------ Forwarded Message > From: "dasg...@aol.com" <dasg...@aol.com> > Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:47:23 EST > To: Robert Millegan <ramille...@aol.com> > Cc: <ema...@aol.com>, <j...@aol.com>, <jim6...@cwnet.com> > Subject: It's "Government of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich," in Great > Britain Too >
> In 2009, the Prime Minister of Belize > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Belize> told its parliament: > > "Ashcroft is an extremely powerful man.. His net worth may well be equal > to Belize's entire GDP. He is nobody to cross." ² > In 1981, Belize had gained independence from the UK. Seeing the opportunity > to build an off-shore operations base, in 1984 Ashcroft formed Belize Holdings > (BHI), which became the vehicle for an acquisition spree during the 1980s ... > By the late 1980s, BHI had become one of the largest holding companies in > Belize, with direct interests in or holdings in a vast number of industries > via its main operating company Stargate Ltd. In 1987, BHI led the formation > of Belize Bank Holdings (BBH), which took control of Belize Bank > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize_Bank> from Royal Bank of Canada > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Canada> . Belize Bank became the > country's largest financial institution, controlling some 50 percent of the > market. BBH developed local and international interests in facilities > services, employment outsourcing, finance, security, and tele-communications. > Belize Bank itself held a majority stake in Belize Telemedia Limited > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize_Telemedia> , until it was nationalised by > the Government of Belize. The rapid nationalisation came after years of > litigation wherein Ashcroft was accused of tax evasion as well as various > abuses of corporate power ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft,_Baron_Ashcroft > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft,_Baron_Ashcroft> > > Tory party has been bought like a 'banana republic', says Huhne > By Andy McSmith and Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor > > The Independent (UK), 2 March 2010 > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-has-been-bought-like- > a-banana-republic-says-huhne-1914290.html > > Michael Ashcroft, the billionaire Tory peer [=life-member of the House of > Lords], has not paid any income tax on his vast overseas earnings for more > than 10 years, it was revealed yesterday. > > The revelation of his non-dom tax status, dragged out through the Freedom of > Information Act, is an acute embarrassment for the Tories. It proves the > party's deputy chairman, who is playing a pivotal role in the election > campaign, was passing laws in the House of Lords while avoiding tax on most of > his fortune. It also adds to the impression in voters' minds of the > Conservatives as a party for the very rich. > > When he was awarded a peerage, 10 years ago, Lord Ashcroft gave a "clear and > unequivocal assurance" that he would become a permanent UK resident. William > Hague, the former Tory leader who nominated Lord Ashcroft for a peerage, > hailed that assurance as being worth "tens of millions" to the British > Treasury, as the peer started paying UK taxes on his vast wealth. > > But Lord Ashcroft has now disclosed that under a deal he brokered with the tax > authorities he became a "long-term resident" of the UK, without being > "domiciled" here. The distinction meant that he did not need to pay tax > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-has-been-bought-like > -a-banana-republic-says-huhne-1914290.html#> on the bulk of his fortune, > which was made abroad, provided that he did not bring it into the country. > > In a statement posted on his website yesterday, Lord Ashcroft said that during > his private negotiations with the UK tax authorities, "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 10 years, I have been declaring all my UK income to > HM Revenue. My precise tax status therefore is that of a non-dom." > > He also published the text of the letter he wrote to Mr Hague in March 2000, > in which he promised "to take up permanent residence" in the UK by the end of > that calendar year. He added that he had given his backing to a plan by David > Cameron which would prevent any peers or MPs from having non-dom status, and > that he plans to remain in the House of Lords "for many years to come". > > His statement was welcomed yesterday by Mr Cameron, who said: "I am delighted > that Lord Ashcroft has come out and said 'Right, you want to know the > undertakings I gave here they are, you want to know my tax status here it > is'." > > Lord Ashcroft was first nominated for a peerage by Mr Hague in 1999, but he > was rejected by the Honours Scrutiny Committee because he was a tax exile. On > his website, he refers to Belize, in Central America, as his home. > > For years, he has resisted giving any information about his tax status, but he > relented yesterday knowing that the Cabinet Office was going to put out > information later in the day. The Government had been ordered by the > Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, to answer a question put by the > Labour MP Gordon Prentice, under the Freedom of Information Act. > > Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, accused the Tories of concealing > the truth about their billionaire donor for a decade. He said: "Instead of > paying tax > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-has-been-bought-like > -a-banana-republic-says-huhne-1914290.html#> in the UK on all his earned > income, Lord Ashcroft has been channelling millions into the Conservative > Party." > > Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, claimed the Tory > party had been "bought like a banana republic". He said: "The Conservatives' > biggest donor has not paid a penny of British tax on the vast bulk of his > estimated £1.1bn fortune held offshore." > > Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates have protested for years over the > amount of Ashcroft money being lavished on marginal seats. His companies have > donated £5.2m to the party since 2001, including £4.1m since Mr Cameron became > leader. The Conservatives say no more than 10 per cent of the money spent in > marginal seats had come from Lord Ashcroft. But privately senior Conservatives > said they wish he had come clean months ago. They now desperately hope that > yesterday's disclosure will draw the sting out of the issue. > > The Tories attempted a fight-back, accusing Labour and the Liberal Democrats > of hypocrisy because of the role non-doms play in funding their parties. They > claimed that Labour had taken more than £10m since 2001 from eight non-doms, > including Lord Paul who was made a Privy Councillor last summer. The Liberal > Democrats also accepted nearly £3.5m from non-doms, according to the Tories. > > Ashcroft¹s tax - Why do we care? > > Why does anyone care about where the Conservative Party deputy chairman, Lord > Ashcroft, pays his tax? In part, it is because despite having donated more > than £5m to the Tories (he is one of the biggest ever donors to a British > political party) he has refused to say until now whether he pays any tax in > the UK. He is also a central figure for the Conservatives and plans strategy > in key marginal constituencies directing how to spend his own and others' > money > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-has-been-bought-like > -a-banana-republic-says-huhne-1914290.html#> in pursuit of electing David > Cameron. In addition, his seat in the House of Lords where he can influence > legislation was dependent on him committing to becoming a permanent resident > of Britain. > > The crux of the issue is that at first glance, there appears to be an > inconsistency between the undertaking Lord Ashcroft gave to William Hague on > 23 March 2000 to qualify for that peerage a "solemn and binding undertaking" > to "take up permanent residence in the UK again" and his tax status as > "non-domicile" (non-dom). HM Revenue and Customs rules imply that anyone > classed as a "non-dom" for tax purposes cannot have their "permanent" > residence in the UK. As the rules state: "You are domiciled in the country > where you have your permanent home." > > So Lord Ashcroft is only entitled to be a "non-dom" resident in the UK if his > permanent home is abroad, presumably in Belize, where he has business > interests and many other connections, and spent some of his youth. > > But the fact that in 2000 he described his residency in the UK as "permanent" > suggested that his permanent home may be here in Britain rather than > elsewhere. That may be why Lord Ashcroft's statement yesterday dwells on a > distinction between residency (usually irrelevant for non-doms) and permanent > residency (highly relevant for tax if HMRC deems it means permanent home). > > Ashcroft said yesterday: "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'." If he > has settled this with HMRC it may be because he has indicated a longer-term > ambition to leave the UK and retire elsewhere. > > Lord Ashcroft is exposed because most non-doms qualify by their father's > birthplace "domicile of origin". If he is a "non-dom of choice" because his > father was born in the UK, he is vulnerable to losing his cherished tax > status. Usually a non-dom of choice has to show they have permanently > emigrated or severed their UK links; being a member of the Lords and a major > Tory donor might be regarded as quite a strong set of British connections, > though his Belizean ones may be deeper. > > Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor > ------ End of Forwarded Message
