[Closed] The Panama Papers.

I mean that he's not accountable, not only for his fathers financial arrangements, but for anything else his parents did.
Woody Harrelsons father was reportedly a hitman, not really woodies fault.

Camerons snrs' actions are in the public interest but you can't blame CMD for it.

why do so many people have such an obvious aversion to paying tax

Camerons snrs' actions are in the public interest but you can't blame CMD for it.

That being the case, is it reasonable to blame him for not being more open about it?

How many spin doctors have been involved in what has been revealed so far?

That being the case, is it reasonable to blame him for not being more open about it?

Blame is interesting word...I'm not blaming him for anything.

However, it's hardly democratic when money gets you into positions of power...so Cameron snr accumulated lots of wealth unethically, that undoubtedly contributed towards making Cameron jnr Prime Minister...and then, as an MP Cameron jnr would have been in a powerful position to influence policy that may well have benifitted Cameron snr's unethical wealth aaccumulation..all very mucky imo...

I don't care about it now and I wouldn't have cared about it if he'd somehow slipped it into conversation on PMQs or whatever.

Let's assume for a moment that like many other offshore investors, the Cameron family fortune was based on Criminal ventures, be that Arms deals, Drugs deals or Human Trafficking.

Of course, it may be that for the most part, the Cameron Empire kept their hands clean (aside from the odd arms deal by Dave when he was rising through the ranks, or a bit of networking by his brother Alexander), yet their funds were being used for such activity...

All hypothetical of course (unless the Carroll Trust allegations in my post above prove true), but would it change your opinion?

As I said @mefty we can agree to disagree

I would love to, but you are all over the place a bit like our very own poundland Donald Trump. You post an article bemoaning Barry O'Bama's, Irish problem again, lack of action which supports my contention that it is predominately the US that have been deprived of tax revenue. Of course ignoring, Washington has been in gridlock on this along with many other issues for ages because no party has complete power.

How 'ethical' are the investments made by Blairmore going to be, a corporate that clearly has no valid moral compass?
Arms? Drugs? Corrupt regimes? Mining? Asset stripping from weak national economies..?
Remember, Cameron still 'controls' this entity, regardless of whatever its accounts might indicate. It uses placed men to help pretend that control & management are not located in the UK.

All hypothetical of course (unless the Carroll Trust allegations in my post above prove true), but would it change your opinion?

Corrr blimey..

Some of you are better at investigative reporting than investigative reporters..

Thought about a change of career?

Greed. Pure and simple. Greed and a sense of entitlement.

Or a belief that the 'government' won't spend it wisely and that corruption abounds, which continues to be proved especially considering the present unsurprising revelations.

Oh brilliant!

Are we all allowed to suspend our tax payments until we resolve that one then? Maybe we can pop by one afternoon and audit random government departments? Failing that, has tax become an opt out for all of us then? Or just the rich and corporates? 🙄

It'd be ironic, wouldn't it? The head of the government using a lack of faith in that government to justify tax avoidance?

Or a belief that the 'government' won't spend it wisely and that corruption abounds

😆 😆 😆

Comments like that prove that Some people live on planet nutbrain.

Or a belief that the 'government' won't spend it wisely and that corruption abounds

Can someone explain where the illegality/immorality lies with Blairmore? Which tax has been avoided?

Presumably the funds into the vehicle were post tax, then capital gains accrue in the vehicle and don't get much if any tax. However, the beneficiaries would get taxed if they crystallised any gains back into the UK (as long as declared).

What am I missing?

It's an investment vehicle, based in a nil tax zone. It trades in investments, makes profits and also gains, which are not taxed. Cameron claims to have no shares in it, so he has nothing to declare now or if it is wound up. But where does the value contained therein go? This company is a significant part of the family's wealth. What does he own, which owns something else/5 times removed that owns Blairmore..?
This is, after all, exactly the business model of the Panamanian/BVI etc avoidance specialists, to disconnect the UK resident natural person from the profits and proceeds. He has other wealth and need not draw on this source at present, keeping the whole thing at distant arms' length.
Look very carefully at the words used in the Downing street statements and think about what has not been said. And yes, some people do investigate things for a living.

That doesn't answer my question though - assuming Cameron was a beneficiary, how would he benefit from the capital gains in the vehicle without paying some tax (making the reasonable assumption he declared all income in his tax return).

Or a belief that the 'government' won't spend it wisely and that corruption abounds, which continues to be proved especially considering the present unsurprising revelations.

So, you act corruptly because you're trying to end corruption 🙂

That's the point, especially if you don't need to realise it here and now. If you can afford to, you can sit tight with your current income, future consultancies and directorships; Cameron as an example is completely sorted for the rest of his days, before considering the family investments. Anyway, if you wanted to realise it as a cash asset, you simply use the capital value of the vehicle to borrow elsewhere; receiving a 'loan' is not income.. UK trust law is some of the most porous in the world.

Or a belief that the 'government' won't spend it wisely and that corruption abounds, which continues to be proved especially considering the present unsurprising revelations.

With that fantastic logic you may as well drop litter, as someone else will be. Or steal from old ladies, as someone else has....

That makes sense re using it as loan collateral thanks.

Edit: but would that be legal? Plus you'd need to repay the loan, or would you just default and the lender takes the vehicle? Seems to lack substance but I'm not au fait with tax law in that area.

Going back to my original question, assuming everything is done legally (I.e avoidance not evasion) where is the lost tax to the UK exchequer? Is it the CG that would otherwise have been taxed? Isn't it just being deferred rather than avoided because it will have to be suffered on eventual remittance?

I wish the Guardian et al would actually explain this rather than printing click bait about whic famous people have some tenuous overseas investment.

Can someone explain where the illegality/immorality lies with Blairmore? Which tax has been avoided?

It depends on exactly when, but basically it pretended to be an overseas controlled company such that it wasn't subject to UK taxes. However, as it was controlled by UK citizens in the UK (by proxy using 'fake' local directors who just sign off everything), it should have been subject to UK tax laws.

They've been clamping down on this a lot over the years, getting stricter and stricter, so exactly how illegal it was and when would require some digging (which is happening now).

Probably also why they moved it to Ireland at some point (I guess it was considered too illegal to continue the risk of being caught).

Personally if I was Cameroon, I'd walk and take the money (if he has as much as everyone accuses) with me. Wether he's a goody or a bady why put up with this s..t from people. It'll be the same for Corbean when he makes it in, like the leader of any party, crap will be published true or not because some people hate you for what you represent. Why would anyone be a politician these days.

I starting to feel sorry for some of these MP and that cannot be right!

Personally if I was Cameroon, I'd walk and take the money (if he has as much as everyone accuses)

I just love the unfortunate/ironic choice of name - BLAIRmore - so many jokes just in that

I think CMD has got into the classic politicians pickle of not being straight from the start. yesterday's statement as noted ^ merely adds to the suspicions. they never learn do they?

they never learn do they?

He was so infuriated that the plebs dared to question his integrity, he couldn't find the words...

Binners raises the issue of paying tax being only a choice for the rich and corporates, the reality is if you are a small corporate and can afford £2k to spend with a good accountant just about anyone can avoid significant tax both personal and corporation and as i have said before plenty folks on here will be doing £8k salary and dividends and using the other half's "allowance" and then justifying it by saying "well i am taking the risk" in reality the overall tax take in this country is very low as we are all now running £10k + tax free allowances (not that long ago you £3k) Dividends, Corporate Tax avoidance (at all levels) and a whole raft of other ways of simply not paying/offsetting (work in Progress anyone?)tax (or NI for that matter) - those in glass houses...oops forgot to add Directors loans

i have said before plenty folks on here will be doing £8k salary and dividends and using the other half's "allowance" and then justifying it by saying "well i am taking the risk"

Again, they have clamped down a lot on 'fake' contractors aka the IR35 issue.

If can genuinely set up as a Ltd company, then you're doing nothing illegal, so it's not tax avoidance.

You could also complain about pension tax relief, I've avoided the 40% bracket by paying everything over 40% into my pension for the last 3 years. Although it will be subject to tax when I draw down in 20+ years....

plenty folks on here will be doing £8k salary and dividends and using the other half's "allowance"

im sure the majority dont though

[quote=footflaps said]
Again, they have clamped down a lot on 'fake' contractors aka the IR35 issue.
If can genuinely set up as a Ltd company, then you're doing nothing illegal, so it's not tax avoidance.

It is tax avoidance, why do you think people do it ?

If there was a random sample of UK Ltd companies and a random sample of offshore shell companies, which do you think would have more links to the criminal underworld of Arms trafficking?

i agree the majority wont but there are a lot of businesses out there (legal and law, any form of LLP etc.) that run this way, IR35 etc. has cracked down on the one person LTDs i am just making the point that plenty of people do this sort of thing who are not multi millionaires - forgot to mention entrepreneurs allowance for the sale of a business - there's loads of legal ways around paying tax.

Personally if I was Cameroon, I'd walk and take the money (if he has as much as everyone accuses) with me. Wether he's a goody or a bady why put up with this s..t from people. It'll be the same for Corbean when he makes it in, like the leader of any party, crap will be published true or not because some people hate you for what you represent. Why would anyone be a politician these days.

I starting to feel sorry for some of these MP and that cannot be right!

The specifics of this case are rather more nuanced...

1. The UK is financially in a very very poor place: look at the national debt and the current account deficit, and then also look at the costs of looking after and ageing and unhealthy nation (obesity)
2. The UK government provides services for the electorate in return for taxes
3.These taxes are particularly needed right now as a) we're skint, b) we have more need of them than ever before (so it's a very bad time to be skint)
4. A large amount of this desperately needed tax is being deliberately avoided by people. They know what their legal obligations are, they know people worse off than them desperately need it, but they avoid it...
5. Our Prime Minister says he understands all this and he is going to do something about it. Sound like progress to me....
6.And then we find out his own father was playing these games. The liklihood of our PM not gaining from these games is highly unlikely
7. This looks like a major conflict of interest. The very very big problem looks unlikely to be resolved... NHS carries on struggling, pensions continue to get cut etc etc etc
8. The obvious way for this conflict of interest is for someone else to be in charge of solving this particular problem

There's more to this than attacking a politician because we don't like him....

It is tax avoidance, why do you think people do it ?

Sometimes going Ltd is the only way to get the work. I don't know to be fair what extent of contractors are doing it for this reason but going PAYE on a fixed term contract isn't always an option...

PAYE also means you're stuck with one client at a time, Ltd allows you to work for one client 4 days a week, say, and another client on the 5th (or 6th and 7th if you want)

There's more to this than attacking a politician because we don't like him....

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-phillips/david-cameron-taxes_b_9622288.html ]Sums it up for me[/url]

Broess is right we have a tax avoidance culture

Can someone explain where the illegality/immorality lies with Blairmore? Which tax has been avoided?

Do yu really think they were unsuccessful in the aim?

assuming everything is done legally (I.e avoidance not evasion) where is the lost tax to the UK exchequer?

INheritance tax seems to be one area as the "assets" are held by opaque companies - its independent on paper- but in reality you gave it to your kids

.And then we find out his own father was playing these games

Expecting Dave to sort this out is like thinking Mike ashley is the man to sort out zero hours contracts ad workers conditions at the hands of exploitative owners

Grnated Dave will do a much better PR job of his task.

The obvious way for this conflict of interest is for someone else to be in charge of solving this particular problem

But everyone has a conflict of interest as we all either benefit from receiving or minimizing taxes. Even lefties like Tony Benn set out to minimise their tax. The state needs to do a better carrot and stick job.

The UK is financially in a very very poor place: look at the national debt

Who is the national debt owed to?

What are the bets a significant percentage of the national debt is owed to offshore interests, or at least those involved in offshore finance?

4. A large amount of this desperately needed tax is being deliberately avoided by people. They know what their legal obligations are, they know people worse off than them desperately need it, but they avoid it...

Unless you mean evasion, which is entirely different.

I'm sure they do know their legal obligations, and avoiding tax is legal by definition.

Unless you mean evasion, which is entirely different.

No, it's not entirely different: avoidance and evasion can both land you with a tax bill and a fine.

Imagine how fast the laws would change if all the disgusting plebs starting doing it, your wages payed to an off-shore holding company.

Except PAYE is designed to prevent it and is not optional for most. Effectively your employer is a government tax collection agent, they even get to pay for the accounting process, hence why they (large employers/gang masters) for the most part are in the inner circle and get treated with kid gloves.

I predict, in typical British being seen to be doing something style, small time tax evaders will be publically hammered, while it will be business as usual for the old boys.

I reckon you're bang on there. They hope.

This mob have made a lot of noise about combatting tax avoidance, but have actually DONE pretty much **** all! Apart from some headline grabbing token gestures.

But this is the least of Dave's worries. What's also going to come out here, as all this info is digested, is the enormous sums of dirty money making its way, via Panama, into The City and the ridiculous London property market.all that money that those Tory Party diners haven't been asking any questions about. Would anyone seriously believe that The City is any more ethical than Panama? Or that they just wear better suits?

A British Virgin Island Registered Business is £1000, you probably don't need much property or money to make a saving.

The only reason average Jo doesn't take advantage is because the advisors wont get out of bed for less than 5% of 100k.

But everyone has a conflict of interest

Secondly it is pretty hard to think of anyone more tarnished than Dave hence your "we all do it appeal".
We dont and even if we do his family are the Olympians of tax avoidance

Your "defence" is a weak attack on everyone else rather a defence of his probity

Not everyone has engaged in tax avoidance. I have never done anything

No. No and No

Arms for terror? Afghan Opium? Romanian kids?

Yes, Yes and Yes
But only because the Queen ordered me to and she controls everything, everyone knows that 😉

Excellent, can probably get you a tidy job in government... can you wear a suit and talk guff?

Play down the Queen thing though, it's probably best not too many folk get wise to that 😉

I am disappointed that,after all these years, you need to ask about my ability to talk guff
I can wear a suit but I look like I have a court appearance to go to.

@mefty no reply as surprise surprise I have had better things to do. The fact is Apple dodges taxes everywhere, if it paid corporate tax in the US (40% I believe vs our 25%) that would be one thing but it doesn't. It pays pretty much zero everywhere. I would change the law to make them pay tax in the UK on UK sales and the associated very large profits, that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules. If faced with a choice of paying UK tax at 25% or US taxes at 40% I think you'd find them willing and able to pay UK tax on UK sales and profits.

Imagine how fast the laws would change if all the disgusting plebs starting doing it, your wages payed to an off-shore holding company.

"What price for cash ?" Cash in hand plumbers, electricians, odd jobs, builders, car repairs etc

Anyone who has setup and runs a business enjoys substantial tax benefits vs those who work PAYE, so are the business people tax evaders ?

In my view people here are really missing the point. We have in full view billions and billions of tax being evaded by companies in full view year in year out and its getting worse and we are doing nothing about it allowing companies to play off one government (be that Ireland, Luxembourg etc) against others to deprive everyone of the taxesa that should be paid.

At least today Obama stood up and stopped the tax inversion Pfizer was doing with a much smaller Irish company. These are 100% tax avoidance deals where Pfizer moves its hq to Ireland in order to avoid US taxes.

I understand people are angry at what they believe is "rampant" tax evasion by "the rich" but imho its a drop in the very large ocean of coporate tax evasion.

Inheritance tax, "reprehensable" to avoid by setting up an offshore trust but "salt of the earth" if the money or assets are gifted 7 years or more before death ?

This debate is completely along political lines, people are ignorin the scale of evasion right in front of their eyes with their vision clouded by what they suspect is going on behind closed doors.
.

that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules

Anyone who has setup and runs a business enjoys substantial tax benefits vs those who work PAYE, so are the business people tax evaders ?

No.

I understand people are angry at what they believe is "rampant" tax evasion by "the rich" but imho its a drop in the very large ocean of coporate tax evasion

Shirley corporate tax avoidance and tax havens are all part of the same issue

I can see no one saying that they are happy with that, there have been many threads about the subject on here

Just last month.....
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/googles-tax-bill

The concern is that a PM who has gained immeasurably from his father actively stashing cash off shore, whilst hammering the least well off in society is gonna do sweet fanny adams about it

Not everyone has engaged in tax avoidance. I have never done anything

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Pensions aren't tax avoidance, they are tax deffering, you get taxed when you take the income (although currently 25% can be taken tax free, although I don't expect that to last).

EDIT to my above post:

EDIT: This along with your Ireland/Luxembourg (which I assume you add in for some kind of perceived "balance") obsession, is another one you continuously drop into threads. You realise how much less of this goes on these days don't you? In fact, IIRC, the UK's "black" economy is the lowest in the OECD. Of course, the "black" economy is not solely down to the tradespeople who seem to be on your hate-radar.

Personally, I have not been paid in cash for...I dunno, I can't actually remember...I do get offered it sometimes though - in an attempt to get me to give a discount for evading tax - all at my risk of course. 🙂

To give an example, I'm currently working on a massive site - judging from the car park, there must be 100-ish various different guys and girls on site. All of them, not directly employed by their contractor will have a flat 20% deducted from their invoices under CIS and will have to ask the tax man for any overpaid tax back at the end of the year - because that is how a large section of the construction community works these days. That's how approx 90% of my invoices are paid every year.

Of course, there is always the argument that a mixed market economy such as we have, needs a bit of "black" cash flowing around - to grease the cogs, so to speak. I'm not sure of the rights and wrongs of that myself, but there you go. A guy down the pub told me while I was buying a round - paid for by card, as I hadn't taken any cash that week.

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

Next!

I dunno, I imagine he'll say the same thing again on the next page.

[quote=ransos ]
Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

Even if the bike isn't used to cycle to work ?

One bloke on here has bought 4 bikes on the C2W scheme. Piss take or prefectly legit ?

Even if the bike isn't used to cycle to work ?

Then the instrument is not being used for its intended purpose.

Instruments for their intended purpose. Next!

So it's the EU to the rescue...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/britain-under-pressure-opposition-tax-haven-blacklist

Avoiding tax. Exactly.

Well, no. The HMRC has never required me to disclose details of my workplace pension.

Pension? Cycle to work scheme? ISA?

Are people who earn under the personal allowance Tax Avoiders too?

The concern is that a PM who has gained immeasurably from his father actively stashing cash off shore, whilst [b]ham[/b]mering the least well off in society is gonna do sweet fanny adams about it

I see what you did there, and approve

Well, no. The HMRC has never required me to disclose details of my workplace pension.

Probably because your work declare it all for you. As to how joined up it all is, no idea.

I would change the law to make them pay tax in the UK on UK sales and the associated very large profits, that would require us to be outside the EU as there is very little we can do presently under EU rules.

Jolly good, what about all those tedious Double Tax Conventions that impose exactly the same obligations on us thus taking away your ability to do this? You probably want to rip those up and destroy one of the most internationalist economies in the world. That is the fundamental problem with many Brexiters, they don't understand our other international obligations.

On evasion vs avoidance, evasion requires there to be a lack of disclosure, i.e. if the taxing authority was aware then you would have been taxed.

Avoidance is very difficult to define. Whilst the term is defined for specific provisions of tax law, there is no overarching legal term of art. What I would say is that it is all very well saying it is what was intended, how do you judge that other than through the law itself. For every tax avoider, there is your innocent trader whose tax inspector gets the wrong end of the stick and who, if he/she is given too much power can bankrupt that trader even when no at fault. This happens - giving too many powers to tax inspectors has similar civil liberty issues to the ones that get all the media attention.

On Cameron, just a few points:

(i) It is not a trust it is a company;
(ii) It is not a private fund for the Camerons, his father was a money manager who looked after other people's money;
(iii) there is substanitial anti avoidance law for offshore funds of this type and whilst initially when set up it would have had significant advantages, many will have gone in the interim;
(iv) it was transferred to Dublin in 2012 when Smith and Williamson it under their wing and it became a UCITS for EU directive purposes.
(v) All this has been known and in the public domain for years.

mefty don't go coming on here with your so called facts - what is the rabbit pitch fork wielding mob supposed to do now? You'll be telling us that the multi-millionaire previous leader of the Labour party engaged in some interesting property tax planning next...

(i) It is not a trust it is a company;
(ii) It is not a private fund for the Camerons, his father was a money manager who looked after other people's money;
(iii) there is substanitial anti avoidance law for offshore funds of this type and whilst initially when set up it would have had significant advantages, many will have gone in the interim;
(iv) it was transferred to Dublin in 2012 when Smith and Williamson it under their wing and it became a UCITS for EU directive purposes.
(v) All this has been known and in the public domain for years.

i) no ones said its a trust (apart from jambs)
ii) so camerons inheritence was simply profit from a man who helped people avoid paying UK tax
iii) and how much tax was denied to HMRC?
iv) as the company's own internal doccuments show (see the telegraph) it was moved to Dublin because they knew it would be a problem for cameron jr, once he was PM
v) while its known that Ian cameron had >than 10k offshore in Jersey, some of which dave inherited, it wasnt known how much he had in Panama

rabbit pitch fork

For dubble da laydeeez

(i) Someone else alluded to it.
(ii) Perhaps, without knwing who the investors were we have no idea;
(iii) See ii
(iv) It says a source close to the company, no documentary evidence and it conflicts with the info [url= http://www.trustnetoffshore.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=NWBH&univ=DC ]here[/url]
(v) We know a will was registered in Jersey, no information on beneficiaries, and certainly no information on how much he has invested in his managed fund in Panama (actually the Bahamas for residence purposes) if anything.

I was thinking more

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

So the take home is that no one knows who his dad helped stash money for, how much they might have hidden from hmrc, why it was moved to Ireland, or how much of it benefited our PM because it's all kept secret from the electorate, and the taxman....

[img] [/img]

You forgot the bit about possible links to Embezzlement and Asset stripping of a successful company as a means of consolidating control of the Arms trade by a shadowy international cabal.

Seriously, just read this (non fiction) book, it's only a couple of quid:

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Interest-Devastating-Governments-Manufacturer/dp/0316877190 ]In the Public Interest: A Devastating Account of the Thatcher Government's Involvement in the Covert Arms Trade[/url]

Bear in mind it details the same methods and players (BAE and Midland Bank (later HSBC)) as mentioned in relation to the Carroll Trust, which is alleged to have involved Blairmore:

Further sources have revealed that Gerald Carroll’s Farnborough Aerospace Aerospace Centre in Hampshire England was “targeted” by BAE Systems and HSBC International within the framework of a systematic break-up embezzlement operation

Fair bit about Arms to Iraq and Al-Yamamah in there too...

Probably because your work declare it all for you. As to how joined up it all is, no idea.

That was my point, really. Systems are set up to administer and monitor instruments being used for their intended purpose. It's very different from the disclosure requirements under DOTAS, where the HMRC is seeking to establish if the tax avoidance is contrary to the intention of the legislation. As Gary Barlow would tell you...

Avoiding tax. Exactly.

Wrong.

Tax relief on pensions, savings and C2W are schemes designed by the government to use the tax regime in an attempt to influence behaviour. The govt is at liberty to do this - exactly the same as tax on cigarettes and alcohol (and the rest of the Oasis back catalogue) but in the opposite direction.

Entirely different from registering a company operating primarily in the UK somewhere other than the UK to avoid incurring tax payable by companies registered in the UK. There is no government scheme for this.

Arguments like "it's all tax avoidance, there's no difference" are reductive, wilfully simplistic and serve only to allow those who aren't playing by the rules to wriggle off the hook. I couldn't care less about pop stars or actors or whatever, but the fact that the very same people given the responsibility of ensuring adherence to tax rules have themselves benefited - and in many cases are still benefiting - from deliberate avoidance or transgression of those rules is outrageous.

David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged.

In a 2013 letter to the then president of the European council, Herman Van Rompuy, the prime minister said that trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency requirements as companies.

The EU planned to shine a light on the dealings of offshore bodies by publishing a central register of their ultimate owners but, in a letter unearthed by the Financial Times that remains publicly available on the government’s website, Cameron said: “It is clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts … This means that the solution for addressing the potential misuse of companies – such as central public registries – may well not be appropriate generally.”

Judith Sargentini, a Dutch MEP who led the European parliament’s work on the draft law, told the Financial Times that the UK’s argument against a crackdown on trusts was that it would be an invasion of privacy - and that trusts have a special role in Britain in helping families manage issues around inheritance.

“I saw it [the British position] as a danger and a possible loophole,” Sargentini

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013 ]Cameron intervenes to prevent EU making offshore trusts more transparent[/url]