I was amused to note this conference advertised on the web:
Note the presence of KPMG and offshore lawyers Mourant Ozannes.
The blurb says:
Some more speakers are listed there too.
And the cost? £1,099 plus VAT.
Well you didn't think it was going to be cheap, did you?
But the canapés will be good. They'll have to be to keep the paranoia levels under control.
And in the mean time remember, keep those nasty tax justice people at bay.
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:
You guard your own personal privacy, being reluctant for example to publish your own tax return. Are others not entitled to their own privacy?
As for making a point of the cost of the conference, have you been to a CPD seminar lately? You do well to get change out of £500-£600 for a 1 day seminar likely to be taken by a single tutor, never mind access to half a dozen plus top names.
Besides, petty jealousy is not an attractive trait.
I think you reveal your small mindedness with this comment
Next time you will be treated as spam
It’s good that someone speaks up for the poor rich;o)
Sounds bloody cheap for these kinds of conferences!
I’m sure those getting paid the national minimum wage or even the living wage wouldn’t consider it cheap
Since people getting paid the national minimum wage or the living wage are highly unlikely to be the target audience of this conference, I am not sure what your point is.
I suspect that if you add up the hourly rates of the seven speakers present, it would come to a hell of a lot more than £1,099.
Chris
I really think it time you stopped wasting my reader’s time with your pettiness
Or I might have to
Richard
What’s the problem with private individuals wanting to keep LAWFUL activities private?
Quite a lot: not least because much will involve the use of limited liability entities
Limited liability is a privilege granted by society at potential cost to itself
And the price to pay for it is transparency
The alternative, as shown time after time, is abuse, both criminal and in taxation
I want to avoid that. The price is transparency for those using structures such as companies, trusts and foundations
Surely the argument for transparency going hand in hand with limited liability is that you need to know what you can claim against, but that doesn’t include the beneficial owner (unless you work for law enforcement or the tax authorities).
There may be an argument for transparency, but I don’t think limited liability is it. If this is the argument it would seemingly follow that there is no argument for unlimited companies recording their beneficial owners.
There is of course a reason for unlimited companies to record their owners: they are who you can sue
Don’t floated companies have to give details to Companies House for everyone to see?
Yes
Re Sue:
Besides, petty jealousy is not an attractive trait. . . . . nor are ad hominum attacks. Nor is petty point scoring. Nor is missing the point, (although that can sometimes be forgiven). Oh, and another one: spurious comparisons. Did you read the conference advert? The bit about ‘managing their reputations if privacy is lost’ is perhaps revealing.
Do you read this blog?
Peter
I do read this blog.
I see Richard repeatedly call for others to be transparent whilst he safeguards his own privacy.
“Limited Liability is a privilidge and must be paid for by transparency?” Yet Richard is granted the privilidge of Limited Liability as he operates through a Limited Liability Partnership. There is no transparency abour Richard’s own tax affairs. His LLP accounts say nothing about how much tax is paid.
See how in his last reply he even refers to “companies, trusts and foundations” as structures which demand transparency? Artfully leaving out the Limited Liability structure that he himself operates under.
He can choose or not to publish this or answer why he is so keen on others to be transparent but not himself.
But, yes, I read this blog and so do others who wonder the same thing.
Why is the ‘king of tax transparency’ so opaque about his own tax affairs?
I voluntarily put the fill accounts of Tax Research LLP on public record
I pay all the tax I owe
I use no schemes to save tax
Next?
Or are you just a gutter monger?
Sue,
Thanks for the reply. It seems a little odd to be discussing the person who’s blod this is on his own blog.
That said, I am still puzzled. If I am going to invest time in reading someone’s thoughts etc., I might do so for several reasons: enjoyment/entertainment, I feel I have something to gain or something constructive to contribute, or I feel that it is important that the views etc. are challenged in public.
Although I might be wrong, I’m going to assume that the latter is the case for you. Now, that brings me back to my initial question which I should amend slightly: Why do you read this blog?
Peter
Good grief, when will this intolerant, monstrous bullying of the privileged and super rich ever cease? I don’t know how they cope, I really don’t! I’m going to write a strongly worded letter to the Torygraph about it!