if his wife is a practicing GP then she is presumbaly using up all her tax allowances herself.. so is there any tax advantage to having her as a partner?
It’s obviously not the usual self-employed trick of slicing some top rate income and giving it to someone otherwise without any taxable income.
Whoops, I meant ice!!!
The Thought Gang
“If she’s a GP”. Yes and maybe she’s a high earning accounting or another professional. Quite probably there is no tax planning here at all. I certainly haven’t said there is. And then maybe, just maybe, Sir Andrew Park QC is an honest man who conducted his enquiry into the Vodafone deal properly and maybe his conclusion is sound; Ritchie didn’t extend him the courtesy of that presumption did he!! That is the point here.
I have always assumed that RM has a LLP to limit his liability if he gets sued for libelling some litigious Captain of Industry as a tax evader (or suchlike). And LLPs need at least 2 partners, so his wife gets dragged in. I can’t see that there are any tax advantages in having the LLP as although you could split the income, as she is in full employment (particularly as a GP) the marginal rates will be the same. My guess is the LLP is purely to prevent his house and other assets getting taken if he f*cks up royally in his writings somehow.
@The Thought Gang
The missus only holds 1%, but that’s enough to have a partnership. A tax saving could come from having most of the LLP income going to likely lower earning Ritchie, even though he says 1% understates her involvement. Maybe it’s reverse income splitting. For the last set of accounts though over 50K was withdrawn.
Is a 99/1% partnership really a partnership by the “spirit” of the law? Or just a handy way to get limited liability as a sole trader?
Interestingly the member’s overdrew from the LLP in the last set of accounts. Could be seen as an attempt to pre-empt the lowering of the 40% tax band?
(If Ritchie can make wild assumptions from accounts, then so can I!)
Mrs MurphMonster is indeed a GP. And a hardworking one at that too, as Mr M oft uses her as an example of hard working state employees as opposed to idle banker types.
So, I presume there’s no tax benefit to having her as a partner.
But surely Mr M disapproves of these artificial relationships anyway when someone isn’t actually contributing. Mrs M isn’t a tax expert so what is she doing being a partner ?
Eventually, someone is going to dig a bit deeper into Murphy.
I think it would be beneficial for some journalist to speak to his former partners and clients in the Wandworth business.
Given his arrogant and high-handed attitude, he is bound to have pissed people off, and some will want to talk.
There will be evidence there of his vast efforts at helping his clients to avoid tax – certainly enough to bolster the image of him as an ocean-going hypocrite.
We should be playing people like Murphy at their own game – smear, abuse, innuendo (while being at least slightly more anchored on earth, and in the truth, than his bullshit and lies).
The thread is literally gold as Ironman (various) says – Typical Champagne Socialist really, one law for him, another for the ‘evil Capitalist exploiters’….
The budget proposals yesterday announced a review into tax avoidance using LLPs and specifically whether LLP members are disguised employees. Methinks Mr Murphy was perhaps a little premature in his statement – at least in regard to his wife.
There is also a further question if one wants to use Murphy Logic, which is whether (despite corporate law allowing it) it is MORAL for an LLP to exist that affords limited liability when one of the required 2 members is of limited value to the business of the LLP?
Oh, and he’s still a twat.
The hypocracy of Richard Murphy is quite unbelievable, it’s truly astonishing he thinks it’s acceptable to operate his own affairs to the letter of the law, not the principle.
I do not however think his funders know this:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/about/
I suggest as many as possible write to Joseph Rowntree, TUC, PCS, Unite etc and voice concerns. His funding should be pulled, this is a discredited man decending into lunacy