In reply to KevinD:
> Which part of its a f*cking secretive scheme which has only partially come out into the open because a rather charming looking company got hacked and hence the full information isnt f*cking available dont you understand?
Why do you think it's secretive? It's been in the public domain for at least four years-as you'd know if you were as interested in knowing anything at all ,as you claim. Given that it publicly changed it's status in 2005 which the HMRC was clearly notified of, why do you think it was secret?
> Apart from you havent. You have just come out with disingenuous comments about the purpose for requiring the directors etc.
What, like "meeting the legal requirements"?
> I know you are in a difficult decision trying to defend cameron but do you really, truly, believe that the company was set up the way it was for any other reason than to minimise tax?
I don't know! But duty free shops are set up for people to minimise tax. As far as I can tell this wasn't some convoluted structure like the Alan Carr structure. It was just a bog standard offshore fund like thousands of others now and then.
My best guess is that some of Cameron's broking clients were either non resident or non domiciled in the UK and therefore, like the millions of people who still invest openly in offshore funds quoted and publicised in the daily papers, they needed a vehicle that allowed them to invest outside of the UK so he helped set one up. He may have put some of his own money in, but quite possible didn't. As I understand it the only benefit to him would have been to treat income as capital gains and thus attract a slightly lower rate of tax.
The fund could have been used by IC or the other investors to evade tax, by not reporting gains when the funds were repatriated to the UK. Some people did that but lots of people didn't. In this case we don't know, and neither would IC need to know, since he wasn't their tax advisor.
So, Im simply saying that the fund appears to be pretty commonal garden. At one end of possibilites it was set up for investors or even IC to evade tax by not declaring their gains, at the other end it was simply a way for individuals not to have to pay tax that they weren't liable for anyway. In the middle it perfectly legally and openly allowed investors (possibly including IC) to pay capital gains instead of income tax with the full knowledge of HMRC (from 1982-4) or simply to remain anonymous.
My guess is was not for evasion, in which case I don't regard IC as having done anything wrong. My point, is that the people like you jumping to conclusions are oing purely on the basis of political prejudice and not on any attempt to understand the fund or the context.
Maybe an IFA can come on here and give a more informed view?
Given that it managed on about £25mn in assets I don't imagine the fund itself would have made much of a profit after admin costs etc. so I imagine IC got paid a small fee of a few grand, which he was liable to declare just like any small business is liable to declare such income.