Icebreaker Tax Avoidance Scheme - Were Musicians Ever Funded From This Scheme

[barney15c]

In light of the Icebreaker Tax avoidance scheme, Larkdale LLP which had amongst others had Gary Barlow as a director which purported to help struggling music talent flourish but cynically was an instrument to avoid tax and in the process racked up huge losses which could be claimed against. It hasnt been mentioned in any news story, but did it 'actually' fund any artists, because if they didn't surely that amounts to fraud as well . BTW it emerged that Colin Jackson (Athlete) and Gaby Logan were involved in similar schemes too, although they imply it was done in good faith (well they would do wouldn't they).

[Peter Pedant]

.

Me you are shoing abnormal sensitivity to some of the wrong-doers
your real name isnt.... Gary or Gaby is it by any chance ?

and: If the scheme is street-legal, who really cares?

erm no its isnt legal - Gary's scheme. It may not be evasion/criminal but is still no-no.

and the difference ? the difference is a factor of three
DOddy was accused of £1m evasion and if he had been convicted which he was not: then a million in fines ( for the crime ) and then to pay his tax -that would be a million, and also nasty nasty things called pains and penalties - a sum not exceeding - yup a million.

Triple trubble - Gary only has single trouble as far as I can see.


street legal - you're gonna tell me that street-legal means non-legal or illegal, arent you ?

[Maydup]

This seems straightforward to me...it was on the 10o'clock news too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27484940

[Maydup]

And here own statement is here...

http://www.gabbylogan.com/news/2014/05/18/a-statement-from-gabby/6179

[Mamyalynne]

Doddy = Ken Dodd at a guess

[Peter Pedant]

Ken Dodd was famously ( up here ) indicted for some tax crime.
His counsel was provincial, George Carman QC ( biog available by his son ) who was "noticed", and inveigled ( byt he promises of money) down to London to do jury libel work, and made an absolute mint of money.
....
Carman was the 'feed' and Doddy apparently had the jury in stitches....

Judgy-baby not so amused but there was little he could do ( to ahead off the expected acquittal ) - there was still of course the unpaid tax to be paid ( and pains and pens ) which was recovered in an 'action on account' apparently.

[Gromit]

Peter Pedant, thanks for posting the Tax Tribunals judgement, it is interesting reading.

They decided that the tax avoidance scheme was unlawful and some rich and famous investors owe us £millions in taxes.

Unfortunately the court paperwork colludes in hiding the identities of those involved, only referring to them by pseudonyms....

// We heard the oral evidence of twelve
witnesses, in the following order:

- A member of Hawksbridge whom we shall identify, as we have indicated, as “Mr Hawksbridge”;
- “Mrs Starbrooke”;
- “Mr Bastionspark”;
- “Mr Edgedale”;
- A member of a partnership which is not a party to the present appeal, but whose appeal is stood over behind it, “Mr Ironmoat”;
- A member of another such partnership, “Mr Moondale”; and
- A further such member, “Mr Keepstone”. //

Why are these people allowed to hide? The shemes were illegal, why aren't they prosecuted and jailed. If someone on benefits had defrauded a fraction of that money they would be imprisoned.

[douglas9401]

There's more than a hint of Sheldon Cooper in the air around here.

[Peter Pedant]

because the tax tribunal is civil law

and the tax evasion bit is criminal law which is different and much harder to prove....

[Peter Pedant]

Sheldon Cooper - ?
when ever anyone says Gaby Roslin - I think "Alien" [fried ]

[anneasquith]

gaby roslin ?

[Gromit]

Peter Pedant, thanks for that. The Tribunal in its judgement makes plain that the way the scheme was set up, no investor would be able to see how any profit from the investment could be made. They could only make a liss, and were deliberately set up to make a loss. No one one invest in them for any other reason than for tax relief on the guaranteed losses these schemes would provide.

// “We are, indeed, quite satisfied that no serious and even moderately sophisticated investor, or one with a competent adviser, genuinely seeking a profit, even one willing to engage in a high-risk venture, but unmindful of any possible tax advantage, would rationally have chosen an Icebreaker Partnership. The prospect that substantial trading profits would be earned was so lacking in evidential foundation that a belief in it could be nothing more than wishful thinking, and the individual referrers, despite their claims to the contrary, could have had no rational expectation that they would see any return on the personal contribution, still less that the money would ever be returned to them, and we find that they did not.” //

If this is the judgement of the tribunal, why is a criminal case harder to prove?

[Peter Pedant]

God well done G I found the judgment hard to read.

If the civil tribunal is so critical, why isnt there a criminal case ?
Fred Puli would be one for that

harder to prove and different acts - and you have to show intent all beyond reasonable doubt.