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:
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:
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
Except miliband was not vanilla. Deeds of variation are a commonly used tool to reduce it, as you are aware.
Making use of a releif deliberately provided for in law
I have never once said using reliefs very clearly provided for in law is wrong
That knowing look at the camera as he gives his ‘advice’ basically smacks more of tax evasion than avoidance to me.
As a chancellor he is just a economic vandal – pure and simple.
That was the key issue
Rum and Raisin?- More like ‘Tutti Fruiti’ With an emphasis on ‘Tutti’ as in ‘Cosi fann’ Tutte’ (‘they’re all at it!’).
Off course this would have been during the the ‘getting filthy rich’ under Labour time.
Richard
I’m not sure I’m following this particular thread. The clip doesn’t give any detail of what Osborne is suggesting people do.
As for Miliband, isn’t the point that he went against the clear wishes of his father’s will? His father was a committed socialist and left his house entirely to his wife. His wife and sons then effectively re-wrote the will to make it potentially more tax efficient. Nothing wrong with that if you want to avoid tax.
But it clearly wasn’t what his father wanted.
p.s. are you sure about the date of the clip? Osborne is introduced as ‘a conservative MP’ and looks awfully young if the clip really was 2013.
KRs
Tim
The clip was 2003
And let me be honest – I have no clue what the Miliband’s decision process was
And nor do you
Richard
When a company or individual does something which only has a tax saving motive, you condemn them and many applaud you for doing so.
There is no other plausible reason for the re-writing of the will of Mr Miliband Snr other than the possible saving of IHT. None. Yet you imply we should give the Miliband Jnrs and widow the benefit of the doubt?
If you can suggest a single plausible alternative reason other than tax avoidance for what they did I would be interested to hear it.
If you are to maintain your reputation as a tax crusader you must not let people ‘off the hook’ just because they are Labour.
KRs
Tim
Have you seen how many Labour people I have criticised in the press recently?
The last thing I can be accused of is being partisan
(Apologies to Richard for wasting his time.)
From my ignorance of inheritance tax, leaving the estate to a spouse is both normal behaviour and the most tax efficient. Divying up the estate between sons & daughters loses tax allowance.
But like Ball’s window cleaner, this is all a deliberate distraction.
Any deed of variation goes against the wishes of the deceased, unless they had verbally expressed wishes they did not formally implement by changing their will. They are tax planning pure and simple and pretending otherwise is pure deceit and obfuscation.
Is claiming your personal allowance tax avoidance?
If you were replying specifically to me, i don’t get your point. Ed Miliband was doing absolutely nothing wrong, legally or morally.
I thought you were suggesting he was
Sorry
A deed of variation goes against the wishes of the deceased, in general. The fact that it is specifically allowed by IHTA84 means that Tim’s point is completely fallacious.
I think you are making this up as you go along.
You have no clue what the wishes were.
For the record, I think people do make mistakes writing wills and there are very good reasons to let them he corrected by consent
Richard
You make a very interesting point. Using your tax allowance can hardly be described as tax avoidance. What the Miliband’s are alleged to have done is make use of Miliband Snrs IHT tax allowance which he did not use. They effectively re-wrote what actually happened. Mr Miliband Snr left property to his wife and she and his sons changed this. So that it was more tax efficient.
So if I own a company and was to use ‘alphabet’ shares to pay my wife dividends to use her personal allowance and basic rate band you would accept that this was not tax avoidance? I wouldn’t even be altering what actually happened, unlike what the Miliband’s did.
With the media debate often producing more heat than light it would be good to get your view on whether these two situations are the same or why they are different.
KRs
Tim
You might do that
You may, although it is unlikely at present, fall foul of anti-avoidance legisaltion if you did.
Arctic Systems did not resolve all issues in this area.
But if your wife subscribed for her shares and you ahd the correct documentation and you could show she worked for the company as well so that this was not artifically diverted income that challenge would also be unlikely because economic substance existed in the transaction
Intention, facts and documents are key
Husband and wife companies exist and are fine if not tax avoidance arrangements
I note the BBC’s has completely ignored this video despite it being broadcast on one of their channels. Can you imagine the coverage it would have got if it was Ed Balls?
What I find more shocking about this video (apart from Osborne’s shifty, second-hand car salesman’s eyebrows) is the delight he takes in advising someone to hide money so care costs fall on the state. This shows the total betrayal of his Thatcherite view that the individual should be responsible for themselves and not be a ‘burden on the state’.