Will we ever get to the truth about Ashcroft's tax status

[papa smurf]

the thread title doesn't make any sense .

Off topic i know but Sirius if anyones ranting its you toryboy does it bother you in the slightest though

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have started a thread regarding a question about a specific subject. I don't see the point of starting a thread called, "Vote for Labour," because that would leave only one alternative, which is that you and and the rest of the Tories would have to start a thread called, "Vote Tory," as that is all that will be allowed. Or are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the Tories are allowed to be on only one thread and everybody else can start whatever thread they like? Are those who have a different opinion, to all those on the right, not allowed the freedom of voicing their opposition.

Just so you know. There ARE alternatives to BOTH main parties out there.

[Maggy J]

How about everyone just discussing the actual topic rather than indulging in party politicking and electioneering?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

the thread title doesn't make any sense .

Oops! I was hoping no one would notice.

Mods, I you would be so kind as to re-word the title for me, to : Will we ever........., I'd be forever grateful.

[dilligaf1701]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Oops! I was hoping no one would notice.

Mods, I you would be so kind as to re-word the title for me, to : Will we ever........., I'd be forever grateful.

Done

[Flyboy]

Thanks Tom. Very much appreciated.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

It is now ten years since Ashcroft was elevated to the House of Lords on the understanding that he becomes a UK tax payer, but whenever the question about his tax status is asked, there is never a straightforward answer.

To answer the question posed in the thread title: Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm

[Flyboy]

So, he comes very, very close to lying and cheating his way into the House of Lords and Cameron still doesn't sack him.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, he comes very, very close to lying and cheating his way into the House of Lords and Cameron still doesn't sack him.

Depends, if you want to read that into it then definitely. If you read the relevant sections of the BBC story one can consider things differently.

'Not a condition'

It had been suggested that when William Hague proposed him for a peerage in 2000 the then Michael Ashcroft had given assurances that he would be resident in Britain for tax purposes.

But in his statement Lord Ashcroft said his undertaking was to "take up permanent residence in the UK again" by the end of that year and to resign as Belize's permanent representative to the UN.

He said he had fulfilled both those conditions before taking up his peerage and had declared all his UK income to HM Revenue "throughout the last ten years".

Guido likewise reinforces this version of events on his blog.

Originally Posted by Ashcroft Statement

I have therefore decided to release a copy of the letter which I wrote to William Hague, and to expand on what actually happened.

As the letter shows, the undertakings I gave were confirmed in a memorandum to William Hague dated 23rd March 2000. These were to “take up permanent residence in the UK again” by the end of that year. The other commitment in the memorandum was to resign as Belize’s permanent representative to the UN, which I did a week later.

In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the interpretation in the first undertaking of the words “permanent residence” was to be that of “a long term resident” of the UK. I agreed to this and finally took up my seat in the House of Lords in October 2000. Throughout the last ten years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, he comes very, very close to lying and cheating his way into the House of Lords and Cameron still doesn't sack him.

It seems to me that he either lied and cheated, or he didn't lie and cheat. You seem to agree that he didn't; therefore what is there to sack him for?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Depends, if you want to read that into it then definitely. If you read the relevant sections of the BBC story one can consider things differently.



Guido likewise reinforces this version of events on his blog.

It had been suggested that when William Hague proposed him for a peerage in 2000 the then Michael Ashcroft had given assurances that he would be resident in Britain for tax purposes.

Residence and domicile are two different things. You can be permanently resident and non-domiciled.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

It seems to me that he either lied and cheated, or he didn't lie and cheat. You seem to agree that he didn't; therefore what is there to sack him for?

Because Cameron said that anyone who is non-domicile for tax purposes will be sacked. Why hasn't he done so?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

Residence and domicile are two different things. You can be permanently resident and non-domiciled.

Exactly, which is why he did (imho) nothing meriting being fired.

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Because Cameron said that anyone who is non-domicile for tax purposes will be sacked. Why hasn't he done so?

No - he said he wanted to introduce legislation to that effect in the next parliament expeditiously. Would be rather silly of him to just slice off his own non-dom crew while allowing Labour to feed off their own wouldn't it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...and-peers.html

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Exactly, which is why he did (imho) nothing meriting being fired.

That's not to say that the general public won't have interpreted that as meaning that the intention was for Ashcroft to pay UK tax on all his income, rather than just his UK income though.