The Guardian, Tax Avoidance and Hypocrisy

[Neil_F]

Giving that The Guardian is an oft referenced publication on this forum, I thought it would be worth highlighting some hypocrisy in their editorial stance.

We know that they are very much against tax avoidance, especially the use of offshore trusts and entities. Surely they would never use such arrangements themselves?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...47/Guardian-finds-its-duty-rather-taxing.html

Using a Cayman Islands company to acquire a UK registered company means that no stamp duty has to be paid to HMRC. If the Guardian Media Group plc, a UK entity, had acquired the company directly then stamp duty would have been due. Hence the duty was successfully avoided through the use of an entity registered in a tax haven.

Would any Guardian readers care to comment?

 

[osymandus]

Lol , i refer teh honourable gentleman to previous tax related posts I have made earlyer .
Oddly an interesting comment in the Evening standard last night as to how worried many brands are because of their customers finding out about their tax avoidance schemes (Vodafone the most highlighted at present)

 

[Rob Noxious]

Giving that The Guardian is an oft referenced publication on this forum, I thought it would be worth highlighting some hypocrisy in their editorial stance.

We know that they are very much against tax avoidance, especially the use of offshore trusts and entities. Surely they would never use such arrangements themselves?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...47/Guardian-finds-its-duty-rather-taxing.html

Using a Cayman Islands company to acquire a UK registered company means that no stamp duty has to be paid to HMRC. If the Guardian Media Group plc, a UK entity, had acquired the company directly then stamp duty would have been due. Hence the duty was successfully avoided through the use of an entity registered in a tax haven.

Would any Guardian readers care to comment?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! :smiles:

 

[Pubey]

For the Guardian to be a competitive paper, it's understandable that they tax avoid like every other paper and many other large business. If they didn't then my guess is they'd probably be out of business now. However my understanding is that their stance is that these loopholes should be removed for everyone. I've never got the feeling they were necessarily slating the businesses for exploiting them, but the govt for adding/leaving the loopholes there.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! :smiles:

absolutely

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I was under the impression that tax avoidance was quite legal whereas tax evasion is most certainly illegal.
In which case,what's the problem?

 

[Pubey]

I was under the impression that tax avoidance was quite legal whereas tax evasion is most certainly illegal.
In which case,what's the problem?

your impression is correct. The Guardian have regularly spoken out about tax avoidance which in some ways does make them a bit hypocritical

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/series/tax-gap

 

[Neil_F]

No problem at all, but then I don't write editorials condemning businesses for utilising tax avoidance measures, especially the use of offshore companies and/or trusts. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/13/structured-finance-tax

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/mar/29/leadersandreply.mainsection

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/series/tax-gap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/09/truth-about-tax-havens-two

The problem is rank hypocrisy

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Is one of the loopholes they are seeking to close the zero-rating for VAT of toilet paper (aka the Grauniad)?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Is one of the loopholes they are seeking to close the zero-rating for VAT of toilet paper (aka the Grauniad)?

Ahem.And what toilet paper do you read....?:unsure:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

your impression is correct. The Guardian have regularly spoken out about tax avoidance which in some ways does make them a bit hypocriticalQUOTE]

Fanks.Actually I wasn't asking for confirmation.I KNEW tax avoidance was legal whereas tax evasion is illegal.(Believe it or not)some of my best friends are Accountants.
Not sure you're right about The Guardian being hypocritical here.Perhaps you (and Neil F)are being a tad hypercritical?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! :smiles:

Shrimpero is right on this one.

 

[Neil_F]

How is it not hypocritical to criticise companies for using tax avoidance methods yet use the same methods yourself?

 

[MK Shrimper]

You know I completely concur with Neil_F on this one. The "if you can't beat them, join them" is a miserable excuse for a leftist paper that should be sticking to it's principals.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

How is it not hypocritical to criticise companies for using tax avoidance methods yet use the same methods yourself?

Economies of scale?
I'd wager The Guardian is avoiding a lot less tax than some of the companies they're targeting.Unethical perhaps but not illegal.
As Dylan Thomas said:-"We are not wholly bad or good
Who live our lives under Milk Wood",

 

[Neil_F]

so how much tax is it ethically acceptable to avoid?

That has never been part of their argument; they have exclusively attacked the principle of tax avoidance and the exponents of it.

I don't have a problem with it, but if the Guardian are practitioners of tax avoidance then they should adjust their editorial position and stop attacking other businesses that do the same

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

so how much tax is it ethically acceptable to avoid?

That has never been part of their argument; they have exclusively attacked the principle of tax avoidance and the exponents of it.

I don't have a problem with it, but if the Guardian are practitioners of tax avoidance then they should adjust their editorial position and stop attacking other businesses that do the same

How long is a piece of string?
As a Freelance I'd probably admit to a little(perfectly legal)tax avoidance myself.But on nothing like the scale that The Guardian is taking companies to task for.

 

[Neil_F]

I don't understand your position at all. An objection on principle is surely exactly that?

For example, Mr X does not believe in sex before marriage; he believes this on principle and he actively condemns sex before marriage and states publically that it is immoral. If he were then found to have conducted an illicit affair outside of wedlock he would be a hypocrite, yet not have broken the law. Suggesting that it didn't matter because it was only a few times is not a defence.

My point here is that The Guardian repeatedly state that the tax gap stands at £(insert figure here depending on the weather) and that by stopping tax avoidance and evasion there would be no need to cut public expenditure. Hence all tax avoiders and tax evaders are directly hurting the poor by their actions. Yet they themselves are tax avoiders. They have no credibility to lecture anyone on the subject and I don't see how such hypocrisy can be defended.

 

[Rob Noxious]

You know I completely concur with Neil_F on this one. The "if you can't beat them, join them" is a miserable excuse for a leftist paper that should be sticking to it's principals.

Despite often being referred to as 'a Trotskyite comic' (:hilarious:) on here, The Guardian is actually an old Liberal newspaper originally known as 'The Manchester Guardian' from the days of Cobden, Bright and all the old Radicals that used to hang out at Manchester Free Trade Hall. I suspect that it wouldn't continue to exist in business if it didn't apply some of the best/worst business practices. :soapbox:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I was under the impression that tax avoidance was quite legal whereas tax evasion is most certainly illegal.
In which case,what's the problem?

Good question, but one you should probably direct to the Grauniad, who are the ones who preach about it.

your impression is correct. The Guardian have regularly spoken out about tax avoidance which in some ways does make them a bit hypocriticalQUOTE]

Fanks.Actually I wasn't asking for confirmation.I KNEW tax avoidance was legal whereas tax evasion is illegal.(Believe it or not)some of my best friends are Accountants.
Not sure you're right about The Guardian being hypocritical here.Perhaps you (and Neil F)are being a tad hypercritical?

WTF?:stunned:

Ahem.And what toilet paper do you read....?

I don't read any one paper in particular. I take my information from a broad variety of sources and tend to opt for more specialist ones rather than the broadsheets which are jack of all trades and masters of none. I also try and take information from competing view points to try and gain a better understanding. Take Southend United as an example, I could opt to read about them in the Grauniad or I could opt to read about them on the official web-site, the Echo and Shrimperzone which between the three provides a much more indepth, balanced analysis for me to consider than relying on the Grauniad would. It also allows me to make my own mind up, rather than just post a link.

Economies of scale?
I'd wager The Guardian is avoiding a lot less tax than some of the companies they're targeting.Unethical perhaps but not illegal.
As Dylan Thomas said:-"We are not wholly bad or good
Who live our lives under Milk Wood",

WTF? Economies of scale would justify the banks avoiding tax, not the Grauniad.

How long is a piece of string?
As a Freelance I'd probably admit to a little(perfectly legal)tax avoidance myself. But on nothing like the scale that The Guardian is taking companies to task for.

:nope:

 

[MK Shrimper]

Despite often being referred to as 'a Trotskyite comic' (:hilarious:) on here, The Guardian is actually an old Liberal newspaper originally known as 'The Manchester Guardian' from the days of Cobden, Bright and all the old Radicals that used to hang out at Manchester Free Trade Hall. I suspect that it wouldn't continue to exist in business if it didn't apply some of the best/worst business practices. :soapbox:

Then maybe it shouldn't throw stones in glass houses?

 

[Rob Noxious]

Then maybe it shouldn't throw stones in glass houses?

Then perhaps none of us 'leftists' should own houses? :unsure: