Guido Faukes: " Shouldn't The Guardian Come Clean On Its Own Tax Avoidance?"

[Tired of Waiting]

Brilliant. According to "Guido Faukes" the (pseudo) "lefty" Guardian Media Group "holds hundreds of millions in assets in a Caymans Island domiciled offshore corporation."

And "in 2008 The Guardian made £302 million in profits and paid no corporation taxes."

Priceless...

Shouldn't the Guardian Come Clean On Its Own Tax Avoidance?

Dear Co-conspirator,

I need your help fighting left-wing hypocrisy. For months The Guardian has been attacking the City, bankers, hedge funds and companies like Barclays and Vodafone for using legal and prudent tax strategies. Over the past two days Guido's blog has revealed that the Guardian Media Group has itself hundreds of millions of pounds of assets held offshore in the Caymans and invests tens of millions in hedge funds. They have been caught hypocritically doing exactly what they condemm others for doing.

On Monday we revealed that the Guardian is guilty of exactly the same business practises it deplored Barclays doing

http://order-order.com/2011/02/21/the-guardian-uncut-and-full-of-cant/?utm_source=Guy+Fawkes%27+Blog+List&utm_campaign=b224555822-Guardian&utm_medium=email

(...)

In 2002 (under Gordon Brown, Chuka), the UK government introduced the substantial shareholdings exemption, a corporation tax exemption for UK businesses disposing of a substantial shareholding in a part of their business. The idea was that businesses should be able to restructure their businesses without having to worry about chargeable gains implications. Barclays are heavily criticised by The Guardian for using it. The last time that Guido saw this being used was by the, err, Guardian Media Group to save themselves some £60 million of taxes in 2008:

“In 2008 GMG sold half of Auto Trader publisher Trader Media Group and made an exceptional (one-off) profit of more than £300 million. No tax was payable on the return from that sale because under UK law GMG qualified for SSE”

In 2008 The Guardian made £302 million in profits and paid no corporation taxes. The CEO, Carolyn McCall, was paid an £827,000 package. Yet we don’t see the UK Uncut crowd kicking up a stink about The Guardian’s tax structures or their fat cat pay and bonuses.

Over the weekend the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger (half-a-million a year since you asked) tweeted about Barclay’s offshore holding corporations. Guardian Media Group holds hundreds of millions in assets in a Caymans Island domiciled offshore corporation.

Guido put it to the GMG press office that GMG has £223.8 million invested in an overseas/offshore hedge fund managed by Cambridge Associates which trades currency derivatives. They don’t deny it and have declined to confirm the fund’s structure for tax purposes.

Guardian readers seem to be under the illusion that it is owned by a not-for-profit charity. The Scott Trust was wound up in October 2008 and the Guardian is a for-profit-privately-owned media business, the well paid directors of which confirm in their annual accounts that they operate tax strategies in line with their fiduciary duty to the shareholders – just like any other business.

The old Scott Trust was set up in 1936 to avoid inheritance taxes and wound up in 2008 so that GMG could cynically exploit the SSE capital gains tax shelter to pay 0% in corporation taxes on their £302 million in profits that year. GMG claim that it was about modernising the holding structure, in fact it was a disingenuous cover for corporate venality.

For three quarters of a century the The Guardian has been shirking taxes, Guido has no problem with them acting in their shareholders’ best interests. The hypocritical cant from them however about others doing the same is beyond contemptible…

Edited February 23, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[thecrashingisles]

Complete non-story. It's obviously far more beneficial to society to give Polly Toynbee a bigger salary than to pay a bit more tax.

[Warwick Yellow]

Brilliant. According to "Guido Faukes" the (pseudo) "lefty" Guardian Media Group "holds hundreds of millions in assets in a Caymans Island domiciled offshore corporation."

And "in 2008 The Guardian made £302 million in profits and paid no corporation taxes."

Priceless...

http://order-order.com/2011/02/21/the-guardian-uncut-and-full-of-cant/?utm_source=Guy+Fawkes%27+Blog+List&utm_campaign=b224555822-Guardian&utm_medium=email

So the left wing Liebour loving elite in this country are hypocritical, lying scumbags? Who would have imagined that....................

Next he will be revealing some of the luvvies at the BBC are second only to the bankers in their salary troughing

[Tired of Waiting]

Complete non-story. It's obviously far more beneficial to society to give Polly Toynbee a bigger salary than to pay a bit more tax.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:angry:

[Tired of Waiting]

So the left wing Liebour loving elite in this country are hypocritical, lying scumbags? Who would have imagined that....................

Still, it is nice when it comes with numbers, like £300 million profit, zero Corporation Tax. It adds a... "je ne sais quoi" ...

Well actually I do know what it adds: proof. - assuming Guido is right / has evidence for that, or that the Guardian admits to it.

Next he will be revealing some of the luvvies at the BBC are second only to the bankers in their salary troughing

This one is coming out as well.

(BTW, I'm still curious to find out when Evan Davies and Stephanie Flanders bought houses. But that is for another thread.)

Edited February 23, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Warwick Yellow]

Still, it is nice when it comes with numbers, like £300 million profit, zero Corporation Tax. It adds a... "je ne sais quoi" ...

Well actually I do know what it adds: proof. - assuming Guido is right / has evidence for that, or that the Guardian admits to it.

This one is coming out as well.

(BTW, I'm still curious to find out when Evan Davies and Stephanie Flanders bought houses. But that is for another thread.)

Assuming it is true (and I for one would guess there's a damn good chance it is) the question will be will anybody have the balls to run it in the MSM; the BBC/ Guardian/ Common Purpose network will go all out to bury this one. Fingers crossed..............

Good point on Davies and Flanders; as an ex girlfriend of Balls one can only assume the latter shares his liberal approach to personal expense management and personal gain, while decrying such activity in others.

[Milton]

Brilliant. According to "Guido Faukes" the (pseudo) "lefty" Guardian Media Group "holds hundreds of millions in assets in a Caymans Island domiciled offshore corporation."

And "in 2008 The Guardian made £302 million in profits and paid no corporation taxes."

Priceless...

http://order-order.c...tm_medium=email

Nice Find TOW.

This from the newspaper, who state that 'Comment is Free' yet who pre-moderate, and disallow OUR comments which are allowed in every other daily newspaper, when we berate Labour for their part in inflating the housing bubble...? .......LOL......

It actually makes perfect sense, n'est-ce pas?

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dan1

[Tortoise]

They are a janus faced organisation if there ever was one

One face carefully looking out for their own interests while the other face pretends to be looking out for the poor

[cashinmattress]

£300 million in profits.

Well, that would equate to about 10,000 or so state employee's salaries. How much tax have they paid?

Some things will never change, ie the rich won't be support you.

This is Britain, same as it ever was.

[Guest sillybear2]

You're only meant to notice tax avoidance by nasty companies, like banks funding oil sands, etc. When it comes to trendy companies you're meant to look the other way, and if you don't then you're an astroturfing shill for pointing out their hypocrisy

[bobthe~]

Wasn't it Twiggy Rathbone in 80's comedy sensation Hot Metal who claimed he was a lifelong Socialist?

OT, but that is the first time I heard the phrase "Her Majesty's Press", was it in use before then?

[Reck B]

Did I read somewhere that one of The Guardian's revenue streams is from public sector job adverts . ie funded by the taxpayer? or was that ******?

[Tired of Waiting]

Assuming it is true (and I for one would guess there's a damn good chance it is) the question will be will anybody have the balls to run it in the MSM; the BBC/ Guardian/ Common Purpose network will go all out to bury this one. Fingers crossed..............

Good point on Davies and Flanders; as an ex girlfriend of Balls one can only assume the latter shares his liberal approach to personal expense management and personal gain, while decrying such activity in others.

Yes, I think Guido must have some pretty solid evidence to go publicly like that. If he were wrong he would be seriously damaged, and he knows that.

Good point re. mainstream media. Actually I'll "Google News": Guardian Caymans Island Profits Corporation Tax.

( Just writing these words side by side.. it still makes me )

Really priceless.

_______________________________________________

Edit: I've Googled it: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Guardian%20Caymans%20Island%20Profits%20Corporation%20Tax&rlz=1B3GGLL_en-GBGB370GB370&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn

Edited February 23, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[bobthe~]

Did I read somewhere that one of The Guardian's revenue streams is from public sector job adverts . ie funded by the taxpayer? or was that ******?

Lots of media jobs is what I remember, but I expect you are right, though I doubt it is bin men or hospital cleaners.

[bogbrush]

No wonder they keep giving Bono such great reviews.

[Timak]

Is this new?

I've seen it posted in every tax related thread on the Guardian website for about the last 3 years!

[bobthe~]

Is this new?

I've seen it posted in every tax related thread on the Guardian website for about the last 3 years!

Dunno, but exposing hypocrisy, even if it in someone on your "own side" is a good thing.

Too many people get away with stuff because they have sympathisers who buy into the idea that yes he is a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch.

As soon as you defend the indefensible, just because to not do so might damage your political cause, you are as corrupt as the people you defend.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Barclays profits and claimed tax avoidance make the Guardian's look like loose change. If they have any real profits that is?

Edited February 23, 2011 by gruffydd

[Tired of Waiting]

Nice Find TOW.

Thanks, but actually I get his weekly newsletter.

This from the newspaper, who state that 'Comment is Free' yet who pre-moderate, and disallow OUR comments which are allowed in every other daily newspaper, when we berate Labour for their part in inflating the housing bubble...? .......LOL......

It actually makes perfect sense, n'est-ce pas?

Yes, that is really ... authoritarian censorship, and undisclosed! I bet most Guardian readers assume their comments page just reflects the readership. Just despicable. The left is really authoritarian. Their belief in their "moral compass" allows them morally justification to act immorally. if you know what I mean...

[Tired of Waiting]

Is this new?

I've seen it posted in every tax related thread on the Guardian website for about the last 3 years!

Really?!

Do you have any link?

[the shaping machine]

Barclays profits and claimed tax avoidance make the Guardian's look like loose change. If they have any real profits that is?

So the size of the organisation makes all the difference does it? (I would recommend that you not try this approach if the Inland Revenue come calling...)

.

[bobthe~]

So the size of the organisation makes all the difference does it? (I would recommend that you not try this approach if the Inland Revenue come calling...)

.

No they are different.

ONe is an evil corporation partly responsible for the property bubble.

And the other is a bank.

[Tired of Waiting]

No they are different.

ONe is an evil corporation partly responsible for the property bubble.

And the other is a bank.

Correct.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

So the size of the organisation makes all the difference does it? (I would recommend that you not try this approach if the Inland Revenue come calling...)

.

I guess not morally. However, I am tempted to think this mudslinging at the Guardian by Guido et al has been whipped up to divert attention from the big criminals - ie the banks.

Edited February 23, 2011 by gruffydd

[shipbuilder]

Why is anyone surprised by this? The Guardian is there to make money and its political viewpoint exists to sell papers, the same as any other commercial media outlet.