Tax dodgers

It has been admitted that 'Jazz' and other subsequent albums were tax dodges (due to being recorded in tax havens). Is it still going on? Where are Queen's company's based these days? I could do my own research but I am very lazy.

Principality of Sealand

New Sealand?

Haha!

I imagine the royalties are taxed in the UK, can't hide that... and the funds moved to tax havens for investing purposes... Caymens is a popular place...

The royalties are generally earned by the company that owns the recordings. So if that is QPL, and QPL is domiciled in the UK. Royalties are taxed in the UK.

so called "tax havens" are not illegal if used correctly. The cash can be moved to an offshore account, as long as you report your income in your country of residence. The main benefit, if used legally, is that the funds in which the cash is invested in can generally grow at a faster pace since the country in which the cash is invested has a very favorable taxation rate (ie. Caymen = 0). Your country of residence will then dictate how the income on that cash is taxed. If you report and pay tax in your country of residence, it is completely legal.

Unfortunately, the news blows these things out of proportion. Just because someone has cash invested in a so-called tax haven - does not mean they are not paying their fair share. i imagine this question comes as a result of the paradise papers in which case, funds were growing in Malta - a notorious tax haven. KPMG used the Isle of Mann which was recently found out. And of course the Panama Papers which was the result of very stupid people who blew the lid wide open!

What queen did back in the 70s was probably very different. I don't think it had to do with royalties. It's been a while since i've last seen how the entertainment business handles their finances - so i can't comment on that. Also, taxation in the 70s and 80s is nowhere near as complicated as it is today. The rules were simpler back then. When people cheat, more rules are added to the great book of rules.

Let's not forget that both ends of the spectrum when it comes to wealth play the tax evasion game, your window cleaner, builder, plumber, etc that ask to get paid in cash.... same thing and percentage of your income wise it is much the same as sticking your fortune in the Cayman Islands.... Actually it tends to be the middle classes that prop up the tax system and pay by far the most into it.

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]

Let's not forget that both ends of the spectrum when it comes to wealth play the tax evasion game, your window cleaner, builder, plumber, etc that ask to get paid in cash.... same thing and percentage of your income wise it is much the same as sticking your fortune in the Cayman Islands.... Actually it tends to be the middle classes that prop up the tax system and pay by far the most into it.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely true.

What drove a lot of high earners away in the late 70's (Queen included) was the 90% tax status. It really wasn't worth earning/banking huge incomes in the UK.

I believe that,if not QP, certainly some of the companies owned by it are based in Switzerland.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]

Let's not forget that both ends of the spectrum when it comes to wealth play the tax evasion game, your window cleaner, builder, plumber, etc that ask to get paid in cash.... same thing and percentage of your income wise it is much the same as sticking your fortune in the Cayman Islands.... Actually it tends to be the middle classes that prop up the tax system and pay by far the most into it.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely true.

What drove a lot of high earners away in the late 70's (Queen included) was the 90% tax status. It really wasn't worth earning/banking huge incomes in the UK.

I believe that,if not QP, certainly some of the companies owned by it are based in Switzerland.[/QUOTE]

Yeah they benefited from free education and health care, and used infrastructure and services paid for collectively, then fucked off abroad when it was their turn to pay a bit back.

Being hammered for 90% of what you've earned is a good reason to take your business and earnings elsewhere.

What would you do In that situation.

90% of a proportion of their earnings above a certain amount. The Queen PR machine never mentions that.

What would I do in that situation? I would like to think I would pay my taxes and if I chose to be an immoral slug and move my income abroad I would like to think someone would call me on that if I started spouting off, for example, about "everything is broken" -- if the wealthy paid what they should in taxes, everything might not be broken.

Well, my wife has paid income tax and N.I. contributions for 43 years on the understanding she would get her state pension at 60, then the goalposts were shifted and she now has to work 6 more years, something like 30 odd grand snatched away from her, now that's hard to take. Tax avoidance? - wouldn't hesitate given the chance,

[QUOTE] [b]master marathon runner wrote:[/b]

Well, my wife has paid income tax and N.I. contributions for 43 years on the understanding she would get her state pension at 60, then the goalposts were shifted and she now has to work 6 more years, something like 30 odd grand snatched away from her, now that's hard to take. Tax avoidance? - wouldn't hesitate given the chance,[/QUOTE]

Aren't the tax avoiders at least somewhat to blame for this shifting of the goalposts?

it's all public information

Queen production company filings at Company House: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01226628/filing-history

Annual Record (Ending Sept 2016, last data filed): https://goo.gl/ab4mj8

And John Deacon's May 2017 signature .... http://tinypic.com/r/2mi7n4/9

Good points Holly



...also. .. I'd like to fuck off a broad again. It's been a long minute