UK PM Cameron says he bungled admission of offshore fund

[sonos99]

Release of the tax returns says bugger all about his dodgy dealings. The whole point of off shore investments is to avoid UK tax, not the sort of stuff you'd put on a tax return then is it!

More smoke and mirrors from dodgy Dave.

If a UK taxpayer invests in an offshore fund his tax liability is the same as if he invested in a UK domiciled fund. Income tax is payable on the dividends and when the shares/units are sold capital gains tax is payable (if the capital gains exceeds the investor's capital gains tax allowance). There is no tax avoidance except for maybe stamp duty (if it still exists) at 0.05%.

If the UK taxpayer does not declare and pay the taxes owing it is tax evasion which is illegal.

Cameron says he has paid all taxes so they will be declared on his tax return.

So what *is* the point of having an off shore account then? And why did dodgy Dave deny (four times) having off shore investments if there is nothing wrong with having them?

There is no advantage in a UK taxpayer investing in an normal offshore investment fund. Many people by these funds online and may not be aware that they are domiciled offshore. If for example you wanted to buy an ETF provided by iShares (the biggest ETF provider in the world) it is likely to be domiciled offshore - you do not have a choice as as far as I can see the ones available for UK investors are all offshore.

The Prime Minister indicated in Parliament that many people and organizations own shares/units in offshore funds including Westminster Council, trade unions and I think he mentioned the Guardian.

Some people have said that by buying an offshore fund you benefit from the fact that the fund provider pays less tax but this advantage is no different than the one you get from buying shares in multi national companies such as Apple, Microsoft,etc. All companies, especially multi nationals avoid tax.

As for why Cameron evaded the question only he can answer that. But no doubt he handled it badly.

[meltingpot2015]

@sonos99:

The Prime Minister indicated in Parliament that many people and organizations own shares/units in offshore funds including Westminster Council, trade unions and I think he mentioned the Guardian.

Missing the point. If there is any wrongdoing by these organisations then they should be investigated seperately. By the way I think cameron said Islington Council (which is in labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn's constituency)

Also, you don't seriously believe that he HANDLED it badly do you?. (You seem like a pretty clued-up person).

He is SAYING he HANDLED it badly. When in fact he intended to brush the whole affair under the carpet. (the ole saying...Move along now, nothing to see here)

Anyone who buys into this HANDLED it badly nonsense is either plain ignorant or trying to defend something plain obvious.

[sonos99]

@sonos99:

The Prime Minister indicated in Parliament that many people and organizations own shares/units in offshore funds including Westminster Council, trade unions and I think he mentioned the Guardian.

Missing the point. If there is any wrongdoing by these organisations then they should be investigated seperately. By the way I think cameron said Islington Council (which is in labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn's constituency)

Also, you don't seriously believe that he HANDLED it badly do you?. (You seem like a pretty clued-up person).

He is SAYING he HANDLED it badly. When in fact he intended to brush the whole affair under the carpet. (the ole saying...Move along now, nothing to see here)

Anyone who buys into this HANDLED it badly nonsense is either plain ignorant or trying to defend something plain obvious.

I don't believe that Islington Council (you are correct) , the trade unions or the Guardian have done anything wrong either. There is no need for them to be investigated.

The PM was defending his investment in an offshore fund as being normal practice and mentioned that these other organizations had similar investments. No doubt these particular examples were chosen because they were either directly critical of him like the Guardian or indirectly critical through their links with the Labour Party.

I do believe that he handled the questions about his offshore investment badly. He should have given full details of his investment when he was first asked.

[Rancid]

Well another politician who hasn't worked a day in his life, setting up offshore accounts to help dodge tax in income gained from having his snout in the Treasury trough.

Or is it waiting for the millions ex leaders seen to get paid these days for "speaking engagements" from crooked bankers and CEOs. Nothing to do with payment for services rendered of course.