The Guardian reported yesterday (and I have to quote at length):
The wife of retail tycoon Sir Philip Green has defended their use of companies based in tax havens, praising their “strong regulatory regimes”.
Tina Green provided details of what has been described as the “complex web” of companies behind the family's retail empire in a written response to MPs investigating the collapse of high street retailer BHS.
Lady Green, who is based in Monaco, gave details of 11 companies in which she or her wider family hold the controlling stake, with the majority incorporated in Jersey and the British Virgin Islands. However, she claimed the choice of jurisdiction was not related to the benevolent tax regimes.
“My understanding is that jurisdictions such as Jersey and the British Virgin Islands are commonly preferred for their strong regulatory regimes and well-respected regulators and the size and competence of their professional communities,” she wrote.
What can I say? This sounds like Lady Green has taken advice from Jersey Finance, the state funded PR puff of the Jersey government?
Or maybe she asked for offshore advisers to write this. Who knows? What we can know is that most of them were UK expats.
What we do know is this: that the so called strong regulatory regimes of these places are entirely dependent upon the fact that what they operate is, in effect, a corrupted form of English law that is ultimately backed up by the fact that the Privy Council here in the UK is their Supreme Court. That's the same Supreme Court that we have too.
So, to put it another way, Lady Green opted for the backing and reassurance of UK law, but in a way that suggested she did not want to pay for it.
I'm sorry, but the argument that tax did not come into that decision is just ludicrous. After all, if she'd really wanted sound regulation she could have had that onshore, from the UK.
The boundaries of credibility do sometimes reach their limits.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Quite.
Given how dim and gullible we now know her husband to be, and how advisers clearly run rings around him, with him accepting their every word (or silence), perhaps it’s not so far fetched to also believe that Lady Green is similarly dense. In which case, they make a good couple.
An important further consideration is that the beneficial ownership of companies can be concealed in ways that facilitate actions that are illegal in the UK.
I am fighting one such issue at the moment but can’t say much about it here. No prizes for guessing which political party receives large sums from the person concerned.
I had a spat online yesterday with a Brexiter who censored a post I made on his blog in a very juvenile fashion. His defence was that I had used a rather snide label to describe him, which was true, and to take note that he didn’t tolerate swearing, which I hadn’t done. It was all rather silly, but what I took from it was that civility is often over-rated in political discourse. And when confronted with claptrap like this, surely there is scope for responses along the lines of “you are taking the H out of BHS here”. I mean that is literally what the MPs should say. Arguments like Tina Green’s should be given the respect they deserve, i.e. none.
Surely the true beneficial owner of the sale of BHS should have been in front of the committee and not allowed to have lawyers/advisers write a written response on her behalf. If the Greens want the upside of this type of ownership/management arrangement in the good times, they should both face the public committee when things go wrong in my opinion.
Just another load of freeloaders.
Buy a company, sell assets that are worth anything, plunder the pension fund.
How To Run A Business UK Style 101
21st century [mis] management, an offshoot of 20th century [mis] management Ltd (PLC)
I quite liked the Grand Prix circuit at Monaco when I took a couple of turns round it, but as a place well, it’s not quite right. You have to go along the coast for that. Also, the BVI is rather lacking in person terms, some certainly shifty types bank there. Money alas does not guarantee class or style. Sadly, our politicians do not agree with this.
I have driven Monaco too – as a much younger man
But to be honest, there are a million nicer places on this planet
The big question is…………..why does anyone want that amount of money.
The givens:-
You can only eat three meals a day
Sleep in one bed
Drive one car
Have one wife
Excessive inheritance is bad for kids
So why oh why do people want so much money
Just don’t understand
Bragging
The whole basis of conspicuous consumption is that
And insecurity
So it must be related to intelligence levels
Basically (and bluntly) the dumber you are the more likely you are to want to brag, conspicuously consume and feel insecure (although clearly there could be a mental issue here)
So as I have always expected, there is no correlation between intelligence and monetary success
I believe that the Greens now have 3 yachts – oh and a small jet. It’s always good to have spares.
I alway practised on the basis that one should account for the substance and not the form.
Sir Philip was /is clearly in charge of everything to do with the corporate structures with which he is involved, the whole entity is structured around him, and yet we are asked to believe that he is not the beneficial owner.
When it comes to taxation form appears to trump substance.
I am not alone in wondering why HMRC is not pushing this line of enquiry harder
But they have data we do not
I hope
Come on Richard, you know HMRC come down heavily on small taxpayers and their misdemeanours but go lightly on the big offenders – forgetting to charge Vodafone interest, etc
I think there’s more to it than that, Richard. It’s actually a complex and fascinating question. Loads of different answers if you Google “Why Do Rich People Seem To Always Need More And More Money?”. Here’s just one link for those interested: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-super-rich-people-want-to-get-richer
My own very limited experience with the super-rich suggests that a ‘score-card’ mentality is not uncommon. That is to say always trying to outdo their other wealthy friends. It’s a bit like playing Monopoly – a game they must win. To become that wealthy one must have very strong competitive DNA. Maybe insecurity is the underlying driving force. I’m not a psychologist. I did once ask a millionaire why he kept on working – and risking his health – to amass even more and he immediately replied because he was afraid one day he might lose it all.
I’d guess that a driving force for some is dynastic. If you come from a very wealthy family then you may see it as your ‘responsibility’ to increase the family’s assets or at least protect them. And if you have made the money yourself from nothing then you might wish to start a new dynasty.
Also one should not completely dismiss the fact that some of the super-rich do actually want to use their wealth for philanthropic societal purpose. Like I said, I think it’s a complex question with no simple answers because all wealthy people are not the same, albeit they have one thing in common.
Buddhism has a lot to say on the subject. Wealth is not seen as intrinsically evil nor necessarily a hindrance in attaining nirvana – so long as it is obtained honestly and used charitably. However, it is problematic when it becomes a source of attachment which can lead to ‘ceaseless craving’.
Tina Green is a South African who loves in Monaco. Dividends are paid out of post tax profits. Why should she owe any tax to the UK? You seem to want the UK to tax everyone everywhere. Thank goodness sanity prevails in the real world.
This issue has been addressed far too many times for me to waste time on doing so again now
Peter,
I have, in my time, come across some very talented wind-up merchants and you are not one of them.
I’m curious why they bothered with holding companies. A dividend straight to her personally would have been tax free so why bother with all this jersey/bvi stuff?
Insurance against tax risk
Disguising ownership
Inserting multiple ownership opportunities via tests
Hiding financial arrangements
All normal offshore stuff
It’s always the small person that pays when the corporate rob the till my brother is self employed and just paid his tax bill for last year and 6 months in advance even though he has’nt earned the money yet and the revenue sent him a letter saying he was 1penny short no wonder people despise the current system of the offshore world time it was put to bed for good I see taxes are being put up in Jersey again for the poor people no doubt to pay for the lack of money flowing in due to the brexit vote