[Closed] Have we done Bernie Ecclestone yet?

We certainly should...

I love his hair.
He's had the ultimate whores,cocaine and formula one lifestyle.
What's not to like?

More of a fan of Max, that boy knows how to party 🙂

Bygraves?

Hey, he paid £10million you know!

I wonder how many people HMRC had to fine for self-assessing two days too late to make up the difference?

He's a weasel who happens to be able to stand upright.

Right height and everything.

Amazballs he's got away with this for so long now.

Mebbies "call me Dave" should stand up and ask him a question or two.. But then again they're a bit similar aren't they... 😆

Blame HMRC for the sweetheart deal. After all, they did the same thing to Vodafone and other companies.

Maybe if someone was actually accountable for those deals, we'd get more money back from companies.

Apparently there is an overrepresentation of leftist big hitters on here at the moment, (so sayeth the ukip bus thread).

So without pretending to be big or a hitter, I am helping out today switching sides for a bit.

So:

Bernie is a national institution who has brought untold millions into the country. HMRC need to be understanding of the risk of him fleeing the UK and taking his ball with him, so need to cut him some serous slack like they have done with all those other institutions and people that have helped make our country what it is today. Vodaphone, Starbucks, Amazon, Cameron's dad, where would we be without them all? So give Bernie a break and be thankful for his hard work you bunch of bleeding-heart handwringers.

Oooh that was nice. How did I do?

are there any concrete facts in this one?

Pretty much escapes a 1bn tax bill

Bernie is a national institution who has brought untold millions into the country of Lichtenstein

There, that's much more accurate now.

From the BBC article...

He says he has always paid his fair share of tax and that he is "proud to be British and proud to make my contribution by paying my taxes here."

Funny how the rich and famous seem to think they can decide what their "fair share of tax" is 🙂

Edit... oh and I'd be surprised if £10M even covers the HMRC investigation bill.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/28/bernie-ecclestone-tax-bill-panorama-bbc

HMRC, which has faced severe criticism over its willingness to do "sweetheart deals" to settle disputes with big business and the super rich, said it did not discuss individuals' or companies' tax affairs.

It added: "The settlement of all disputes is governed by HMRC's published litigation and settlement strategy, which ensures that we only settle for the tax that is owed and which would otherwise be achieved through litigation."

So did the HMRC let him off or decide that he had followed the letter of the tax law enough that they could not extract more tax and therefore drew a line under it?

MSP - Member
Bernie is a national institution who has brought untold millions into the country of Lichtenstein
There, that's much more accurate now.

Doh, failed at the first hurdle! This 'not being a lefty' and 'arbitrarily oppositional stance' business is maybe harder than i first thought. 😕

So, politicians under advice and guidance of HMRC, make law

That law allows Bernie to, perfectly legally, hand ownership of assets to wife, without incurring UK tax liability

That law then allows them to, perfectly legally, move these assets one of the family's trusts in Liechtenstein (tax haven), without incurring UK tax liability

HMRC then say 'aha, we're investigating you, because you handed the ownership of these assets to your wife, and then transferred them to family trust in Lichtenstein, and if this was illegal you would owe us 1.2 billion quid''

HMRC then say 'right, we've investigated you, and it turns out that the law, as written by politicians under our advice and guidance, says you actually were allowed to do this, so you don't owe 1.2 billion quid, you owe us ten million'

Bernie pays Ten million

Politicians, who under the advice and guidance of HMRC wrote the tax laws that permitted him to do this, say that he shouldn't have been allowed to do this.

Government, who were not in power at the time the whole thing happened, get accused of doing it to look after their mates.

😯

I blame Thatcher

missed the bit where the government who were in power at the time then complain about it as if they had nothing to do with it.

The shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, questioned the settlement and has called for HMRC to reinvestigate Ecclestone's tax affairs.

Nice summary!

Thick as thieves

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3562753/Bernie-Ecclestone-and-Tony-Blair-a-truth-revealed-10-years-too-late.html

ninfan - Member

I wonder if he'll escape Germany.........

I wonder if he'll escape Germany

Funny how the rich and famous seem to think they can decide what their "fair share of tax" is

Its not really Bernie that I have the issue with. If hes got away with doing it legally then fair play, you don't get rich by always doing whats morally the right thing.

My issue is with the fact that the rules allow him to get away with it, whilst the little person gets stung at every turn.

Time for an anecdote methinks (it's nearly going home time after all) albeit with only partial relevance to the thread 🙂 . A few years ago had quite a few beers with the Marketing Director of one of the big Formula One teams. He was kind enough to share some insight into Mr Ecclestone's negotiation ploys with the owners. In brief, when one was being uppity in a meeting to discuss contractual terms, he requested a brief chat in private with the owner in particular. Five minutes later the two returned and the previously difficult owner was Bernie's NBF, albeit a slightly haunted and shaken NBF. The good news is that Bernie got his way and the owner's kids were free to continue their education and live happy and productive lives.

I believe said owner exited Formula 1 fairly soon afterwards.

All told one might conclude from this that he is an extremely nasty piece of work with some even nastier friends.

If HMRC git £10m out of him whilst retaining limbs and family they should be warmly congratulated. Hopefully the Krauts will throw away the key...

Heard some similar stories from back in the 70's too from someone who'd not be be disbelived, not someone you'd want to cross in any way 😯

HMRC don't only agree 'deals' with rich folk, they do it with poorer ones too.

It's called pragmatism.

Better to get £10m and (no doubt) agree his taxes for future years than get nothing and have him move his business elsewhere.

Thing is if it starts going sour in Germany he can afford to stall it for the rest of his life by using weasel lwayers, even if it costs tens of millions a year.

His actions are totally repulsive but on the other hand what he has achieved is very impressive.

blame hmrc for either advising the then government in this way on this law, or wasting time and taxpayers money investigating and not realising sooner that Bernie was not behaving as unlawfully as they thought he was, being as they so very recently advised on those very rules.

That would be a very cynical outlook - going down that path might even lead you into the realms of questioning the whole 'Vodafone six billion tax bill' - which was calculated on the basis of HMRC interpretation of the controlled foreign company tax regime, (again, laws created and enacted by politicians under advice and guidance of HMRC) where yes, you guessed it, HMRC's interpretation of the law they helped write and enact was in contravention of existing EU law on the freedom of establishment, laws that were signed up to by politicians under advice and guidance of HMRC... Leading to HMRC accepting a much smaller sum rather than fighting in court...

.That would be a very cynical outlook

Where you quoted me you missed off the first part of the sentence:

Though from your post it sounds like we should not blame thatcher, but blame hmrc

No point in bringing the present government, the previous one or thatcher into it.

I have negotiated a few settlements with HMRC, headline numbers not as high as Eccelestone but settlements of the same order. There are lots of reasons for settlements, HMRC not realising how badly drafted law is, complete misunderstanding of the commercial reality, fear of mad judge risk, political pressure to bring in money etc etc. The media is unlikely to have sufficient information for anyone to make an informed judgement - the so called experts who comment do it for publicity - the top guys don't need publicity.

P.S. For balance, a friend of mine has dealt extensively with Eccelestone. While admitting he is brutally straightforward i.e blunt, once you shake hands with him the deal is done, he sticks to his word and delivers what he says he is going too and as a result he is great to do business with.

Julianwilson - Not quite , I think that HMRC are only as much to blame for advising and enforcing it so poorly as the politicians are for enacting overly complex and highly technical legislation that can't be consistently enforced, and then jumping up and down castigating people for utilising the very rules they create!

Ok, he's evoided a shit load of personal tax, but on the other hand single handidly created a world-wide multi-billion pound industry that employs thousands of people in the uk, generated loads of uk company owned patents, and has earned the uk far more than £1bn in exports and tax revenues in just the high tech cutting edge industries that a lot of people say is lacking in the uk. I'm struggling to think of many other individuals who can lay claim to an accolade anywhere close. I can see how he feels justified in feeling he's contributed his fair share to UK plc.

It's different case to some dodgy double glazing salesman doing cash deals. He needs to pay his fair share of taxes but it's not clear what his fair share is with the current tax rules that are so easily avoided. A clear case for the need for our tax rules to be completely overhauled.

As an individual he's clearly a greedy, power hungry, uncompromising, unpleasant type of character. But you need to be to succeed...show me anyone else who's succeeded at that level who isn't. I'm not cut out for that which is why I'm condemned to a life of mediocracy trapped in the dullness of middle-management!

Where did the politicians get the idea for such highly technical and overly complex legislation in the first place ninfan? Generally since they are so rarely experienced in any way in the departments they end up running (to find the last health secretary with any background in health or social care prior to their appointment for example and you go back 20 years or so), politicians simply cannot understand the subtleties of the departments they try and run, and either do what the civil servants tell them, or try and run them with blunt instruments and policies that sound good in press releases, surely? The level of complexity you so eloquently describe sounds decidedly unlike the creative thoughts of any of the governments of the last 20 years.

But since you seem to feel the need to politicise this, I note that this has been a clearly hot topic almost since the last general election, and it puzzles me that in the midst of so much other fiscal reform, and so many other unmandated and somewhat idealogical pieces of legislation that voters for neither blue nor yellow parties knew about, the present government has not found the time to do anything about tidying these rules up a bit.

I don't think I've politicised anything Julian - the politicisation was complete several years ago.

politicians simply cannot understand the subtleties of the departments they try and run, and either do what the civil servants tell them, or try and run them with blunt instruments and policies that sound good in press releases, surely?

Nothing stopping a politician (Labour or Tory) turning round at any time in the cycle and saying 'this is gibberish, go and rewrite it so even an idiot like me can understand it'

So in summary "system means man doesn't have to pay as much tax as people think he should have to. Man doesn't pay any more than he has to. The end."

#havewedone thread (#fishwives club thread)

But since you seem to feel the need to politicise this, I note that this has been a clearly hot topic almost since the last general election, and it puzzles me that in the midst of so much other fiscal reform, and so many other unmandated and somewhat idealogical pieces of legislation that voters for neither blue nor yellow parties knew about, the present government has not found the time to do anything about tidying these rules up a bit.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Tax_Simplification ]They have[/url] easier said than done - when I started in the late 80s, there were two volumes of legislation, there are now 7.

single handidly created a world-wide multi-billion pound industry that employs thousands of people in the uk

So it looks like he paid the amount of tax that he was asked to pay.
HMRC don't do settlements for less than what was owed or what they though they could extract via litigation.

I reckon it would be much better if Tax was calculated based on observations of the masses.

Audi, Orange 5 with dropper? £20k
Audi, Orange 5 no dropper? £10k
More than 3 bikes under 3 years old? £15k

Much simpler than damm rules and laws. Of course it would then be based entirely on
[img] [/img]

You can tell by his tv interviews that he is the only thing he cares about.. not jobs, not F1, not any higher good.

Same with football and Blatter and his effing cronies.

[Gutfeeling]self serving, money grabbing snake who would sell his mother[/gutfeeling]

F1 would be better off without him

He's a businessman - the primary reason for going into business is to make money.

He's paid the amount of tax he is required to.

Nothing more to report here.

I thought he was on trial for bribery, not tax dodging?

I thought STW was full of rabid lefties? This thread mostly consists of people congratulating Bernie Ecclestone (and Vodafone etc) on their masterful tax avoidance.

Just because it's legal (and that's debatable) it doesn't make it right.

I think the TV programme was pretty clear. He's used a tax scheme+bribery+pressure to avoid paying enormous amounts of tax and live in utter, ridiculous luxury.

You either think that's fine or it's obscene.

Before the programme I thought he was just a straight-talking wheeler dealer. Now I think something else.

Whereas the HMRC said they would have pursued for more if they could. Was the tax scheme legal? If so then what he did was legal.

There are abusive tax avoidance schemes that are only open to the already super rich that flirt with illegality. The resources they have available to facilitate this are far greater than those that HMRC have to prevent it.

Good thing there's a load of enthusiastic cheerleaders to tell everyone that this is absolutely fine.

Bang on grum.

If you are PAYE on £18K there aren't many "legal" offshore schemes available to launder your money.

I know it's simplistic and the legislation was obviously full of loop hole but why not make the law on tax liability simple and blunt. You earn x amount through working/selling etc you owe y% to tax man. Which is pretty much how us lower echelons operate.

If you don't like the tax system and don't think you should pay the y% then feel free to hand in your passport at the port of exit.

Oh and according to R4 it take Eccleston about 6 weeks to earn £10million in interest.

Fix the loopholes then, thats the simple way of sorting the problem. It's back to the technicalities etc. if you have followed the rules as set out then what more should you do?

I'm not commenting on the morality of the situation more the fact that we have designed a tax system complex enough and full of enough holes to allow let this happen.

I also knew of plenty of guys on under £30k running IR35 scams claiming their pet dog as a guard dog etc. as an alternative to PAYE.

Fix the loopholes then, thats the simple way of sorting the problem. It's back to the technicalities etc. if you have followed the rules as set out then what more should you do?

The rich powerful people who fund political parties and have power and influence wouldn't like that.

[i]The resources they have available to facilitate this are far greater than those that HMRC have to prevent it. [/i]

Well, they certainly spend a lot of our money doing their role:

HMRC’s accounts for 2011-12. It costs £3,705 million to run HMRC that year of which the biggest cost by far was people, at a cost of £2,371 million. There were 67,000 staff.

And if anyone has a bottomless pit for legal expenses, it's the Govt.

Are there parallels in
MP expenses.. legal to claim but seen to be lacking moral compass
Amazon / Costa etc complying with the law but seen to avoid corproration tax
Maria Miller and the second home saga ..

If Bernie complied with the current legislation as set up by HMRC then what is the problem ?

I like Bernie.

Let's view this simply in a way everyone should be able to understand.

You have £500 in your wallet.

Taxman says to you "Please can I have £200, but you only legally have to give me £100"

Can you HONESTLY say you would volunteer the extra money to the taxman that you legally don't have to?

It really is that simple.

Subjectively, some people on here may not like that a rich man has more money than them - but the facts are that he has legally paid what he is legally obliged to. Why should he hand over a penny more than he has to? I know I wouldn't.

It's really not that simple at all. Tax avoidance on this level is a massive grey area employing highly complex schemes that are constantly pushing the boundaries of what could be considered legal.

Let's view this simply in a way everyone should be able to understand.

Why do people have to oversimplify complex issues - can't you understand anything more complicated?

Yes, Grum it is complex but when the people who make up the rules are not even confident in taking someone to court to enforce what they thought it meant it's not a good sign.

some people on here may not like that a rich man has more money than them

Can you HONESTLY say you would volunteer the extra money to the taxman that you legally don't have to?

Obviously those who set out to amass great personal wealth rarely care about anyone else whence why we need to do something about it

Oh and according to R4 it take Eccleston about 6 weeks to earn £10million in interest.

6 weeks is about 1000 hours, or to put it another way, that's £10k/hour,
or, £166/minute.

It quite literally is not worth his time and effort to pick up a £50 note if he dropped it.

Yes, Grum it is complex but when the people who make up the rules are not even confident in taking someone to court to enforce what they thought it meant it's not a good sign.

It is not that simple, what tends to happen is the commercial world has changed since the rules were originally drafted and a scenario that was not envisaged is the matter of the dispute. Alternatively, the drafters were not aware of how the rules would work when confronted by certain types of transactions.

You then have to add the international dimension, where each country has developed their legislation separately such that two countries may treat the same transaction in a completely different way.

HMRC has quite a few tools to combat tax avoidance thanks to the last and the present governments, and as a result,there has been a substantial reduction in the "industry". However, until there is international co-operation there are always going to be opportunities and to give the present government their due, they are trying to address this.

My educated guess is that Ecclestone planning was premised on the fact that his former wife is a non dom.

I can honestly say that if i was a billionaire who earned 10 million interest every 6 weeks I would not try and minimise my tax burden for personal gain as I would realise i did not really need the money and I had some responsibility to those less fortunate than me.

that 10 million interest every 6 weeks... was that from his own (taxed) earnings, or from the trust fund that was set up by someone else with someone else's cash in a different country?

I guess you could argue he's the same.

We are talking about a man who also bribes folk but only so they dont blackmail him with a lie apparently and then pays 10 million to HMRC despite not owing them anything

Read into that what you wish.

and then pays 10 million to HMRC despite not owing them anything

IIRC I pay about 20 weeks of work to HMRC.

Maybe he views 6 weeks earnings in tax as a fairly low cost way of avoiding getting banged up.