"Can Your See It" - Glasgow!

One of the best songs and one of the best videos ever - and I hate 'boy bands' and tax avoiders!

But sometimes you have just got to hold your hands up and admit that you've got things so terribly wrong, as in the case of Glasgow City Council and equal pay. 

  

Take That, Ya Bastard! (12/05/14)

When I read the article below from The Independent about members of Take That facing a multi-million pound bill as a result of their involvement in an elaborate tax avoidance scheme, I couldn't resist the temptation to revisit this post from the blog site archive.

The judge involved said:

“Icebreaker is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be, a tax-avoidance scheme. The predominant purpose of entering the scheme was to achieve a tax saving.”

In the circumstances the punchline of the joke - 'Take That, Ya Bastard!' - seems so very appropriate.

Take That! (7 February 2014)

I'm not normally too partial to jokes circulated over the internet, but my friend Greg shared this one which certainly made me laugh.  

Scottish Pub Quiz....  And the final question to win the £100 is: The title of Take That's first album consisted of four words, the first two words were "Take That". What are the other two words that complete the title ? There was a long pause then.. A wee Glasgow-man stands up and says : Was it - "Ya Bastard"...? I tip my hat to whoever made that one up, so to celebrate here's a stunning YouTube video of Take That at the top of their game.

Take That... and that and that: Former boy band members face repaying tens of millions of pounds of avoided tax

Judge rules that investment scheme was tax-avoidance in disguise

By LEWIS SMITH - The Independent

Members of the former boy band Take That could be forced to repay tens of millions of pounds after a judge ruled that an investment scheme was tax-avoidance in disguise.

Gary Barlow, Howard Donald, Mark Owen and their manager, Jonathan Wild, reportedly invested £66m in Icebreaker partnerships which were billed as music-industry investment schemes.

Judge Colin Bishopp ruled, however, that Icebreaker was a tax-avoidance scheme and HM Revenue &Customs is now expected to demand repayment of the tax relief.

The judge said: “Icebreaker is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be, a tax-avoidance scheme. The predominant purpose of entering the scheme was to achieve a tax saving.”

None of the 51 Icebreaker partnerships made a profit despite supposedly investing in a range of artists, some of them new and others well-established.

Investments in the scheme were boosted by members by taking out loans with Barclays and SG Hambros banks which served no discernable purpose but to inflate the amounts which could be offset against tax.

At least £300m was placed in the scheme, set up by the company Icebreaker Management, and the average investor is now expected to have to pay back £357,000. The Take That stars are likely to have to repay much more, though not Jason Orange nor Robbie Williams as neither is believed to have been involved in the scheme.

Almost 1,000 investors are understood to have paid into more than 51 Icebreaker partnerships between them and the judge dismissed arguments they had been set up for commercial purposes or profit.

A spokesman for Icebreaker Management was reported as saying the decision puts potential funding for the music industry “in jeopardy”.

An HMRC spokesperson said: “HMRC has put in place generous reliefs to support genuine business investment and our tax reliefs for the creative industries work well, enabling the UK’s world-class film, television and video production companies to compete on the global stage.

“But we will not tolerate abuse of the system by people trying to dodge their tax obligations. HMRC will continue to challenge in the courts and anyone who engages in tax avoidance schemes risk not only the high cost of these schemes but also lay themselves open to penalties and, potentially, prosecution.”

There was no immediate comment from Take That members but statements previously made on their behalf have said they made significant tax and did not believe they were taking part in tax-avoidance.