Category: Non-EU Countries

  • Tony Blair and the £8million tax ‘mystery’

    Tony Blair and the £8million tax ‘mystery’

    Former Prime Minister Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies and paid just a fraction in tax, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

    tony blair
    Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies. Photo: Getty

    By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter

    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.

    www.telegraph.co.uk, 07 Jan 2012

  • Greedy bankers to face prison as Chancellor prepares new law to target reckless bosses who take risks with the economy

    Greedy bankers to face prison as Chancellor prepares new law to target reckless bosses who take risks with the economy

    New criminal offence of ‘corporate negligence’ could punish financiers

    By GLEN OWEN

    Sir Fred Goodwin
    Widespread fury: Sir Fred Goodwin, who presided over the collapse of RBS, escaped serious censure for his actions

    Growing public outrage over the severe damage caused by the banking crisis has prompted the Chancellor to prepare a new criminal offence of ‘corporate negligence’ to punish reckless financiers.

    The move comes just days before the annual City bonus season, which is expected to bring another round of bumper payouts despite the sluggish UK economy and families suffering a historic squeeze on household finances.

    All three main parties are now competing to offer the most hardline policies on tackling ‘fat cats’, after their internal polling revealed the scale of voters’ fury at the level of executive pay.

    Under the plan, being worked on behind the scenes at the Treasury, legislation would be introduced to prosecute any boss of a ‘systemically important financial institution’ whose actions had a significantly damaging effect on the wider economy.

    The plan would mean that the chief executives of the big five banks: Bob Diamond at Barclays, Antonio Horta-Osorio at Lloyds TSB, Stuart Gulliver at HSBC, Ana Botin at Santander and Sir Fred’s successor at RBS, Stephen Hester – would all be at risk of  imprisonment if they ‘crashed’ the banks and damaged the economy through their actions.

    The move follows widespread fury that Sir Fred, who presided over the collapse of RBS, escaped serious censure for his actions and even walked away with a multi-million-pound pension deal.

    Last night a Treasury source confirmed that new legislation was being worked on, but warned that a number of legal difficulties first had to be ironed out.

    The source said that the Bank of England and City regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were being consulted to ensure that directors would face ‘appropriate penalties’ if they behaved improperly.

    The plan will be set out in greater detail later this week by Tory MP Matthew Hancock, Mr Osborne’s former chief of staff, who has regular discussions with the Chancellor. Mr Hancock will make a keynote speech in which he will attack current City regulations for ‘rewarding failure’ by incompetent bankers.

    And he will say that reckless  bankers should be jailed, in the same way as reckless doctors and drivers can already be prosecuted.

    He will tell the Policy Exchange think-tank: ‘Those who put our big banks at risk . . . should be held to account, just as with those who destroy property or endanger the health of their fellow citizens.

    ‘Sir Fred Goodwin broke one of Britain’s biggest banks, yet walked away with a huge pension. I want to see a law which makes it possible to prosecute executives for serious financial recklessness.

    ‘I would hope such legislation would never have to be used. But the shadow of prosecution will concentrate minds of those entrusted with institutions of vital national importance. Our goal must be to make executives think harder about the consequences of their actions, and change the culture of finance so it is safer for us all.’

    An FSA report into the RBS fiasco, published last month, placed the blame for the bank’s ill-judged acquisitions – which left it with unsustainable debts – on Sir Fred’s ‘robust’ management style, but did not find grounds for disciplinary action against him under existing rules.

    The Government’s £45.5 billion rescue in 2008 left the State owning more than 80 per cent of the bank.  The taxpayer is currently nursing a £25 billion loss on the deal while Sir Fred, nicknamed ‘Fred the Shred’, enjoys a £342,500-a-year persion.

    FSA chairman Adair Turner said in the report: ‘The fact that no individual has been found legally responsible for the failure begs the question: if action cannot be taken under existing rules, should not the rules be changed for the future?’

    The FSA says that ‘systemically important’ businesses are those whose collapse would ‘impair the provision of credit and financial services to the market with significant negative consequences for the real economy’.  Although the big five banks would be the main target of the legislation, the definition means large investment banks or insurance companies could also be caught.

    The legal test would be whether a ‘reasonable man’ would conclude that executives were negligent or grossly negligent in their conduct. Mr Hancock said: ‘The aim would be to strengthen existing corporate negligence provisions to deal directly with negligence at the helm of a systemically important institution.’

    Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, said: ‘We would need to carefully consider an issue as complex as this before making any comment. But generally, decisions about executive pay and City regulation should not be made on the hoof, and people should not be prosecuted for  making a bad judgment.’

    Jonathan Pickworth, a corporate law expert at law firm Dechert, said: ‘The first problem would be defining which institutions would be  covered. If you are talking about individual criminal liability, you need to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And when you are talking about the possible deprivation of someone’s liberty, that would be a pretty drastic step to take.’

    The battle to appear tough on executive pay intensified this weekend, with all three main party leaders on the attack on ‘irresponsible capitalism’. David Cameron is today expected to step up his rhetoric against high pay, declaring that he is determined to tackle ‘rewards at the top’ that are not commensurate with success. But behind the scenes he is at loggerheads with Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable’s support for a plan to give employees a seat on committees which decide executives’ pay.

    Labour also attempted to seize the initiative yesterday, with Shadow business spokesman Chuka Umunna calling for ‘responsible capitalism’ and Labour leader Ed Miliband  saying David Cameron could either curb excessive boardroom salaries or ‘drag his feet, wring his hands and fiddle at the margins like he has before on these issues’.

    www.dailymail.co.uk, 7 January 2012

  • Phone-hacking justice doesn’t have to equal journalists in jail

    Phone-hacking justice doesn’t have to equal journalists in jail

    Peter Preston
    The Observer

    An Istanbul columnist may be too bold to draw parallels between Turkish reporters in prison and those arrested for hacking in the UK, but his analogy still has resonance for the Leveson inquiry

    Lord Justice Leveson Conv 007

    Lord Justice Leveson, centre, at the start of his inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press. Photograph: Getty

    Here’s an honest mistake from far away that sends chill winds blowing up Fleet Street and rattling the door on Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry. A good and respected Turkish columnist – Yavuz Baydar, who writes for Today’s Zaman in Istanbul – is fighting back against human rights judges in Strasbourg who say that Ankara has “the worst press freedom record” in the 47-nation strong Council of Europe. But 64 journalists in prison, maybe even 72 … who can argue with that? Anyone with a wider perspective, Baydar declares.

    “There are, at the moment, around 16 journalists in jail in Great Britain, under arrest pending trial in the so-called News of the World phone-hacking scandal. They are accused of breaching the law, and their conduct is under scrutiny by ethical rules as well. But some claim no wrongdoing, saying this was journalism in the public interest. So far I haven’t seen any protest from their colleagues that ‘the freedom of the media in the UK is in danger’.”

    Watch this space, Yavuz. But grow reflective while you do. How many Operation Weeting arrests – present and future – do journalists and politicians, trawling through the dead ashes of the News of the World, actually want turned to jail sentences?

    If a whole newsroom was hacking, does that mean 28 reporters going down? If Richard Thomas, the former information commissioner, had got his wish and long since persuaded the government to make the blagging of information a custodial offence under the Data Protection Act, would Fleet Street – or any other street where media men and women live – have been dancing with glee? A month in the clink for excavating ex-directory telephone numbers? Even Turkey might raise an eyebrow over that.

    via Phone-hacking justice doesn’t have to equal journalists in jail | Media | The Observer.

  • Norwegian PM to cook for Turkish guests in İstanbul

    Norwegian PM to cook for Turkish guests in İstanbul

    Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg during a scheduled visit to İstanbul will cook Norwegian food for his Turkish and Norwegian guests in a lunch organized in honor of him at the Çırağan Palace on Saturday.

    JensStoltenberg

    The lunch has been organized on the initiative of Janis Bjorn Kanavin, the Norwegian ambassador to Turkey. Stoltenberg will cook seafood from Norway with the accompaniment of Norwegian chef Jostein Medhus, in the historical Çırağan Palace’s kitchen. Many Turkish and Norwegian industrialists are expected to be in attendance at the lunch.

    Following the lunch, the Norwegian prime minister will head to Boğaziçi Shipyard in the province of Yalova to attend an opening ceremony for a Norwegian-Turkish-made ship that will be used as a petroleum platform, to which Transportation Minister Binali Yıldırım will also attend.

    via Norwegian PM to cook for Turkish guests in İstanbul.

  • We won’t eat halal meat, say MPs and peers who reject demands to serve it at Westminster

    We won’t eat halal meat, say MPs and peers who reject demands to serve it at Westminster

    Some parliamentarians have eaten meat at Westminster having been assured it was halal

    p
    No halal: Neither the House of Commons or the House of Lords serve halal meat

    By CHRIS HASTINGS

    The Palace of Westminster has rejected demands to serve halal meat in its restaurants.

    Muslim MPs and peers have been told they cannot have meat slaughtered in line with Islamic tradition because the method – slitting an animal’s throat without first stunning it – is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues.

    The stance has infuriated some parliamentarians who have eaten meat in the Palace’s 23 restaurants and cafes, having been assured that it was halal.

    Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said: ‘I did feel misled. I think a halal option should be made available.’

    In 2010, the Mail on Sunday revealed schools, hospitals and restaurants were serving halal meat to unwitting customers.

    Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Somerfield and the Co-op all said they stocked meat slaughtered according to Islamic tradition without letting customers know.

    Fast-food chains including Domino’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, ­Nando’s and Subway are also using halal meat without ­telling customers, it was revealed.

    Members of the Church of England have complained that the spread of halal meat was ‘effectively spreading Sharia law’ across Britain.

    However, a spokesman for the House of Lords and the House of Commons confirmed that it was not served in their restaurants.

    Alison Ruoff, a member of the Church of England, said: ‘It’s a bit hypocritical that the Houses of Parliament, which have allowed other people to provide halal food, have ruled it out on their own premises.’

    When the meat is slaughtered, Islamic verse is uttered before the animal has its throat slashed.

    At Halal slaughterhouses thousands of birds are killed every hour.

    www.dailymail.co.uk, 1 January 2011

  • Use of antidepressants ‘is soaring’

    Use of antidepressants ‘is soaring’

    Press Association

    Prescriptions for drugs such as antidepressants and sleeping pills have jumped 20% in just three years, according to new figures.

    Experts believe the stress of recent years, including that caused by economic turmoil, means more people are experiencing mental health problems.

    Data from the NHS Information Centre shows antidepressant use alone rose 28% between 2007/08 and 2010/11 in England. Just under 34 million prescriptions were dispensed for antidepressants in 2007/08, rising to 43.4 million in 2010/11. The use of anti-anxiety drugs rose from just over six million to 6.5 million in the same period (an 8% jump), while prescriptions for sleeping pills rose 3% from around 9.9 million to 10.2 million.

    Meanwhile, prescriptions for barbiturates, which promote sleep and reduce anxiety, have dropped 51% from just over 22,000 to just under 11,000. Across all these groups of drugs, there was a 20% rise in prescription items dispensed between 2007/08 and 2010/11.

    The cost of the drugs to the NHS fell by 9% in the same period, from £329.9 million to £301.6 million. Antidepressants alone cost the NHS £264.5 million in 2007/08 and just under £235.4 million in 2010/11.

    Paul Farmer, chief executive of the mental health charity Mind, said there were several factors that could lead to increased prescription figures. “The tough economic times may have contributed to more people experiencing depression but improved awareness around mental health problems may also mean more people are seeking help for their problems, with doctors also getting better at spotting symptoms,” he said.

    “It’s important to remember that antidepressants can be a lifeline for some people which enable them to manage their mental health problems. It is worrying that antidepressants can be the first port of call for some doctors, despite the fact that ‘watchful waiting’ and talking therapies are recommended as the first line of treatment for mild to moderate depression.”

    Mr Farmer said there was a a lack of access to talking treatments, such as counselling, in some parts of the country “which means doctors are left with little choice but to prescribe medication”. He added: “Last year Mind found that one in five people still have to wait over a year to access talking therapies.”

    Depression is costing the country almost £11 billion a year in lost earnings, demands on the health service and in prescribing drugs to tackle the problem, according to The Independent. Research by the House of Commons found the cost to the NHS of treating the illness is put at more than £520 million a year. This figure is made up of £237 million for hospital care, £230 million for antidepressant drugs, £46 million for doctors’ time and £9 million for outpatients’ appointments.

    It also said that people who are unable to work because of the illness lose £8.97 billion of potential earnings a year, while the loss of earnings from people who commit suicide is estimated to be a further £1.47 billion.

    Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.

    www.guardian.co.uk, December 30 2011