Tony Blair and the £8million tax 'mystery' Tony Blair and the £8million tax 'mystery'
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is always on top

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    54,986

    Default Tony Blair and the £8million tax 'mystery'



    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

    What a right

  2. #2

    Double Godlike!

    Paddy is a fount of knowledge

    Paddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,523

    Default

    Talk of the devil, I was just discussing the issue with my mates this afternoon. Glad to see this issue raised again.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

    我们不是病毒

  3. #3

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere is always on top

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    23,016

    Default

    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.
    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

  4. #4

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is always on top

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    54,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAllThere View Post
    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?

  5. #5

    More fingers than teeth

    DodgyAgent is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,455

    Default

    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 ) , 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.
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

  6. #6

    Godlike

    Doggy Styles is a permanent contractor


    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,818

    Default

    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?

  7. #7

    Contractor 'til I die

    doodab 's job has never been outsourced

    doodab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A bit too close to Wandsworth
    Posts
    16,164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    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 ) , 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.
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

  8. #8

    Godlike

    Doggy Styles is a permanent contractor


    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doodab View Post
    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...

    Serves them right!

  9. #9

    More fingers than teeth

    DodgyAgent is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doodab View Post
    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.
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

  10. #10

    Double Godlike!

    Paddy is a fount of knowledge

    Paddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    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

    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
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

    我们不是病毒

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •