Gabby Logan admits tax avoidance but vows to pay it back
Gabby Logan is the latest household name to admit being part of the tax avoidance scheme used by Gary Barlow and Colin Jackson.
The sports presenter invested thousands into Icebreaker, a company which purported to support young musicians.
However, a recent court ruling said the firm was “understood by all concerned to be a tax avoidance scheme”.
Logan says she invested in the scheme in “good faith” and vowed “to pay any tax” she owes.
Icebreaker arranged to harness tax reliefs that the government had intended would support those in creative industries.
The tribunal found that shortly after money was put in to Larkdale LLP, it reported huge losses of more than £25m.
Those losses could then be offset against tax, reducing the men’s tax bills.
In total, around 50 partnerships with hundreds of members invested in Icebreaker, which claimed total losses of £336m.
Does she have an OBE that the BBC can demand be removed from her?
No OBE (yet) but well refreshed by her media friends – The star lives in a £3.8million seven-bedroom house in High Wycombe, Bucks
‘Does she have an OBE that the BBC can demand be removed from her?’
or perhaps a BBC that can be removed?
“Those losses could then be offset against tax, reducing the men’s tax bills.”
That’s a bit harsh, unless she’s had an operation that we haven’t heard about.
Does she have the same tax advisor as Jimmy Carr Margaret Hodge etc
Despite the BBC’s efforts I think most people think it natural to try and legally reduce your tax. The BBC only have it in for Barlow because he’s seen as a patriotic Tory.
Of course none of the ‘self employed’ BBC talent would try and reduce their tax would they?
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a410450/bbc-criticised-by-mps-over-alleged-staff-tax-avoidance.html#~oEPYZvWN3XYWc1
Great picture!
Actually, if she – or Barlow, or anyone else – acted within the law she doesn’t owe any taxes; it is the law which is at fault, not her.
I suspect that these convoluted laws are there for the purpose of allowing the rich and the connected to avoid the kind of taxation which applies to the rest of us. After all, I don’t suppose the Anthony Blairs of this world have any intention of paying the taxes they have designed for the rest of us any more than they send their children to the schools they have designed for the rest of us or live in parts of the country which are “diverse” or “vibrant”. (Have you ever heard of any of them retiring with their ill-gotten gains to Brixton? No, neither have I).
So keep the system simple, keep it straightforward, keep it fair and let the rich pay their fair share. But don’t blame people for minimising their taxes within the rules which are laid down for them by politicians. After all, were I in their position, I would.
Hands up all those who would volunteer to pay four, five, six or even greater amounts of tax than they are legally obliged to. Any volunteers? Arranging your financial affairs to pay the least amount of tax you are obliged to whilst remaining within the tax rules is neither illegal or immoral (for those who wish to display their moral superiority complex).
Those in authority should either prosecute those they are complaining about or wind their necks in and shut up, as should the politicians and the media who are doing nothing other than playing to the gallery to court popularity.
The BBC especially, who for long enough went to extreme measures to provide methods for their personalities to maximise their tax avoidance, should stop being so hypocritical and cease being so selective about who they choose to demonise simply because of their political outlook.
When it comes to extreme tax avoidance methods the B-BBC can hardly pretend it has clean hands in the matter.
Someone should ask Nicky Campbell or Victoria Derbyshire or the guy who does 5live drive whether they have ever contributed to such a scheme (I have no idea whether they have or not, but it would be interesting to hear the answer)
I can hear the shredders whirring as we speak!