PDA

View Full Version : Tony Blair and the £8million tax 'mystery'



AtW
8th January 2012, 00:35
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01553/tony_blair_1553707c.jpg

Official accounts show a company set up by Mr Blair to manage his business affairs paid just £315,000 in tax last year on an income of more than £12 million. In that time, he employed 26 staff and paid them total wages of almost £2.3 million.

The accounts provide the strongest evidence yet of the huge sums generated by Mr Blair through his various activities since quitting Downing Street in June 2007.

He runs a business consultancy - Tony Blair Associates - which has deals with the governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan among others and is a paid adviser to JP Morgan, an American investment bank, and to Zurich International, a global insurance company based in Switzerland. Mr Blair makes a further £100,000 a time from speeches and lectures while also presiding over a number of charities including a faith foundation.

Mr Blair has previously been criticised for cashing in on contacts made in Downing Street and these accounts will likely add to those concerns.

The documents also reveal that in the two years until March 31 last year, Mr Blair’s management company had a total turnover of more than £20 million and paid tax of about £470,000.

The scale of Mr Blair’s finances are shown in accounts lodged by Windrush Ventures Limited, just one of a myriad of companies and partnerships set up by the former prime minister. Windrush Ventures Ltd’s “principal activity” is the “provision of management services” to Mr Blair’s various other interests.

The accounts for the 12 months to March 31 were lodged with Companies House in the week between Christmas and New Year and made publicly available for the first time last week. Previously the accounts have contained almost no information because Windrush was classified as a small company. This time auditors appear to have been obliged to divulge more information because of the amount of money being handled.

The accounts show a turnover of £12.005 million and administrative expenses of £10.919 million, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of just over £1 million, on which Mr Blair paid tax of £315,000. The tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 28 per cent.

Of those expenses, £2.285 million went on paying 26 employees at an average salary of almost £88,000. Windrush Ventures also pays £550,000 a year to rent Mr Blair’s offices in Grosvenor Square, a stone’s throw from the US embassy in Mayfair in central London and a further sum of about £300,000 on office equipment and furniture. But those costs amount to a little more than £3 million, meaning almost £8 million of “administrative expenditure” is unexplained in the accounts.

It is not known from the accounts what happened to that huge sum.

Tax specialists who have studied the accounts have told The Sunday Telegraph that the tax paid in 2010 of £154,000 and £315,000 in 2011 appears low because costs have been offset against the administrative costs, which remain largely unexplained.

One City accountant, who did not wish to be named, said: “It is very difficult to see what these administrative costs could be. It is a very large amount for a business like this. I am sure it is legitimate but it is certainly surprising.

“The tax bill of £315,000 is explained by the large administrative costs that are being treated as tax allowable.”

Richard Murphy, a charted accountant who runs Tax Research LLP and has studied Mr Blair’s company accounts, said: “There is about £8 million which we don’t know where it goes. That money is unexplained. There is no indication at all why the administration costs are so high. What has happened to about £8 million which is being offset against tax?”

There is no suggestion that Mr Blair’s tax affairs are anything other than legitimate. His accounts are audited by KPMG, one of the world’s biggest accountancy firms. Mr Blair presides over 12 different legal entities, handling the millions of pounds he has received since leaving office. Another set of companies, which are run in parallel to Windrush Ventures, are called Firerush Ventures and appear to operate in exactly the same, oblique way.

The money paid into Windrush Ventures Ltd largely comes from Windrush Ventures No. 3 Limited Partnership, which appears to be where money is deposited before being spread around other companies, ultimately in Mr Blair’s ownership. The limited partnership does not have to disclose publicly any accounts allowing its activities to remain secret.

Mr Murphy said last night: “It is in the limited partnership where things really happen. But that is the one Mr Blair keeps secret. We don’t know how much money is in the LP. It is completely hidden. The question is why is Tony Blair running such as a completely secretive organisation?”

A spokesman for Mr Blair said last night: “The Windrush accounts are prepared in accordance with the relevant legal, accounting and regulatory guidance. Tony Blair continues to be a UK taxpayer on all of his income and all of his companies are UK registered for tax purposes.”

The spokesman added that the accounts did not relate to any of Mr Blair’s charitable activities, which raised money separately as independently registered charities.

The spokesman chose not to explain what happened to about £8 million of administrative expenses.

Source: Tony Blair and the £8million tax 'mystery' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8999890/Tony-Blair-and-the-8million-tax-mystery.html)

What a right :winker:

Paddy
8th January 2012, 00:40
Talk of the devil, I was just discussing the issue with my mates this afternoon. Glad to see this issue raised again.

NotAllThere
8th January 2012, 05:39
The accounts show a turnover of £12.005 million and administrative expenses of £10.919 million, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of just over £1 million, on which Mr Blair paid tax of £315,000. The tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 28 per cent.Mr Blair didn't pay any tax on the profit. His company did.

Just looked at co.house. There's Windrush Ventures Ltd, Windrush Ventures No. 1 Ltd, Windrush Ventures No. 3 LP and Windrush Ventures No. 2 LLP. All registered at the same address.

AtW
8th January 2012, 15:05
Just looked at co.house. There's Windrush Ventures Ltd, Windrush Ventures No. 1 Ltd, Windrush Ventures No. 3 LP and Windrush Ventures No. 2 LLP. All registered at the same address.

10 Downing St?

DodgyAgent
8th January 2012, 15:34
He is the epitome of the so called "caring socialist". He was voted in because he wore the "I am a socialist" badge and "I care about the poor" (you can just hear the happy clappy leftie liberals :yay::yay::yay::yay: ) , an image supported by that revolting hypocrite of a wife of his.
The poor were pleased to be rid of the Torys and many middle classes were duped into thinking "we have a caring one here" - the perfect middle ground between the Tories and the left.

Nope not a bit of it. What we have is another self serving liar who is the epitome of the middle class liberal left. HE doesnt need to be as aggressive or openly kleptocratic as Robert Mugabe, he has done exactly the same as Mugabe but with so much more subtlety

To give him his due he admired what Thatcher did, preserved her reforms, spun a bit of "social caring" around them and got on with the job of fooling all the Tw*ts who voted for him.

Doggy Styles
8th January 2012, 15:39
His company didn't pay much tax either.
Income £12 million: Profit £1 million, tax paid £315,000

Allowable admin expenses claimed:

£3 million explained in the accounts (wages, offices, etc)
£8 million not explained, but still no tax was paid on it


Can we all do this please, Mr Taxman?

doodab
8th January 2012, 15:41
He was voted in because he wore the "I am a socialist" badge and "I care about the poor" (you can just hear the happy clappy leftie liberals :yay::yay::yay::yay: ) , an image supported by that revolting hypocrite of a wife of his.

He was voted in because nobody could stand any more Tory sleaze and corruption, they made themselves unelectable. They would have voted for Kinnock or Millipede if they had been the alternative at the time.

Doggy Styles
8th January 2012, 15:43
He was voted in because nobody could stand any more Tory sleaze and corruption, they made themselves unelectable. They would have voted for Kinnock or Millipede if they had been the alternative at the time.So instead of Tory sleaze and corruption they got... :laugh

Serves them right!

DodgyAgent
8th January 2012, 15:49
He was voted in because nobody could stand any more Tory sleaze and corruption, they made themselves unelectable. They would have voted for Kinnock or Millipede if they had been the alternative at the time.

What Tory sleaze? The odd grand here and there. It was another red herring as was shown by the ensuing labour party who at least took sleaze to six figure levels.
I will however agree that the Tories were tired and in need of a kicking.

Paddy
8th January 2012, 16:33
What Tory sleaze? The odd grand here and there. It was another red herring as was shown by the ensuing labour party who at least took sleaze to six figure levels.
I will however agree that the Tories were tired and in need of a kicking.

History of the British Conservative Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Conservative_Party)


A number of political scandals in the 1990s (building on previous examples in the 1980s) created the impression of what is described in the British press as "sleaze": a perception, peaking towards the end of the Major era, that the Conservatives were associated with political corruption and hypocrisy. In particular the successful entrapment of Graham Riddick and David Tredinnick in the "cash for questions" scandal, the contemporaneous misconduct as a minister by Neil Hamilton (who lost a consequent libel action against The Guardian), and the convictions of former Cabinet member Jonathan Aitken and former party deputy chairman Jeffrey Archer for perjury in two separate cases leading to custodial sentences damaged the Conservatives' public reputation. Persistent unsubstantiated rumours about the activities of the party treasurer Michael Ashcroft did not help this impression.

At the same time a series of revelations about the private lives of various Conservative politicians also grabbed the headlines and both the media and the party's opponents made little attempt to clarify the distinction between financial conduct and private lives.

John Major's "Back to Basics" morality campaign back-fired on him by providing an excuse for the British media to expose "sleaze" within the Conservative Party and, most damagingly, within the Cabinet itself. A number of ministers were then revealed to have committed sexual indiscretions, and Major was forced by media pressure to dismiss them. In September 2002 it was revealed that, prior to his promotion to the cabinet, Major had himself had a longstanding extramarital affair with a fellow MP, Edwina Currie

DodgyAgent
8th January 2012, 17:44
History of the British Conservative Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Conservative_Party)

In January 1997 Mr Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, donated £1million to Labour - a donation only made public in early November after the government had announced F1 would be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising which was a key plank of the party's election manifesto. Mr Ecclestone lobbied for the exemption at a meeting at Number 10 with Mr Blair on 16 October.

DodgyAgent
8th January 2012, 17:50
In January 1997 Mr Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, donated £1million to Labour - a donation only made public in early November after the government had announced F1 would be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising which was a key plank of the party's election manifesto. Mr Ecclestone lobbied for the exemption at a meeting at Number 10 with Mr Blair on 16 October.



The difference being That the Tories coined about £3K and labour £1 million - the left do corruption much better than the Tories

Doggy Styles
8th January 2012, 17:57
History of the British Conservative Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Conservative_Party)The Tories were amateurs compared to the next lot, who had the cheek to campaign against Tory sleaze:
In late 1997 Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss, gave £1m to Labour and in return motor racing was exempted from a ban on tobacco advertising. Ecclestone's donation was returned in 1998 when the public found out about deal.
The Hinduja brothers, whilst on bail under corruption charges in India, were finally given British passports after donating more than £1m to the Millenium Dome project and the intervention of Labour minister Peter Mandelson.
In 2001 Mr Blair wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister to support Lakshmi Mittal's bid to buy their state-owned steel firm. In return Mittal donated £125,000 to the Labour party's 2001 election campaign, and has in total given £2m to the party.
In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by Tony Blair were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party, at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Levy was arrested and Blair became the first person to be interviewed by police at 10 Downing Street.
Of seven British donors who have given more than a £1m to Labour while Blair was Prime Minister, six have received honours. They include Lord Drayson, who gave £1.1m and was given a job as a Defence minister, and Lord Sainsbury of Turville, who has given Labour £16m and who became Science minister.
Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, called for a tougher standards regime and has been critical of Mr Blair for failing to implement a series of recommendations to combat sleaze.

And that's just the big ones.

AtW
8th January 2012, 18:09
All amateurs compared to Putin's mafia.

Paddy
8th January 2012, 18:16
The Tories were amateurs compared to the next lot, who had the cheek to campaign against Tory sleaze:
In late 1997 Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss, gave £1m to Labour and in return motor racing was exempted from a ban on tobacco advertising. Ecclestone's donation was returned in 1998 when the public found out about deal.
The Hinduja brothers, whilst on bail under corruption charges in India, were finally given British passports after donating more than £1m to the Millenium Dome project and the intervention of Labour minister Peter Mandelson.
In 2001 Mr Blair wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister to support Lakshmi Mittal's bid to buy their state-owned steel firm. In return Mittal donated £125,000 to the Labour party's 2001 election campaign, and has in total given £2m to the party.
In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by Tony Blair were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party, at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Levy was arrested and Blair became the first person to be interviewed by police at 10 Downing Street.
Of seven British donors who have given more than a £1m to Labour while Blair was Prime Minister, six have received honours. They include Lord Drayson, who gave £1.1m and was given a job as a Defence minister, and Lord Sainsbury of Turville, who has given Labour £16m and who became Science minister.
Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, called for a tougher standards regime and has been critical of Mr Blair for failing to implement a series of recommendations to combat sleaze.

And that's just the big ones.

I agree, both, in fact all three parties are a bunch of thieving c^nts.

The system has to change,

pjclarke
8th January 2012, 21:04
Lets not forget Dame Shirley Porter, described by Leo McKinstry as "the high priestess of Tory sleaze,", surcharged £43m for corruption offences including shoving large numbers of homeless families into a set of tower blocks which were riddled with asbestos, purely for the political goal of keeping these likely Labour voters out of marginal wards.

Sysman
8th January 2012, 22:41
History of the British Conservative Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Conservative_Party)

Yes, but as I recall they all had the decency to resign (or were told to).

The NuLabour lot just carried on as nothing had happened when they got caught out.

Paddy
8th January 2012, 22:44
Exclusive: How Blair and BP "Lied" Over Iraqi Oil (http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/51-iraq/5431-exclusive-how-blair-and-bp-lied-over-iraqi-oil)


TONY BLAIR and BP misled the public about the importance of securing lucrative oil contracts in the decision to invade Iraq, secret government documents reveal.

Shortly before the invasion in March 2003, Blair dismissed criticism that he was fighting a war for oil as an “absurd conspiracy theory”. BP had also denied holding specific talks with the government about oil opportunities once Saddam Hussein was toppled.

However, four months before the invasion, Baroness Symons, the then trade minister, told BP that the government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq’s enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Blair’s military commitment to secret US plans for regime change.

Symons also agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP’s behalf because the oil giant feared it was being “locked out” of secret “political deals” that Washington was striking ahead of the invasion with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

The minute of the meeting with BP, BG (formerly British Gas) and Shell on 31 October 2002 said: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.”

The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts. She met BP again on 5 December.

The restricted documents describing these meetings on the road to war were released under the Freedom of Information Act to oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. “It was a five-year struggle to get them, but they provide evidence of what many of us suspected: that oil was at the centre of the Blair government's thinking on Iraq,” he said.

“Not for nothing was BP known as Blair Petroleum, but Baroness Symons’ attitude sounds more like something from the Nineteenth Century. Didn’t her officials point out that under the Hague and Geneva conventions it’s illegal to fight wars for resources?" added Muttitt, whose book, Fuel on the Fire, will be published later this week.

BP also gave a presentation to one of Blair’s economic advisers on 6 November 2002 during a discussion at the Foreign Office about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. The government minutes record that: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.”

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf’s contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world’s leading oil company. BP told the government it was willing to take “big risks” to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia.

Weeks later on 6 February 2003 Blair told a television audience: “The oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons.”

Last night, Blair dismissed the content of official documents from his own time in office and denied oil was a consideration in the decison to invade Iraq. His spokesman said: “This is the stuff of ludicrous conspiracy theory without basis in fact whatsoever.”

Symons, 59, who also served as defence minister and Middle East minister in the Blair government, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid advisor to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gadaffi started firing on protestors.

SantaClaus
8th January 2012, 23:41
I agree, both, in fact all three parties are a bunch of thieving c^nts.

The system has to change,

Nothing will ever change... the system has been designed to keep the "ruling elite" and the "plebs" in their respective places.

The voting system is just there to give an illusion of "democracy".

TheFaQQer
9th January 2012, 09:42
"We must tackle abuse of the tax system"

"But since we didn't, I don't see why I shouldn't take advantage of it" - Tony Blair (implied), 2012

TheFaQQer
9th January 2012, 09:47
Yes, but as I recall they all had the decency to resign (or were told to).

Jonathan Aitken resigned so that he could prove his complete innocence using the "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play". And then tried to get his daughter to lie under oath in the court case. He since claimed bankruptcy to avoid paying the legal bills.

Neil Hamilton said that he would resign if he'd done anything wrong. Unfortunately, he lost his seat before anyone could put that theory to the test, since the Downey report wasn't published until after the election.

NotAllThere
9th January 2012, 10:11
Blair saw that he could have a political career with labour, so joined them. If he'd have been able to pull it off with the tories, then he'd have been a tory.

It was all about gaining power, having a political career. Nothing to do with deeply held convictions.

DimPrawn
9th January 2012, 10:16
Nothing will ever change... the system has been designed to keep the "ruling elite" and the "plebs" in their respective places.

The voting system is just there to give an illusion of "democracy".

Exactly. You'll never oust me an sasguru.

TheFaQQer
9th January 2012, 10:26
Blair saw that he could have a political career with labour, so joined them. If he'd have been able to pull it off with the tories, then he'd have been a tory.

It was all about gaining power, having a political career. Nothing to do with deeply held convictions.

Which is one of the reasons that the Tories hate Blair so much. If they had had someone who could do the same (kind of like how they have now, in fact), then they wouldn't have been moaning for so long about how he was all sound bite and no substance.

AtW
9th January 2012, 12:37
Nevermind his political career - why HMRC isn't on the case demanding to know why he's got so much admin expenses and why he is using so many companies which to me look totally artificial.

Paddy
9th January 2012, 12:48
Nevermind his political career - why HMRC isn't on the case demanding to know why he's got so much admin expenses and why he is using so many companies which to me look totally artificial.

Because the British are far more cleaver at corruption that the Russians. Perhaps we can run courses on how to be a corrupt Politian and still get off Scott free.