Mps Condemn Barclays Gag On Guardian Over Tax Papers

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.breakingviews.com/2009/03/17/Ta...aspx?sg=nytimes

Mentioned here.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Vince Cable told me to do it.

[interestrateripoff]

Vince Cable told me to do it.

Hearing voices are you?

Have you forgotten to take your medication?

[Stonehenge )z]

Barclays were seeking to legitimately ensure their tax payments were kept to a minimum .Tax avoidance is quite legitimate ( tax evasion is illegal ) and to any any commercial company in the real world it is common sense not to pay any more tax than is legally required . Commercial organisations will always be ahead of the legislators . That is a dynamic of a capitalist market. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in laa laa land.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Barclays were seeking to legitimately ensure their tax payments were kept to a minimum .Tax avoidance is quite legitimate ( tax evasion is illegal ) and to any any commercial company in the real world it is common sense not to pay any more tax than is legally required . Commercial organisations will always be ahead of the legislators . That is a dynamic of a capitalist market. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in laa laa land.

I expect they're all at it. Whatever it is.

Edited March 18, 2009 by DissipatedYouthIsValuable

[interestrateripoff]

Barclays were seeking to legitimately ensure their tax payments were kept to a minimum .Tax avoidance is quite legitimate ( tax evasion is illegal ) and to any any commercial company in the real world it is common sense not to pay any more tax than is legally required . Commercial organisations will always be ahead of the legislators . That is a dynamic of a capitalist market. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in laa laa land.

Correct.

However do you think that they will be keeping the "taxpayer" bailout they will inevitably need to a minimum or do you think that will run into the hundreds of billions like it was for RBS & Llodys?

If you want the taxpayers help you need to pay your fair share, Darling if he had any guts should announce that Barclays doesn't qualify for state aid and lets see what happens to the share price then.

[Stonehenge )z]

Course all large companies are at it . It will get a bit more difficult though if the G20 find a way to place the thumbscrews on tax havens , where those that can afford it leave a trail of smoke and mirrors .

[Stonehenge )z]

Correct.

However do you think that they will be keeping the "taxpayer" bailout they will inevitably need to a minimum or do you think that will run into the hundreds of billions like it was for RBS & Llodys?

If you want the taxpayers help you need to pay your fair share, Darling if he had any guts should announce that Barclays doesn't qualify for state aid and lets see what happens to the share price then.

If they get a bailout and fall under the stewardship of the state then they have additional obligations to the UK taxpayer as well as their shareholders . If Mr Darlings mandarins have their wits about them , when the deal is negotiated they will put an end to this fancy tax avoidance footwork to avoid uk corporation tax . Barclays lose their right to this as they turn to the state for help . Any normal commercial business in such a position would go to the wall when it runs out of cash and its assets bought up by a more successful management team to better utilise in the free market .

Edited March 18, 2009 by Stonehenge )z

[piece of paper]

I expect they're all at it. Whatever it is.

Indeed. Whoever they are. They are us and we are them. The banks owned by the taxpayer are devising schemes to avoid paying taxes to the taxpayer. So the taxpayer is finding ways of avoiding paying tax to itself. Good plan. This increases profits for the bank's owner, the taxpayer.

Whoever it is and whatever it is, the taxpayer seems to be giving himself a royal rubber-dicking.

p-o-p

EDIT: Because my keyboard got confused

Edited March 18, 2009 by piece of paper

[D.C.]

Surprised there has been no mention of the fact that the Guardian Media Group also avoids tax like the plague.

[interestrateripoff]

Surprised there has been no mention of the fact that the Guardian Media Group also avoids tax like the plague.

The only people who pay tax are the lowly paid, they have to pay so the rich can avoid it.

That's how the system works.

[REP013]

Barclays were seeking to legitimately ensure their tax payments were kept to a minimum .Tax avoidance is quite legitimate ( tax evasion is illegal ) and to any any commercial company in the real world it is common sense not to pay any more tax than is legally required . Commercial organisations will always be ahead of the legislators . That is a dynamic of a capitalist market. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in laa laa land.

I have to agree although it does hurt about when you consider the £'s involved.

I read one of the papers and it appears they are using umbrella companies to purchase ILG's (index linked guilts) against their FSA requirements for liquidity. Because of accounting rules they get tax advantages.

This is my very limited understanding and relates to only one of the papers?

Sorry, but it really is no big deal - to me!

[Stonehenge )z]

The only people who pay tax are the lowly paid, they have to pay so the rich can avoid it.

That's how the system works.

Too right .

....they avoid it by using the finest( and extremely expensive ) brains . it is prohibitively expensive to set up offshore nominee companies , trusts etc in tax havens so that excludes all the chavs and the chattering classes from the game . A very exclusive game.

[interestrateripoff]

Morning bump

For anyone who's failed to see this.

Just remember we are the taxpayers and all we have to do is bend over and take it.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/ma...lay-theguardian

A high court judge is due to rule today on Barclays' attempt to ban the Guardian from publishing whistleblower documents about the bank's tax avoidance schemes.

After a lengthy secret session before Mr Justice Blake yesterday morning, a public hearing resumed and was told by Barclays' QC, Charles Hollander, that the banned documents were now "available elsewhere" as a consequence of their temporary publication on the Guardian's website, before being ordered to be removed.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the Guardian, said Barclays' claim to confidentiality therefore fell at the first hurdle. He said: "The quality of confidentiality is lost if the information is available from other public sources". The Guardian is prohibited from giving further details because a temporary order has been imposed by the judge barring it from encouraging or inciting publication by anyone else of the contents of the seven internal Barclays memos, which describe plans for a variety of tax avoidance transactions.

The Guardian was ordered to remove copies of the seven memos from its website at 2.30am on Tuesday, after Freshfields, the lawyers for Barclays, contacted a judge in the middle of the night to issue a telephone injunction.

The bank says further publication of its confidential tax-avoidance documents, stolen by a disaffected ex-employee, will damage its business by revealing Barclays "know-how" and "global expertise gained over several years".

Barclays also says that the counterparties - other banks and financial institutions involved in the multibillion pound loan transactions - "have expressed considerable displeasure that their names ... have been published".

Some of the transactions in the documents were still operating, Barclays said. The Guardian's counsel argued that these claims did not amount to evidence of any specific harm to Barclays, but were merely "a series of woolly generalities".

It was claimed yesterday on the bank's behalf, that the public could still have a democratic debate about the desirability of Barclays' tax avoidance schemes, without being furnished with the specific facts in the documents. But Tomlinson told the court it was a matter of journalistic judgment how much information the public needed in order to have a meaningful debate: "Abstract debate is sterile. It's quite another thing to look at precisely what they do in specific cases.

"The debate is brought to a proper focus if the general abstract points can be illustrated by the specifics. The specifics are to be found in these documents".

The public debate that should be had, he said, was: "Should major public companies be engaging in schemes of this sort? That is the public debate the Guardian has sought to contribute to over several weeks. It is of the utmost public importance". Hollander responded that the Guardian, who he had accused the previous day of "vigilante journalism", was "seeking to put themselves a little bit above the law".

It was disclosed during the hearings that, although parts of the documents describing the loan transactions had been handed over to the Revenue for approval at the time, other parts had been deliberately witheld because they were confidential or protected by legal privilege.

These included the amounts of cash put aside as "provisions" in case partial payments had to be made after negotiation with the Revenue and the opinions from City law firms on the risk of Revenue challenge to aspects of their schemes. Vince Cable, Lib Dem shadow chancellor, has now sent full, unedited copies to the Revenue.

Counsel for Barclays said they hoped HMRC would abstain from reading the confidential parts.

Damn if only we could find the alternative sources!!!!

Do HMRC have selective reading abilities?

[Gone baby gone]

Do HMRC have selective reading abilities?

Yes, they'll probably choose to ignore the transgressions of the major banks and continue to chase small underpayments made by individuals and small companies.

It's no fun trying to bully someone the same size as you, is it?

[Justice]

Sounds to me like they were allowed to dodge taxes s long as they gave a few brown envolopes to the regulators.

Start from the perspecive that the whole system is corrupt and you won't go far wrong.

Have you seen the TV advert where they crush a car because the drive was late paying road tax ? well if thats the cost then does it mean we can hang our corrupt leaders for fiddling millions of pounds in tax payers money.

One rule for one and one for another but please don't thow shoes at me else you will get 3 years in nick cus im more important than you

[deciphermonkey]

There's a very dangerous mood developing towards these people. We've had members of Congress calling for them to commit suicide and saying they will tax them at 98%. I think there has been widespread fraud and there are adequate laws to deal with that, but I'm not sure Varley, Goodwin et al truly understand the backlash that is being funnelled in their direction. It could get very ugly very quickly. Perhaps if the SFO announced investigations it would help to diffuse the bloodlust and keep it wthin a sensible legal process. Public spats with politicians doesn't help anybody.

I’m sure that these megalomaniacs (Goodwin and the others) feel totally justified in their actions. It is sad that they have gotten away with their games for so long.

I can’t understand why in the UK the government seems to be doing nothing about the bonuses whilst in the US they are at least talking about rushing through tax legislation for bonuses paid in companies that accepted the bailouts at up to 100%. Surely that could be done in the UK?

I hope that the SFO do investigate however I seem to recall that they stopped investigating the Saudi / BAE corruption probe due to political pressure. I think that it will depend how much news coverage the Barclays tax optimisation stories get.

I’m sure that it’s a coincidence but when I checked the wikileaks.org link the site was down.

[Waiting Patiently]

Brown already has control of Lloyds Banking Group, RBS, and Northern Rock, after using various tactics like getting his media shills like Robert Peston to destroy their share price so they could be hoovered up for a song.

His next target is Barclays, so expect to see more negative stories about them particularly in Labour organs like the Guardian and the BBC. Brown wants the whole of UK based banking under his control and will use any tactics to achieve it.

[Gone baby gone]

Brown already has control of Lloyds Banking Group, RBS, and Northern Rock, after using various tactics like getting his media shills like Robert Peston to destroy their share price so they could be hoovered up for a song.

His next target is Barclays, so expect to see more negative stories about them particularly in Labour organs like the Guardian and the BBC. Brown wants the whole of UK based banking under his control and will use any tactics to achieve it.

You know, in 3 years on this site I have seen some bare-arsed craziness. But that takes the biscuit.

[Waiting Patiently]

You know, in 3 years on this site I have seen some bare-arsed craziness. But that takes the biscuit.

What part of it is "crazy"?

I'm not denying the banks were reckless, having been allowed to be and even encouraged by Brown and his "light-touch regulation". Brown's now got what he wanted: control of the majority of British banking.

Do you really think he hasn't got designs on the rest of it? You're the fecking crazy one if you really think that.

[Gone baby gone]

What part of it is "crazy"?

I'm not denying the banks were reckless, having been allowed to be and even encouraged by Brown and his "light-touch regulation". Brown's now got what he wanted: control of the majority of British banking.

Do you really think he hasn't got designs on the rest of it? You're the fecking crazy one if you really think that.

The part where you infer that Gordon Brown has the intelligence to engineer a global credit bubble, get the British banks involved in it and then manipulate their share prices all with the aim of taking over the banks, so he can then do what I'm not quite sure.

All you're missing is a hollowed out volcano and a gyrocopter.

['Bart']

All you're missing is a hollowed out volcano and a gyrocopter.

Don't forget the mini-monorail system.

[deciphermonkey]

What part of it is "crazy"?

I'm not denying the banks were reckless, having been allowed to be and even encouraged by Brown and his "light-touch regulation". Brown's now got what he wanted: control of the majority of British banking.

Do you really think he hasn't got designs on the rest of it? You're the fecking crazy one if you really think that.

For all Browns (many) bad points, he does seem to believe what he is saying – he is a delusional control freak but I don’t see conspiracy here, I see self interest. As far as the banks go, I don’t see conspiracy, I see greed. These are both attributes that seem to be highly valued and rewarded by our current system. If Brown wanted control of the banks he probably would have just nationalised them straight away rather than buying a majority stake and taking on the debts.

[Waiting Patiently]

The part where you infer that Gordon Brown has the intelligence to engineer a global credit bubble, get the British banks involved in it and then manipulate their share prices all with the aim of taking over the banks, so he can then do what I'm not quite sure............

Maybe you should stop building a straw man and read my post. Where in it did I "infer" any of that little lot?

We have a banking crisis, which though it has global aspects, is particularly severe in Britain, largely due to Browns regulatory system which is perhaps the most lax of any in the industrialised world. Clearly Brown lacks the intelligence and ability to deliberately engineer this sorry situation but, now we're in it, he is taking advantage of it to get his hands on the banks.

As for your final point about what he's going to do with them, well, who knows what goes on in the mind of a deranged, megalomaniacal sociopath? Whatever it is, you can bet we're going to pay dearly for it.