Umm, what?

Leicester-based Aurum was bought by a US private equity firm in 2013 and its parent company is now based in Luxembourg, reported the Sunday Times.
The newspaper has claimed that although the firm has a ‘deferred’ tax payment of £1.98million in its latest accounts, it has not paid any corporation tax since 2010 because of business investment and ‘historical losses’.
While not illegal, such a structure casts doubt on its fitness to hold a warrant, the programme claims.

They’re saying what?

In a statement Aurum said: ‘The Aurum group has not been in a position to pay taxes over the past five years largely due to trading conditions, investment in the business and historical losses.
‘The group is expected to have utilised its historical losses at the end of the current fiscal year.’

They’re mad, aren’t they?

Was Ritchie involved in this “investigation”? Or just someone equally ignorant?

Gunmaker Holland and Holland, another warrant holder, sells rifles that could be used for big game trophy hunting, the programme reported.
While there is nothing illegal about such sales, the link flies in the face of a staunch opposition to the ivory trade taken by the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry.

Seriously, they’re mad aren’t they?

14 thoughts on “Umm, what?”

  1. ‘…sells rifles that could be used for big game trophy hunting…’

    ‘Could be’..? I can’t see that they could be used for anything else, frankly!

    And..so what? I notice that the Masaai herdsmen responsible for illegally poisoning a whole pride of Cecils isn’t facing the wrath of the SJWs & bunny huggers.

  2. Apple sells computers that could be used as guidance systems for terrorist missiles. I assume that all the Guardian writers will be throwing their laptops and iphones out?

  3. Was Ritchie involved in this “investigation”? Or just someone equally ignorant?

    It’s very worrying to think that there might be another person walking the surface of the Earth who is as ignorant as Ritchie.

  4. Well we already knew that “underpants” Bryan was irredeemably stupid, but confirmation is nice. And I’m not going anywhere near Flynn.

    I’m just surprised that none of the usual suspects have insisted that Champagne Laurent-Perrier shift, vineyards and all, to some suitably Labour-voting hell-hole area of the north of England.

  5. “it has not paid any corporation tax since 2010 because of business investment and ‘historical losses’.
    While not illegal, such a structure casts doubt on its fitness to hold a warrant, the programme claims.”

    That’s the most worrying part.

    A company has historical losses (not sure why the “journalist” puts these in quote marks – see what I did there?).

    It is also investing in its business.

    This creates a position where it isn’t paying corporation tax and this is considered a terrible thing and probably immoral.

    Murphy’s legacy is coming to pass. Soon we will be burning witches again.

  6. I was reminded of Carroll’s Hunting of the Snark, where something can be proven by stating it three times. But the next bit is equally valid. Let’s just hope they start running into boojums soon.

    “Taking Three as the subject to reason about—
    A convenient number to state—
    We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
    By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
    The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
    By Nine Hundred and Ninety and Two:
    Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
    Exactly and perfectly true.

    The method employed I would gladly explain,
    While I have it so clear in my head,
    If I had but the time and you had but the brain—
    But much yet remains to be said.”

  7. AndrewC – I think scare quotes are often used by journalists to indicate that they do not understand something that they have lifted from the enemy camp.

    If you try replacing the words in quotes with, say, “zobitty zob” you will get the full meaning of what the journalist actually understood by his words.

  8. The other thing which riles me about Sunday Times articles, is how they state that company y has paid to little corporation tax on a turnover of x billion. Completely missing the point of corporation tax (being a tax on taxable profits) and ignoring VAT. Grrr!

  9. Sometimes I struggle understanding the British.

    Is flying in the face of a staunch opposition to the ivory trade taken by the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry a crime? It seems such an odd construct. Are junior royals feelings sacrosanct? Or are their feelings invoked when it supports your own agenda?

    Anywho, it is gross ignorance. Sport hunters are not involved with illegal ivory trade. Poachers use AK-47s, not Rigbys.

  10. @ Gamecock
    You couldn’t possibly condemn poachers for using AK-47s: they are doubtless downtrodden poor using tools designed in the gloriious Soviet republics to provide vital ingredients for Chinese traditional medicine – the true alternative to modern drugs peddled by capitalist pharmaceutical companies. If they are selling ivory to Chinese billionaires that is not the same as providing evil western capitalists with photoshoot opportunities on a photo safari because no-one in the glorious Communist republic of China is a western capitalist.
    Where I must disagree with the article is that it doesn’t mention crossbows.

  11. @Nick – I made that very point in the comments to the article. But, of course, (I was informed) businesses don’t pay VAT, their customers do. [Goes off to bang head against wall]

  12. “the firm has a ‘deferred’ tax payment of £1.98 million in its latest accounts”

    I was contacted by a journalist the other week who had spotted that one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s companies had a line in its accounts for “corporation tax credit” (think it was a refund generated by carrying back current year losses).

    He wanted to run a story that this was ALW claiming tax credits just after voting to stop poor people getting them.

    I managed to stay polite while explaining it and, to his credit, he doesn’t seem to have run the story.

  13. Chris, so is Murphy’s line that customers pay VAT but businesses pay employers’ NICs? I’d love to see his explanation of the difference.

  14. “Richard

    Chris, so is Murphy’s line that customers pay VAT but businesses pay employers’ NICs? I’d love to see his explanation of the difference”

    Murphy has already explained the difference. Elsewhere. Many times. Where many learned people agreed with him. And called him “Professor”. And no. he cannot waste the time to tell you where.

    Although he will have time to tell you that, candidly, your time here is done.

Leave a Reply

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