Now Tony, how do you make these figures add up?

Intresting snippet from the Independent newspaper on the tax return of one of Tony Blair’s companies:

Windrush Ventures, declared a turnover of £12m, up from £8.5m the year before. But Mr Blair’s accounts claim that just over £1m of this is profit, the rest written off as “administrative expenses”, with no further explanation given for some £7.74m of the total. With the corporate tax rate at 28 per cent, this left Mr Blair with a tax liability of only £315,000.

  • Rory Carr

    I would suggest that the likely explanation for these “Administrative Expenses” is that they would be describes as “Consultancy Fees”, most likely payable to other companies within Blair’s group of companies.

    As to their reasonableness, that is between him and HMRC Inspectorate.

    In the case of any misunderstanding, HMRC Chief, Dave Hartnett always has the option of lunching with the company’s representative in an atmosphere more conducive to agreement between reasonable men.

  • Crubeen

    I would venture to guess that this is a type of holding company that administers all of the various commercial and/or other activities and that, probably for tax reasons (if not confidential ones) it is efficient to set off various kinds of expenditure through this company’s accounts.

    The accounts referred to are not the “tax return” – they are the statutory audited accounts of a limited liability company that, by law, must be filed at the Companies’ Registry on an annual basis and is open to public inspection. Tax returns are confidential and not published.

    Most of the other commercial affairs of this individual, if indeed there are any, would appear to be conducted through organisations or sole traderships that are not obliged to publish accounts.

    Tax avoidance is entirely lawful. This individual is subject to UK tax and we have no reason to doubt that his income tax affairs, as an individual, are other than above board. His financial advisers have, doubtless, ensured that all his business affairs are conducted in a tax-efficient way. People who think that almost £8 million of expenditure requires some form of public explanation have never read the Companies’ legislation and are just plain “sticky beaks,” with no right whatsoever to query this or anything else that relates to the affairs of this individual.

    HMRC are, I would think, no less effective and efficient in dealing with this individual as they would be with anybody else and we should only regard that business with Goldman Sachs as an aberration which, unfortunately, got into the press.

  • Rory Carr

    p.s. That should perhaps read, “Dave Hartnett or his successor…” given recent news of Mr Hartnett’s likely decision to retire from HMRC Inspectorate and spend more time with…whatever it is he loves.

  • Jimmy Sands

    It’s a quite deliberately misleading story and only published because if they wrote this about anyone else they’d have a lawsuit

  • Alias

    All these hack have a limited shelf life during which they can be paid by corporations for providing introductions to their political contacts. JP Morgan doesn’t pay Tony a couple of million a year for whatever advice can be offered by a rusty barrister.

    At least the Tories have a bit of dignity about how they earn their money after political life. Labour is utterly shameless at moneygrubbing…

  • My article today poses the question ‘Is Tony Blair non-resident for tax purposes?’ His spokespeople have not addressed this important point. Would explain where much of the £8 ,illion in expenses goes. Read more http://www.huston.co.uk/blog/156-tony-blairs-tax-bill-mystery.html

  • My article today poses the question ‘Is Tony Blair non-resident for tax purposes?’ His spokespeople have not addressed this important point.

    Would explain where much of the £8 million in expenses goes.

    Read more http://www.huston.co.uk/blog/156-tony-blairs-tax-bill-mystery.html

  • Jimmy Sands

    #questionstowhichtheanswerisno