Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bruce Banner

Ray Boulger - Leading Tax Expert.

Recommended Posts

BBC News have our old friend Ray Boulger on this morning, billed as a "Leading Tax Expert", repeating every half hour or so, defending David Cameron.

Looks like the mortgage industry (Ray is still listed as "Senior Technical Manager" on the John Charcol website) may be closing ranks around EA Dave.

Ray.jpg

post-11769-0-11521100-1460279405_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they showed his clip on the Marr Show.

Blood pressure immediately soared above danger levels.

Unearned, rent seeking must be protected at all costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also a board member of AMI (Association of Mortgage Intermediaries).

From their web site.


Our Influence

AMI has a strong lobbying voice which enables us to progress and promote ideas at a government level. We encourage sound thinking in the industry and drive for action

Promoting and progressing ideas like Help to Buy etc?

His lobbying role as AMI board member won't have been mentioned by the BBC News. Indeed it'll be "leading tax expert".

So in the role as lobbyist one imagines that he's pretty much bound to close ranks in support of any incumbent government and Prime Minister - as part of their own interest in lobbying for their own interests.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also a board member of AMI (Association of Mortgage Intermediaries).

From their web site.

Promoting and progressing ideas like Help to Buy etc?

His lobbying role as AMI board member won't have been mentioned by the BBC News. Indeed it'll be "leading tax expert".

So in the role as lobbyist one imagines that he's pretty much bound to close ranks in support of any incumbent government and Prime Minister - as part of their own interest in lobbying for their own interests.

No longer it seems

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/adrian-childs-replaces-ray-boulger-on-ami-board/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also a board member of AMI (Association of Mortgage Intermediaries).

From their web site.

Promoting and progressing ideas like Help to Buy etc?

His lobbying role as AMI board member won't have been mentioned by the BBC News. Indeed it'll be "leading tax expert".

So in the role as lobbyist one imagines that he's pretty much bound to close ranks in support of any incumbent government and Prime Minister - as part of their own interest in lobbying for their own interests.

The big EAs are represented too... http://www.a-m-i.org.uk/about-us/our-board/

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im sure, BBC, we all know its likely legal, but that really isnt the point when to SAVE taxpayers, we are hitting the disabled, the unemployed and everyone else where a tax demand is increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's dated 2007.

According to Linkedin

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ray-boulger-73043015

Ray Boulger

Senior Technical Manager at John Charcol

London, United KingdomFinancial Services

Current

Steps Rehabilitation Ltd,

AMI (Association of Mortgage Intermediaries),

John Charcol

Previous

John Charcol,

Laurie Mellor Associates,

R Nivison & Co, subsequently Nivison Cantrade Ltd

Education

Magdalen College School, Oxford

Websites

Company Website

Blog

...

Board Member

AMI (Association of Mortgage Intermediaries)

2003 – Present (13 years)London, United Kingdom

So he's listed as currently being a board member with AMI.

It doesn't look like it's a mistake in updating as it specifically says 2003 - Present (13 years) which is 2016.

Then from AMI's own web site

Which shows him as currently a board member of AMI.

So why mortgage strategy says he left the board in 2007 is a bit of a puzzle.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was given the title of financial advisor when I saw him, can't remember what he said, not interested.

Verbally announced as "Leading tax expert" and sometimes with written caption "Financial adviser".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Lots of closed ranks today. The fightback has begun. Tax return details published...honest Dave completely transparent. But what is his balance sheet, what income does not appear on the tax form? The family arrangements for inheritance of assets - what is the actual process he's working through - clearly the £30,000 benefit is related to ensuring they remain under the threshold for taxes....what about the rest? Taxes on incomes is what the rich want....we need taxes on assets.

"Dave has done nothing illegal, just hasn't handled it well". Of course it's not illegal, that's not the point - he's following the rules the rich have put in place down the years. Trouble is 'honest Dave' forgot to declare it. Secondly 'honest Dave' personally intervened with Van Rompuy to carve out a loophole for offshore trusts for avoiding tax. Where has that gone in the news today?

It's like watching a one sided argument unwind across the media where Dave is completely exonerated and a little note saying must do better in the future silly boy. Only pathetic dissenters allowed on to attack missing out important pieces of the picture as above.

And this is just Panama. There are other tax havens.

Channel 4 News also uncovered further funds bearing the name PMG Eagle in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas, however the secretive jurisdictions meant the ownership was not immediately available.

Yes we are distracted from the £90K a year he gets in rent (which is more than an MP's basic salary).

Also he paid his tax's on dividends from Blairmore knowing full well these funds are setup for very low taxed, if taxed at all capital gains.

However, a directors’ report by PMG Eagle Fund Limited in Jersey in 1999 said the fund was designed for "long term capital appreciation" and told investors: "The Fund expects that capital appreciation will come almost entirely from increases in the value of the portfolio companies, and investors should not expect any significant benefit from dividends and interest."

http://www.channel4.com/news/david-cameron-third-off-shore-investment-fund-linked-to-fat

Edited by RentierParadisio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably if it's been arranged offshore so that he officially/legally doesn't have to pay tax on it then it wouldn't need to be declared? It might not even need to appear on his or a tax form - especially if it's registered in a parents name. It might only have to be declared if it officially became onshore? It might not even appear on Member's Interests in Parliament?

That could amount to several hundreds of thousands, millions if not tens/hundreds of millions.

It might not be illegal but his tax stance on offshore usually broadcast before elections would be hypocritical as would his attacks on celebrities doing something similar. Especially if he was saying before an election that he was going to clamp down on it all yet at the same time was lobbying in the eu to do the opposite and after election didn't make any serious attempt to clamp down.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably if it's been arranged offshore so that he officially/legally doesn't have to pay tax on it then it wouldn't need to be declared? It might not even need to appear on his or a tax form - especially if it's registered in a parents name. It might only have to be declared if it officially became onshore? It might not even appear on Member's Interests in Parliament?

That could amount to several hundreds of thousands, millions if not tens/hundreds of millions.

It might not be illegal but his tax stance on offshore usually broadcast before elections would be hypocritical as would his attacks on celebrities doing something similar. Especially if he was saying before an election that he was going to clamp down on it all yet at the same time was lobbying in the eu to do the opposite and after election didn't make any serious attempt to clamp down.

Cameron handled this very badly, but it would appear that he had a relatively modest investment in an off-shore fund. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for having funds based off-shore - it makes selling it to an international market much easier because they only have to deal with one tax regime rather than two.

However, these vehicles can be used to evade tax by simply not reporting the income. The use of trusts can also be used to avoid tax and off-shore arrangements make this easier. However, it appears that DC has held a legitimate investment and paid all tax on it, just as if it had been a UK onshore trust.

If I have misunderstood anything, please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron handled this very badly, but it would appear that he had a relatively modest investment in an off-shore fund. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for having funds based off-shore - it makes selling it to an international market much easier because they only have to deal with one tax regime rather than two.

However, these vehicles can be used to evade tax by simply not reporting the income. The use of trusts can also be used to avoid tax and off-shore arrangements make this easier. However, it appears that DC has held a legitimate investment and paid all tax on it, just as if it had been a UK onshore trust.

If I have misunderstood anything, please correct me.

Do you honestly believe 30k is all that is involved, blimey to people like Cameron it's chump change.

You certainly wouldn't bother with an investment of 30k in an offshore Panamanian finance scheme unless there were other reasons behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron handled this very badly, but it would appear that he had a relatively modest investment in an off-shore fund. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for having funds based off-shore - it makes selling it to an international market much easier because they only have to deal with one tax regime rather than two.

However, these vehicles can be used to evade tax by simply not reporting the income. The use of trusts can also be used to avoid tax and off-shore arrangements make this easier. However, it appears that DC has held a legitimate investment and paid all tax on it, just as if it had been a UK onshore trust.

If I have misunderstood anything, please correct me.

It might not be illegal but his tax stance on offshore usually broadcast before elections would be hypocritical as would his attacks on celebrities doing something similar. Especially if he was saying before an election that he was going to clamp down on it all yet at the same time was lobbying in the eu to do the opposite and after election didn't make any serious attempt to clamp down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might not be illegal but his tax stance on offshore usually broadcast before elections would be hypocritical as would his attacks on celebrities doing something similar. Especially if he was saying before an election that he was going to clamp down on it all yet at the same time was lobbying in the eu to do the opposite and after election didn't make any serious attempt to clamp down.

I have had an offshore account. I paid tax on the dividends. I still have some shares held in the US and when I do my tax return I add them to the foreign dividends section. I an sure that DC also did that.

The stance against offshore is only valid if you are using it to avoid tax. It does not seem as though there was any avoidance here.

Yes, I agree that it does look bad and he handled it terribly, but I do not think that there was any avoidance gong on. I may be wrong, but I think that tax DC had to pay would have been been the same had the fund been a UK collective investment fund (possible that the fund itself did get some advantage from being based there which would have boosted profits but not sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe 30k is all that is involved, blimey to people like Cameron it's chump change.

You certainly wouldn't bother with an investment of 30k in an offshore Panamanian finance scheme unless there were other reasons behind it.

He claims to have invested £12k. It was his father's fund do it is quite possible that he would have invested a relatively small amount and have been allowed to by the fund.

If as you say, there is more money involved, then DC is out of clarifications. If something else turns up he will be seen as a liar and will have to resign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might not be illegal but his tax stance on offshore usually broadcast before elections would be hypocritical as would his attacks on celebrities doing something similar. Especially if he was saying before an election that he was going to clamp down on it all yet at the same time was lobbying in the eu to do the opposite and after election didn't make any serious attempt to clamp down.

Worse than that is it also compromises his position if he were to go after Google et al. The NSAGoogle would definitely have some dirt on him,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had an offshore account. I paid tax on the dividends. I still have some shares held in the US and when I do my tax return I add them to the foreign dividends section. I an sure that DC also did that.

The stance against offshore is only valid if you are using it to avoid tax. It does not seem as though there was any avoidance here.

Yes, I agree that it does look bad and he handled it terribly, but I do not think that there was any avoidance gong on. I may be wrong, but I think that tax DC had to pay would have been been the same had the fund been a UK collective investment fund (possible that the fund itself did get some advantage from being based there which would have boosted profits but not sure).

Differences is you are not dictating to the rest of us what tax rules we have to live and work by in this country, which includes NOT being able to pretend the business / work / effort / etc is elsewhere in the world and deserving of beneficial tax treatment.

Cameron is a scumbag in my eyes for telling us what to do whilst doing something else himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.