Unite and tax avoidance

So, Unite is pushing on the Boots tax story. Which is all about nothing more than interest being a tax deductible business expense. Which it is of course, in both law and theory.

And then we get a story about Unite having problems with VAT.

Oh dear, snigger, eh?

Which leads to our favourite retired accountant and Unite member and adviser stating:

The real question is why was this leaked?
No! No! Look over there!
One might even giggle at such posturing.

17 thoughts on “Unite and tax avoidance”

  1. Blatant hypocrisy from a leftist protectionist trades union and its paid shill, living in idle semi-luxury on a grossly inflated wage paid to his wife by the Curajus State? Whatever next?

  2. Talking of distractions and diversions, I thought Ritchie was keeping a low profile until the Maddie photofits are forgotten about again. I surely can’t be the only person to have noticed the startling resemblance, though, can I?

  3. The real question is why was this leaked?

    Even if the answer was, and only was, “to demonstrate what canting hypocrites they are” that would be justification enough.

  4. Can we be clear on this – Unite appears in trouble for actual illegal tax evasion, rather than legal tax avoidance.

    Can Ritchie now be billed as “Adviser to tax-dodging union Unite”?

  5. No, he’s quite clear that he DIDN’T advise them here, really very clear indeed. It seems it’s only so thick Uncle Len can butter your toast.

  6. It’s a really enlightening report! Among other things we learn is:

    “(Booots’)gain worth… or 5.2 million ambulance calls”

    I wouldn’t have thought the volume of 999 calls was in any way a function of Boots’ Corporation Tax return but, well, you live and learn don’t you.

  7. I’ve just taken a litle trip to War on Want’s website.

    There was me thinking “what is a charity that is supposed to be fighting hunger, etc around the world doing campaigning about the UK Corporation Tax system? Is it taking peoples’ money under false pretences?”

    I needn’t have worried. It describes it’s own activities thus:
    “War on Want fights poverty in developing countries in partnership with people affected by globalisation. We campaign for human rights and against the root causes of global poverty, inequality and injustice.”

    It isn’t making any attempt to claim it is engaged in any practical programmes for disaster relief or development projects. No, it takes your money and uses it to fight its Marxist causes in Gaza or Caracas or Havana, but especially London.

    The references to “poverty” is a very convenient way of accessing charitable status. This passes for charity in the UK today. And this is what Ritchie means by “civil society” when he campaigns against the “Gagging Bill”. He means that organsiations like War on Want should be free to take money from people who might think they’re giving it to help relieve poverty, use it to campaign solely on UK issues- in the year of an election if it wants – and not have to account for its entirely political, not charitable, activity.

  8. Although, on the subject of giving tax advice, he was recently to be found insisting he had indeed been involved in a complex tax issue. He wasn’t used by HMRC – they ‘re not exactly short of tax professionals and don’t as far as I know use the term ‘tax expert’ – so he is telling us he has been providing tax advice to somebody in their dealigs with the Revenue.

    Now, delighted as I am to report he is no longer a lazy good-for-nothing layabout, being kept by the woman in his life, it does make me wonder about Corporate Capture of policy-making. Here he is, in the tax avoidance industry, trying to influence government policy and change the opinion of civil society. That’s just wrong isn’t it? Enough to make a Deloitte partner blush!

  9. I wouldn’t seek Richard Murphy’s advice in a complex putting up shelves issue, never mind anything to do with tax. Imagine signing off accounts he had advised you on.

  10. Interesting idea in the Unite report: Apparently by offering us a retail service Boots is stealing work from the NHS.

    You see, I thought the National Health Service (big clue in the title there) exists for the purpose of providng a, well, service to us. So, in my naivity, I thought that if we didn’t need or want that service or wanted to go somewhere else for that sdervice, that would be fine and dandy.

    But no!! It seems we exist for the purpose of providing it with work – and as we all know, there is nothing more important than generating work.

    Y’know, anyone would think Unite wasn’t really interested in looking after its members, but instead wanted just to get hold of their hard earned subs and use them to work for the Socialist utopia that Marxists all believe is just around the country. But that can’t be right because if it was we would see its ranks swelled with politically active charlatans, like ex-accountancy partners, who don’t acty give a rat’s ass for the working class and…oh.

  11. Imagine signing off accounts he had advised you on.

    That would make quite a good defence in tax court, I think. “M’Lud, the prosecution is willing to withdraw the charge provided the defendant enters a mental institution post-haste.”

  12. Boots apply the law exactly – and it is EXACTLY – as Parliament introduced it; Ritchie calls it a scandal. Labour donor and Labour Party mis-state the nature of a share transfer in order to (it is alleged) engage in tax avoidance; Ritchie points to the LETTER of the Law and tells us it’s fine.Unite doesn’t pay over VAT and might not even have managed to get its behaviour up to the level of avoidance (ahem) and Ritchie finds a completely different and totally spurious question to ask.
    So Ritchie is a) a hypocrite or b) bought and paid for or c) both?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *