Art Uncut have an article in the Guardian this morning on their objectives. They say:
Art Uncut aims to bring about a culture shift, to create a world where people automatically and instinctively think about tax ethically.
First, we want to empower people to "Just Say No!" to the tax accountant.
Hear, hear, I say.
And by chance my old blogging friend Dennis Howlett sent me a link, this morning to an article by J K Rowling written a year or so ago in which she said:
Now, I never, ever, expected to find myself in a position where I could understand, from personal experience, the choices and temptations open to a man as rich as Lord Ashcroft. The fact remains that the first time I ever met my recently retired accountant, he put it to me point-blank: would I organise my money around my life, or my life around my money? If the latter, it was time to relocate to Ireland, Monaco, or possibly Belize.
I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain's; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major's Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.
Hear, hear again I say.
The evidence that a person can be ethical about tax is proven. The evidence that some accountants recognise the issue is alos laid bare for all to see.
So why aren't there more who do just that? Who say 'choose life, choose to pay tax'?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
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!
If ever there is a need for a statement of ‘Citizenship’ they could do worse than use that fantastic article – she’s an inspiration!
You might know that a tax case has just been reported – Ogden
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=5446
where a Jersey resident (actually an old UK ex-pat) contested his UK tax residence and consequent income tax bill in a tax year because he was only here due to the NHS treating his seriously ill son (who subsequently died) who had been referred for treatment to the UK by the Jersey health authority. Now I don’t know all the facts, but the inferences I have drawn (maybe unfairly) are rather disturbing to me.
1. A person becomes non-UK resident (I understand although this was some time ago it was for tax reasons).
2. During that time in Jersey his son becomes seriously ill and is referred to the UK for treatment by the Jersey health authority (I think this is at no cost to him or to Jersey due to the relationship between the territories but stand to be corrected here)
3. He comes to the UK during the time of his son’s illness and breaches the UK residence rules and becomes liable to UK tax as a result
4. He telephones HMRC to ask if he will become UK tax resident as a result of his (exceptional and compassionate) visit
5. He claims they give him the wrong answer that he will not become liable to UK tax
6. He incurs a UK tax liability and appeals it
If I am right (and I am quite prepared to be corrected), the non-resident dying son of a non-resident is treated in the UK at no cost and his father contests the lawful UK tax liability he incurs while here. I don’t know who I think is sicker, the son who was ill and died, or the father who contested his tax bill. One wonders what he might have done had he been told by HMRC that he would have become UK taxable – made sure his UK visits did not breach the residence limits?
Frank Skinner appeared on Andrew Neil’s “This Week” on 27 November 2008 to make the case for millionaires paying their top rate of tax with pride. Frank later admitted to being well out of his comfort zone (interview with John Plunkett, The Guardian, 1 March 2010). Anyway, as his two autobiographies record, he’d benefitted from the state’s largesse in the past (unemployment benefit, housing benefit, student grants). The state supported him through his journey from alcoholic to Cambridge graduate and the state employed him as a teacher whilst he began his current career. So he gives something back. Frank also makes contributions to charities – as well.
When Charlotte Church bemoaned the fact that she had to hand over half her earnings in tax, whilst hosting “Have I Got News For You?”, Noddy Holder replied, in good humour, that he paid a rate of 93% at the height of his success. Frank Skinner added that there should be a hospital named after him, given that Noddy must have paid for one. So there we have two popular entertainers, both raised in a post-war, Midlands, working class environment, who are proud to be good, decent, honest taxpayers.