On 20/12/2021 02:30 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/2021 01:53 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.."
>>>>>>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
>>>>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
>>>>>>> plenty of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
>>>>>> vice-versa)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
>>>>
>>>> That's a big assumption.
>>>
>>> To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
>>> that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
>>> that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
>>> home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
>>> for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
>>> due on that foregone rental payment.
>>
>> But I would never say that I was visiting the UK in order to visit
>> property owned abroad.
>>
>> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
>> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
>
> So all this is just a semantics nit-pick?

No. A query as to what the PP meant when he criticised people who live
abroad (that's "outside the UK") visiting the UK in order to visit
properties abroad. That still hasn't been made clear (though you have
provided your view on it).

> OK, I'm out.

In article <j2bfkqF8tadU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 01:29 pm, charles wrote:
> > In article <j2bcnhF8c34U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
> >
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
> >>>>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >>>
> >>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
> >>>>> asking about something I didn't write.
> >>>
> >>>> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
> >>>> the UK?
> >>>
> >>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
> >>> and plenty of it.
> >
> >> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
> >> (or vice-versa)?
> >
> > It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the
> > UK.

> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?

Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <j2bab7F7tqdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
> UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
> UK's income tax receipts.

> Is that correct or incorrect?

Depends, for example, if you include people who live here as their main
location and have a UK passport, but get any 'pay' go to a non-UK concern
and thus claim they have no personal income here, etc. Hence pay no UK tax.
Ditto for those who are similar but do not have a UK passport. I don't
recall a checkable source for the statement given that we can examine.

Not clear why you are worried about that, though. If they don't pay tax
here then they may be counted in the 'zero income' lowest part, but still
dodge the tax. Are you just nit-picking as an alternative to dealing with
the actual problem that tax dodging loses us tax that we might otherwise
claim from people who reside in the UK?

The bottom line is that we have a number of people of high wealth and high
income who essentially live here but dodge the tax via having their income
and wealth 'offshore'.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j2ba1lF7qmuU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Not at all.

> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?

Since that isn't what I wrote or meant, I have no idea why you wish to ask.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <599dc8d9b2charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <j2ba1lF7qmuU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > > In article <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
> > >> abroad..."
> > >
> > >> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> > >
> > > Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
> > > asking about something I didn't write.

> > Not at all.

> > How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?

> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
> plenty of it.

I get the feeling JNugent wants to nit-pick rather than deal with the
actual problem of tax dodging by 'offshoring' income and wealth.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 20/12/2021 01:14 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
>> UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
>> UK's income tax receipts.
>
>> Is that correct or incorrect?
>
> Depends, for example, if you include people who live here as their main
> location and have a UK passport, but get any 'pay' go to a non-UK concern
> and thus claim they have no personal income here, etc. Hence pay no UK tax.
> Ditto for those who are similar but do not have a UK passport. I don't
> recall a checkable source for the statement given that we can examine.
>
> Not clear why you are worried about that, though. If they don't pay tax
> here then they may be counted in the 'zero income' lowest part, but still
> dodge the tax. Are you just nit-picking as an alternative to dealing with
> the actual problem that tax dodging loses us tax that we might otherwise
> claim from people who reside in the UK?
>
> The bottom line is that we have a number of people of high wealth and high
> income who essentially live here but dodge the tax via having their income
> and wealth 'offshore'.

So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.

OK.

On what basis do you dispute it?

On 20/12/2021 01:16 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <599dc8d9b2charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>> In article <j2ba1lF7qmuU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> In article <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
>>>>> abroad..."
>>>>
>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>>
>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
>>>> asking about something I didn't write.
>
>>> Not at all.
>
>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
>
>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
>> plenty of it.
>
> I get the feeling JNugent wants to nit-pick rather than deal with the
> actual problem of tax dodging by 'offshoring' income and wealth.

I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
property which isn't here.

On 20/12/2021 02:56 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <j2bfkqF8tadU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 01:29 pm, charles wrote:
>>> In article <j2bcnhF8c34U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
>>>>>>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
>>>>>>> asking about something I didn't write.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
>>>>>> the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
>>>>> and plenty of it.
>>>
>>>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
>>>> (or vice-versa)?
>>>
>>> It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the
>>> UK.
>
>> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
>
> Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.

Like my friend's apartment in Malaga?

In article <j2buc8FbmkoU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 01:16 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <599dc8d9b2charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> > <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <j2ba1lF7qmuU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> >> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>> In article <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> >>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
> >>>>> abroad..."
> >>>>
> >>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
> >>>> asking about something I didn't write.
> >
> >>> Not at all.
> >
> >>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
> >
> >> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
> >> and plenty of it.
> >
> > I get the feeling JNugent wants to nit-pick rather than deal with the
> > actual problem of tax dodging by 'offshoring' income and wealth.

> I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
> property which isn't here.

The only person who this "it isn't here" is yourself

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>
> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.

Only by you.

(As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)

Jim

On 20/12/2021 13:30, JNugent wrote:
> Were you unaware that mortgage tax relief was abolished in 1997 by
> Gordon Broon immediately on taking office (even though it had not been
> mentioned in the Labour Manifesto for the General Election that year)?
>
It wasn't abolished as such. It simply moved from being something that
the mortgagee claimed as income tax relief from the Inland Revenue, to a
reduction in the interest charged by the mortgager where the resultant
reduction in profit was reflected in a reduced Corporation Tax liability.

Jim

On 20/12/2021 10:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <spo0g3$1h3$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
>>> TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
>>> And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
>>> their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to
>>> realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
>>> of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up
>>> paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.
>
>> They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
>> pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
>
> They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to play
> for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.

Those arrangements are for payments for image rights, not for playing.
Only some - by no means all - involve overseas companies.

Similar arrangements for payments under their contracts to play for the
club wd be ineffective. They are contracts of employment.

Clubs may try to dress up contractual payments as payments for image
rights but HMRC can and do challenge the split. Just as they do for
others - eg UK engineers and scientists working for multinational
companies - who return most of their income as for work done outside the
UK under dual contracts.

> IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that some
> BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for
> footballers.
>

Different issue. The BBC cases turned on whether or not the person was
was an employee. Nothing to do with image rights. And in the cases
I've seen reported, no overseas companies.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <0fd5e67a-8d17-16df-c318-8490db61501c@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
>>> figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
>>>
>
>> A few brief points:
>
>> a. nothing new in this: much the same under Labour governments
>
> Yup. Didn't say otherwise. If it helps you in 'party political' terms I'll
> include LLPs being a trick that Tony B Liar invented and has been used
> enthusiastically by tax dodgers and wealth-concealers ever since,
>
>
>> c. the individual will pay taxes such as VAT in the UK and the company
>> council tax or business rates
>
> If you trade/manufacture you can also claim back the nominal VAT on what
> you have to buy in. This lets you sell things to your UK company from other
> companies which you own, abroad. Leads to tricks like the one now popular
> for 'chain shops'. They charge for their 'brand name' and basic supplies
> coming from a non-UK source, and ensure the UK shops make 'no proifit' and
> that they can offset a lot of the taxes in the UK.
>
> If you read PE this has also been repeatedly documented for a number of
> well-known 'brand' chain shops.
>
>> d. you omit to say what the solution is - ie what tax the UK should
>> charge the individual if they have no income or gains or property in the
>> UK. Be nice to have at least some idea.
>
> OK, here are you 10 starters:
>
> Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.

Do you mean HMRC?

> Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels of
> skills in these areas.
> Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be proactive in investigating these
> areas more aggressively - including when MPs are involved.
> Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff from leaving to take a job on
> the 'other side of the fence' for, say, five years after leaving their
> Government job.

That's much longer than restrictions elsewhere in Europe. I doubt the
ECtHR would accept it.

> Step 5 would be to change the law to make many of the current tax dodging
> practices illegal.

Without knowing just which practices are to be illegal that's like a
promise to sprinkle fairy dust.

> Step 6 would be to require any new trick that 'saved tax' to have to be
> approved by the IRC, etc, *before* it could be used to dodge tax. Ditto for
> any undeclared methods found after investigations.

That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an
inconvenient truth again.

> Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late or
> inaccurately.
> Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current form.
> Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies that fail to
> openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so they can be traced
> and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who is useing them, etc.
> Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative about the roles played by
> banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and the way the tend to promote
> tricks, play games, etc, often in the process destroying simple UK
> companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc, as naus.)
>
> No doubt more would help.
>

None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
capital gains or property in the UK.

But I don't doubt that given power you would do great things, like King Lear

"I will do such things,-
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:59:15 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

[snip loads of stuff Lesurf penned]
>
>None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
>capital gains or property in the UK.
>
>But I don't doubt that given power you would do great things, like King Lear
>
>"I will do such things,-
>What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
>The terrors of the earth."

Jim has spent too miuch time in Senior Common Rooms discussing the
inadequaciers of the world. Forgive him.

--
brightside S9

On 20/12/2021 09:52 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
>> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
>
> Only by you.
>
> (As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
> free to ignore mine too.  It is your loss, not mine)
>
> Jim

Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
good self.

"Property owned abroad" would always be taken in everyday English to
mean property in another country owned by someone who lives here ("here"
meaning in the country of the person speaking or writing).

On 20/12/2021 10:02 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 20/12/2021 13:30, JNugent wrote:

>> Were you unaware that mortgage tax relief was abolished in 1997 by
>> Gordon Broon immediately on taking office (even though it had not been
>> mentioned in the Labour Manifesto for the General Election that year)?
>>
> It wasn't abolished as such.  It simply moved from being something that
> the mortgagee claimed as income tax relief from the Inland Revenue, to a
> reduction in the interest charged by the mortgager where the resultant
> reduction in profit was reflected in a reduced Corporation Tax liability.
>
> Jim

I don't deny that there is something at the base of what you say, but
you are thinking of the (earlier) transformation of mortgage tax relief
(which beneficially amended the borrower's tax-code) into MIRAS
(mortgage interest relief at source).

This change, in 1983, effectively combined tax relief and the old Option
mortgage scheme into a single system, where the interest rate was
effectively subsidised (up to £30,000) by an amount equal to what the
tax relief would have been had it still been in existence.

But the whole unitary scheme - now called just MIRAS - was abolished by
Gordon Brown as almost his first policy move after the May 1997
election. It was done simultaneously with the abolition of the married
couples' tax allowance and the net effect was that married couples with
mortgages were hit twice over by increases in income tax. Oddly, and as
I am sure you will recall, neither move was foreshadowed in the 1997
Labour manifesto. Brown must have forgotten to include it, since he was
clearly planning it all along. A mere slip of the memory. Could have
happened to anyone.

And neither was the £5,000,000,000 (and rising) per annum that Brown
decided to purloin out of private pension funds included in that
manifesto. Funny, that.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:56:05 +0000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>>> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
>>
>> Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.
>
>Like my friend's apartment in Malaga?

I don't think it's "quite simply" clear at all.

There seems to be confusion about whether the phrase "property owned
abroad" means that it is the property that is abroad, or the ownership
of it that is abroad (with the property itself being here).

If invited to vote to establish a consensus I'm not even sure which I
would choose myself. I think if I wanted to convey either meaning I
would use different words to avoid ambiguity, or if I preferred to
make frequent use of a short phrase I would have to define it first.

It reminds me of the road signs "ROAD AHEAD CLOSED" and "ROAD CLOSED
AHEAD", which apparently have different meanings, though until
somebody pointed this out I hadn't even noticed that there were two
different signs.

Rod.

In article <j2bfkqF8tadU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?

If it helps you, I've been talking about property which is in the UK, but
which is 'owned' by a company outwith the UK. Then in some/many cases that
property is used by someone who is living IN the UK wo also owns that
company abroad. That person may well have bought a UK passport so as to
gain the 'rights' of being here. Or may be a 'non dom' for tax reasons.
etc, etc, etc. Various games are played wrt status, etc, but such dodgers.

I realise this is complex. Many tax dodges use deliberate complications
like this. But it is exampled and evidenced many times over by sources like
PE and the various international 'unearthings' like the Panama Papers, etc.

London is an international favourite for these kinds of games by people who
become non doms here, etc, as suits their tactics. Their income from UK
sources is paid to a company abroad, so they 'have no income to declare'.

As with LLPs that fail to declare a genuine owner, they then leave the
authorities here to whistle.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 20/12/2021 05:38 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2bfkqF8tadU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
>
> If it helps you, I've been talking about property which is in the UK, but
> which is 'owned' by a company outwith the UK.

That certainly clarifies what you were talking about.

> Then in some/many cases that
> property is used by someone who is living IN the UK wo also owns that
> company abroad. That person may well have bought a UK passport so as to
> gain the 'rights' of being here. Or may be a 'non dom' for tax reasons.
> etc, etc, etc. Various games are played wrt status, etc, but such dodgers.
>
> I realise this is complex. Many tax dodges use deliberate complications
> like this. But it is exampled and evidenced many times over by sources like
> PE and the various international 'unearthings' like the Panama Papers, etc.
>
> London is an international favourite for these kinds of games by people who
> become non doms here, etc, as suits their tactics. Their income from UK
> sources is paid to a company abroad, so they 'have no income to declare'.
>
> As with LLPs that fail to declare a genuine owner, they then leave the
> authorities here to whistle.
>
> Jim
>

On 21/12/2021 08:51 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:56:05 +0000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>>>> What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
>>>
>>> Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.
>>
>> Like my friend's apartment in Malaga?
>
> I don't think it's "quite simply" clear at all.

> There seems to be confusion about whether the phrase "property owned
> abroad" means that it is the property that is abroad, or the ownership
> of it that is abroad (with the property itself being here).

No confusion. Someone using that phrase in the UK would be assumed - in
context - to be talking about property outside the UK. That's the way
that the language works.
>
> If invited to vote to establish a consensus I'm not even sure which I
> would choose myself. I think if I wanted to convey either meaning I
> would use different words to avoid ambiguity, or if I preferred to
> make frequent use of a short phrase I would have to define it first.
>
> It reminds me of the road signs "ROAD AHEAD CLOSED" and "ROAD CLOSED
> AHEAD", which apparently have different meanings, though until
> somebody pointed this out I hadn't even noticed that there were two
> different signs.

The distinct meanings are fairly obvious. In one, the road is completely
closed (no access to it) and in the other, it is only partially closed
(from a point ahead of the sign, though there is access to th road as
far as that point).

Context is important.

On 21/12/2021 01:50, JNugent wrote:

>
> Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
> good self.

That much is obvious. It doesn't mean it is true though.

Jim

In article <j2buatFbmkoU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.

Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for the
claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep hanging on
tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <f6f0a624-7f11-d011-df01-3a4bd5e0da89@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 10:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <spo0g3$1h3$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to
> > play for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.

> Those arrangements are for payments for image rights, not for playing.
> Only some - by no means all - involve overseas companies.

So only "some" use in a way that dodges UK tax.

> Similar arrangements for payments under their contracts to play for the
> club wd be ineffective. They are contracts of employment.

> Clubs may try to dress up contractual payments as payments for image
> rights but HMRC can and do challenge the split. Just as they do for
> others - eg UK engineers and scientists working for multinational
> companies - who return most of their income as for work done outside the
> UK under dual contracts.

> > IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that
> > some BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for
> > footballers.
> >

> Different issue. The BBC cases turned on whether or not the person was
> was an employee. Nothing to do with image rights. And in the cases
> I've seen reported, no overseas companies.

Yet one of the reported objections was it enabling tax dodging. The
portions of the media that hate the BBC seemed pretty sure of that IIRC.

That said, for the BBC-fearing media to hit the BBC with a fantasy stick
wouldn't be unique. Nor would the hypocracy given they way some press
owners dodge UK tax via being 'offshore'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j2buc8FbmkoU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
> property which isn't here.

I simply want to point out that not's what I was saying. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jt62sg1aedcblck6mhb6kh6qehdpejrbm4@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:59:15 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> [snip loads of stuff Lesurf penned]
> >
> >None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
> >capital gains or property in the UK.
> >
> >But I don't doubt that given power you would do great things, like King
> >Lear
> >
> >"I will do such things,- What they are, yet I know not: but they shall
> >be The terrors of the earth."

> Jim has spent too miuch time in Senior Common Rooms discussing the
> inadequaciers of the world. Forgive him.

....for seeking to expose and catch the crooks who essentially steal
resources from us, by employing legal eagles as cover. Truly, a shameful
thing for anyone to dare to do to their 'betters', eh? :-)

I do realise, though that Bierce was correct when he defined:

Lawyer: Constructed like a die to lie on one side - usually the wrong one.

And, as the exchanges with Robin show, this problem arises because the
wider system of law and practice is flawed in ways that over the decades
have been guided to aid those benefitting.

However, if nothing else, discussing these matters at least makes people
aware of how some of the ultra-wealthy take the rest of us for mugs. "Only
little people pay tax."

Some of the consequences can be seen though. e.g. people might find reading
this book illuminating.

https://autotomically.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/alpha-city-overview-final.pdf

I admit that I found the book to be rather poorly written in terms of being
disorganised in its presentation. But the basic data and implications come
though fairly well. Pehaps as a result of the narrow focus on London as a
physical center for a problem whose impact spreads more widely.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html