Imran Khan admits forming offshore company to 'evade British taxes'

[Waseem]

Honestly I've stopped sympathizing with Pakistanis when they cry about loadshedding, inflation, no gas/water and corruption.

You only reap what you sow.

I kind of agree and so many times i feel that there is no point wasting time worrying about out beloved country as there is an extremely organised gang ruling Pakistan right now, they control absolutely everything in Pakistan and their network of supporters/beneficiaries is so big that ANY honest person would struggle to make any difference but at the same time we can't give up on people who are suffering because of their ignorance.

 

[godzilla]

Honestly I've stopped sympathizing with Pakistanis when they cry about loadshedding, inflation, no gas/water and corruption.

You only reap what you sow.

youre right. its heartbreaking. the seventh most populated country in the world - imagine the potential, and the human asset being wasted. and the one guy who has sacrificed his own wealth, has proven his motivations in building incredibly successful educational and medical facilities, and is campaigning for a self funded future of dignity, is taken down by established media, corrupt politicians and desperately insecure attention seeking children - shamelessly utilising diversion and deception. these are not victimless crimes.

 

[Runner Up]

He always said "When PTI will be in power, they will show the world how they will improve tax system in Pakistan"

Khud tax bachata raha

 

[godzilla]

He always said "When PTI will be in power, they will show the world how they will improve tax system in Pakistan"

Khud tax bachata raha

are you not able to understand why these are two entirely different things?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

youre right. its heartbreaking. the seventh most populated country in the world - imagine the potential, and the human asset being wasted. and the one guy who has sacrificed his own wealth, has proven his motivations in building incredibly successful educational and medical facilities, and is campaigning for a self funded future of dignity, is taken down by established media, corrupt politicians and desperately insecure attention seeking children - shamelessly utilising diversion and deception. these are not victimless crimes.

Delusions and delusions.

 

[godzilla]

Delusions and delusions.

based on what?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

based on what?

Based on the fact that you paint Imran as some sort of saint who has done everything possible for the people only.

Such a man doesn't exist, never did, never will.

Add it to the fact, he's as naïve as politicians come, he's a proper terrible person for the head of the state.

 

[Waseem]

based on what?

His response instead of explanation will be "Stop proving that Imran Khan is an angel"

There is nothing in between an evil and angel for some people. Just because Imran Khan is not an angel, they are happy with an evil (Well some even think Imran Khan is the biggest evil in this country but that's different story). This thread is a classic example, people are just hell bent on proving Imran is corrupt person.
Even if there is no corruption or illegality, Oh but Imran is morally corrupt for legally avoiding taxes, well if he is morally corrupt then so are 99% of leaders/average people around the world, oh but he is supposed to be an angel so he should be better than 99% of those leaders/average people in western countries as well.
Look at the priorities of these people, instead of focusing on those who are ACTUALLY ruling the country and have been accused of everything from tax evasion to money laundering to corruption to false declaration of assets, they are worried about someone who paid all due taxes, declared all assets, brought all funds from overseas to Pakistan and there is proof of ALL these transactions.

 

[Waseem]

Based on the fact that you paint Imran as some sort of saint who has done everything possible for the people only.

Such a man doesn't exist, never did, never will.

Add it to the fact, he's as naïve as politicians come, he's a proper terrible person for the head of the state.

Lol I was typing my post while he posted this so i expected NOTHING less from Dr, oh he is not an angel, as if we are supporting Imran for some sort of "Angel of the universe" competition.
So as a Pakistani, we should reject Imran because he is not an angel and directly/indirectly support who we are absolutely sure are evils....HOW LOGICAL!

 

[Saeed]

Add it to the fact, he's as naïve as politicians come, he's a proper terrible person for the head of the state.

Well who is fit to lead our blessed country? Unless you grab an angel from heavens by the next elections awaam will have to choose between these corrupt leaders.

 

[endymion248]

His response instead of explanation will be "Stop proving that Imran Khan is an angel"

There is nothing in between an evil and angel for some people. Just because Imran Khan is not an angel, they are happy with an evil (Well some even think Imran Khan is the biggest evil in this country but that's different story). This thread is a classic example, people are just hell bent on proving Imran is corrupt person.
Even if there is no corruption or illegality, Oh but Imran is morally corrupt for legally avoiding taxes, well if he is morally corrupt then so are 99% of leaders/average people around the world, oh but he is supposed to be an angel so he should be better than 99% of those leaders/average people in western countries as well.
Look at the priorities of these people, instead of focusing on those who are ACTUALLY ruling the country and have been accused of everything from tax evasion to money laundering to corruption to false declaration of assets, they are worried about someone who paid all due taxes, declared all assets, brought all funds from overseas to Pakistan and there is proof of ALL these transactions.

Normal people don't use fiscal havens to buy property without paying property tax on it. That's reserved for greedy rich elites born win a golden spoon in their mouth like Imran.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Lol I was typing my post while he posted this so i expected NOTHING less from Dr, oh he is not an angel, as if we are supporting Imran for some sort of "Angel of the universe" competition.
So as a Pakistani, we should reject Imran because he is not an angel and directly/indirectly support who we are absolutely sure are evils....HOW LOGICAL!

I really don't give vote.

The people of this nation really deserve Zardaris and Nawaz and everything else that comes their way.

One, for being blind and same.

Second, for believing in miracles.

Imran might be a shade better than Zardari and Nawaz, but he has the same "Dharna" mentality that will bring the country onto its knees, if it is not already.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Well who is fit to lead our blessed country? Unless you grab an angel from heavens by the next elections awaam will have to choose between these corrupt leaders.

No one is fit to lead the country.

Imran can come, I have nothing against him.

What I have against is , his supporters, who try to show, that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, when all evidence points he is not.

Second is the myth that as Imran comes "country will start prospering".

You don't change people that way.

 

[Waseem]

No one is fit to lead the country.

Imran can come, I have nothing against him.

What I have against is , his supporters, who try to show, that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, when all evidence points he is not.

Second is the myth that as Imran comes "country will start prospering".

You don't change people that way.

Let's assume that he is only shade better than others (as you said), doesn't that give some people hope that he may improve things in Pakistan, what is wrong with that? How is that equal to people thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread? For decades, we saw PPP and PMLN (alongwith fauj) playing Tom & Jerry with absolutely no results. Imran Khan appeared as a third option (let's say shade better) and people started supporting him. No one thinks Pakistan will develop to become Japan or Korea once Imran comes to power but at least he will concentrate on key priorities like Health, Education, independent institutions, environment etc.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Let's assume that he is only shade better than others (as you said), doesn't that give some people hope that he may improve things in Pakistan, what is wrong with that? How is that equal to people thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread? For decades, we saw PPP and PMLN (alongwith fauj) playing Tom & Jerry with absolutely no results. Imran Khan appeared as a third option (let's say shade better) and people started supporting him. No one thinks Pakistan will develop to become Japan or Korea once Imran comes to power but at least he will concentrate on key priorities like Health, Education, independent institutions, environment etc.

Which is why lately I actually want him to come to power.

I never have hatred for the guy.

It's his supporters who are actually cringeworthy.

 

[godzilla]

Based on the fact that you paint Imran as some sort of saint who has done everything possible for the people only.

Such a man doesn't exist, never did, never will.

Add it to the fact, he's as naïve as politicians come, he's a proper terrible person for the head of the state.

is this supposed to answer the question?

its delusion in your mind because you dont like the fact - yes fact - that he has build hospitals and a college? which aspect of that dont you like, the fact - yes, again, fact - that it helps countless people in poverty who would have otherwise have suffered?

did he sacrifice his own wealth for this? well thats fact too, based on his assets as stated in the public record.

so far thats all facts. not sure whats delusional about that.

the last bit i mentioned was about him aspiring for a self sufficient state. again, thats stated on the record - its an aspiration. whether realistic or not, isnt something i commented on, so again thats fact.

you havent referenced a single item i mentioned which you labelled delusional. the word you used seems appropriate, but not with regards to what i said.

instead your justification is that the things i mentioned are equivalent(???) to me painting him out to be a saint. im afraid thats a concoction of your fantasy there, its certainly not what i implied at all. you state that i imply he has done everything possible for the people only? nope, i didnt say or imply that either, i merely stated indisputable and relevant (see below*) facts. its clear you either have severe comprehension issues, or severe cognitive ones. if english is not your first language, i apologise, and ill assume you have no idea about the words you are using going forwards.

you add to that bs with a little kicker - hes a naive politician. nothing to do with anything, but lets run with it. if he is naive - so what? are you implying he is worse than the incumbent? that nawaz or zardari are not naive? are you aware of what has happened to the country over the past forty years under sharif and bhutto? is that the result of non-political naiveté? if hes is naive - which he may be - im not sure we can use the words appropriate to describe pml or ppp on these boards. if he naive, how exactly do you rate the naivety of sharif and zardari.

*it would appear self evident to a person of adequate intelligence that it is not possible, and is not an option to pick 'the perfect ruler' - there is no question of this. it is an option, however, and is a possibility to pick the best available ruler. since that is the only relevant framework of this discussion, what is the context of your 'critique' (in as much as it is one) - by that i mean, on a relative basis, who is better an why? try not to be a coward, and defend your opinion with something relevant, if thats at all possible.

 

[godzilla]

Normal people don't use fiscal havens to buy property without paying property tax on it. That's reserved for greedy rich elites born win a golden spoon in their mouth like Imran.

no, "fiscal havens" are for people who are not citizens of a country and who are not domiciled there, and so are not liable to the extent of taxation reserved for resident citizens of that country. however, idiots will undoubtedly hand over unnecessary amounts of tax, beyond their legal and moral duty because they are stupid.

assuming you are earning enough of a wage to pay taxes, do you over pay too? if not, why not?

perhaps you should brush up on the subject matter before opening your cyber mouth.

 

[Anfield]

Which is why lately I actually want him to come to power.

I never have hatred for the guy.

It's his supporters who are actually cringeworthy.

you keep blaming his supporter but have you have ever seen how his haters speak/write

"Taaliban Khan" "hypocrite" "Uturn Khan" "jew agent" "root cause of the problem" "women abuser" etc. The biggest problem with his critics is that they're not rational and biggest hypocrites themselves. Most of his critics here claim they don't support PMLN but I have never seen them criticizing PMLN or NS but won't let any chance go to bash IK. Would start bashing IK even if the thread isn't about him. How many of you talked about Nawaz Sharif's children's offshore companies while he was freakin PrimeMinister of Pakistan? about mayfair properties? talked about Nandipur scandal? But here you're talking about IK's offshore company created during his playing days as that's the biggest issue of the Pakistan. If you people are rational and not hypocrites maybe IL supporters would actually listen to you.

 

[Anfield]

I have seen idiots talk about IK not converting governor house to libraries (even though he didn't become the PM) but I have never seen people questioning CM Shahzab Sharif why hasn't he ended the load shedding issues? He said power issues will end in 6 months? and now it's been 3 years? No one asks PM why doesn't he invest in Pak? How can PM convince other people that it's safe to invest in Pak when all of his investment is out Pakistan. I can go on and on but I am sure people got the point..

 

[Anfield]

no, "fiscal havens" are for people who are not citizens of a country and who are not domiciled there, and so are not liable to the extent of taxation reserved for resident citizens of that country. however, idiots will undoubtedly hand over unnecessary amounts of tax, beyond their legal and moral duty because they are stupid.

assuming you are earning enough of a wage to pay taxes, do you over pay too? if not, why not?

perhaps you should brush up on the subject matter before opening your cyber mouth.

quite appropriate. He doesn't eve know the difference b/w Property tax which is a must and you have to pay every year until you own it and one time capital gain tax.

 

[Syed1]

I have seen idiots talk about IK not converting governor house to libraries (even though he didn't become the PM) but I have never seen people questioning CM Shahzab Sharif why hasn't he ended the load shedding issues? He said power issues will end in 6 months? and now it's been 3 years? No one asks PM why doesn't he invest in Pak? How can PM convince other people that it's safe to invest in Pak when all of his investment is out Pakistan. I can go on and on but I am sure people got the point..

That's the thing its so blatantly obvious for Pakistanis living outside of Pakistan how poisonous Nawaz and his cult is, yet the Pakistanis themselves do not see this.

 

[Belawal2014]

That's the thing its so blatantly obvious for Pakistanis living outside of Pakistan how poisonous Nawaz and his cult is, yet the Pakistanis themselves do not see this.

The people of Pakistan deserve the people they elect. No sympathies for em.

 

[Saeed]

That's the thing its so blatantly obvious for Pakistanis living outside of Pakistan how poisonous Nawaz and his cult is, yet the Pakistanis themselves do not see this.

Why do people keep repeating this? PTI wouldn't be the 2nd largest political party if it wasn't for the support from Pakistanis living in Pakistan. Last time PTI had the most votes after PMLN. Obviously many people are tired of PMLN and PPP but PTI would have to do something major to win the support of majority.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

is this supposed to answer the question?

its delusion in your mind because you dont like the fact - yes fact - that he has build hospitals and a college? which aspect of that dont you like, the fact - yes, again, fact - that it helps countless people in poverty who would have otherwise have suffered?

did he sacrifice his own wealth for this? well thats fact too, based on his assets as stated in the public record.

so far thats all facts. not sure whats delusional about that.

the last bit i mentioned was about him aspiring for a self sufficient state. again, thats stated on the record - its an aspiration. whether realistic or not, isnt something i commented on, so again thats fact.

you havent referenced a single item i mentioned which you labelled delusional. the word you used seems appropriate, but not with regards to what i said.

instead your justification is that the things i mentioned are equivalent(???) to me painting him out to be a saint. im afraid thats a concoction of your fantasy there, its certainly not what i implied at all. you state that i imply he has done everything possible for the people only? nope, i didnt say or imply that either, i merely stated indisputable and relevant (see below*) facts. its clear you either have severe comprehension issues, or severe cognitive ones. if english is not your first language, i apologise, and ill assume you have no idea about the words you are using going forwards.

you add to that bs with a little kicker - hes a naive politician. nothing to do with anything, but lets run with it. if he is naive - so what? are you implying he is worse than the incumbent? that nawaz or zardari are not naive? are you aware of what has happened to the country over the past forty years under sharif and bhutto? is that the result of non-political naiveté? if hes is naive - which he may be - im not sure we can use the words appropriate to describe pml or ppp on these boards. if he naive, how exactly do you rate the naivety of sharif and zardari.

*it would appear self evident to a person of adequate intelligence that it is not possible, and is not an option to pick 'the perfect ruler' - there is no question of this. it is an option, however, and is a possibility to pick the best available ruler. since that is the only relevant framework of this discussion, what is the context of your 'critique' (in as much as it is one) - by that i mean, on a relative basis, who is better an why? try not to be a coward, and defend your opinion with something relevant, if thats at all possible.

Lots of people have done things for the people, and Imran is no different.

If only you need to see his "Dharna" mentality to push him away from you.

If that doesn't even make you move away from him, nothing will.

We don't need civil war and chaos in the country, so a power-hungry person can replace a corrupt person just because his name is Imran.

I am glad the "Dharna" actually failed.

Imran should try to win the elections for a change, and get people to support him.

Of course, all elections are rigged, so Imran doesn't win.

You think he cares about people?

He doesn't.

He cares about getting the country's reputable position.

Any person who cares about the country, would not sit for 02 months on a stand off strike, just so he could come to power.

And cap it off, then gets married to someone at the end of the "Dharna"

Joke.

And then have Imranistas saying "that's his personal life"

There is a time and thing for everything.

The guy is as self-centered and obsessed as anyone I have seen in the history of Pakistan.

You wanted the truth, you got the truth.

Imran is a self-centered egomanic, who would do whatever it takes to come to the helm of the power. He has surrounded himself with the same corrupt people, so that he can win the power somehow. This "me me" mentality he has , has rubbed off on his supporters who chant "Imran Imran" and can somehow ignore everything.

When pressed for info, they cite, honesty and a big hospital he built and his performances in KPK. Never mind the fact, he wanted talks with Taliban, the most murderous group of people in the world, never mind he didn't even support the female protection bill, that should have been his first priority.

But no, he knows, his voters are gonna be Pakhtuns, who believe in male supremacy, so Mr Khan decided to just keep mum about it.

I really don't speak much about Imran, because everyone has skeletons and problems.

But your long tirade, as trying to show him as the savior of the nation, and your cunning insults, just deserve a snide dismissal.

I hope for your sakes, that this guy comes to power, so that your Mythology is busted once and for all.

Really hope it happens.

Enjoy the night.

 

[godzilla]

There's so much wrong with that reply it's difficult to know where to start. Your whole argument is based on a presumption that he is driven by a desire for power which it seems you've pulled out of thin air. It could be that he is driven by a desire for Pakistan and Pakistanis to escape the torture they have faced for forty plus years - but that's not even a consideration for you, again with no justification.

You use the dharnas as the perfect proof of your position and that the country cannot afford paralysis. Well the obvious question is can the country afford bankruptcy? If it continues the way it does,and bankruptcy becomes a reality - do you think the country can afford that? Have you had a look at gdp trends, trade deficit and national indebtedness? You call yourself a doctor, surely you can see these things.

Genuine question - which is worse, the country going bankrupt (look at Greece as a bit of an example) or a dharna which might bring change to the political direction pointing to disaster?

I wrote very clearly in my last post that the discussion is meaningless without context. So if you will go out of your way to criticise Imran, how is he worse than sharif or zardari?

You failed to answer this pivotal question before, I won't hold my breath this time.

 

[Waseem]

Why do people keep repeating this? PTI wouldn't be the 2nd largest political party if it wasn't for the support from Pakistanis living in Pakistan. Last time PTI had the most votes after PMLN. Obviously many people are tired of PMLN and PPP but PTI would have to do something major to win the support of majority.

I agree, at times i do feel like giving up on our people but only thing that keeps me engaged is millions who do come out to oppose these thugs, a lot of them actually sacrificed their personal careers, promotions, projects etc to openly oppose these crooks.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

There's so much wrong with that reply it's difficult to know where to start. Your whole argument is based on a presumption that he is driven by a desire for power which it seems you've pulled out of thin air. It could be that he is driven by a desire for Pakistan and Pakistanis to escape the torture they have faced for forty plus years - but that's not even a consideration for you, again with no justification.

You use the dharnas as the perfect proof of your position and that the country cannot afford paralysis. Well the obvious question is can the country afford bankruptcy? If it continues the way it does,and bankruptcy becomes a reality - do you think the country can afford that? Have you had a look at gdp trends, trade deficit and national indebtedness? You call yourself a doctor, surely you can see these things.

Genuine question - which is worse, the country going bankrupt (look at Greece as a bit of an example) or a dharna which might bring change to the political direction pointing to disaster?

I wrote very clearly in my last post that the discussion is meaningless without context. So if you will go out of your way to criticise Imran, how is he worse than sharif or zardari?

You failed to answer this pivotal question before, I won't hold my breath this time.

He is not worse than Sharif or Zardari.

It's premature of you to claim that country will face bankruptcy soon, when in last 20 years or more of PPP and PML(N) power, the country has not faced it.

You are just arguing it would happen, if Imran eventually didn't come to power, while it could have happened even 10 years ago, with Zardari looting every single day.

 

[endymion248]

no, "fiscal havens" are for people who are not citizens of a country and who are not domiciled there, and so are not liable to the extent of taxation reserved for resident citizens of that country. however, idiots will undoubtedly hand over unnecessary amounts of tax, beyond their legal and moral duty because they are stupid.

assuming you are earning enough of a wage to pay taxes, do you over pay too? if not, why not?

perhaps you should brush up on the subject matter before opening your cyber mouth.

Being citizen or domiciled has nothing to do with it, there was nothing preventing IK from buying property in England like a ''normal person'' would a pay the taxes due on it. He made the choice of using a parasitic fiscal haven so that he could avoid paying those taxes. The moral duty of a person is to not exploit loopholes and fiscal havens so that they can avoid paying the taxes ''normal'' people pay.

I do not over-pay, neither do I use fiscal havens to under-pay.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Imran Khan's clarification infront of Media outside Parliament :

https://youtu.be/adfnLhRtQGg

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[IslamabadUnited]

At least, his honest. It's very hard to find honest people in Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

I really don't give vote.

The people of this nation really deserve Zardaris and Nawaz and everything else that comes their way.

One, for being blind and same.

Second, for believing in miracles.

Imran might be a shade better than Zardari and Nawaz, but he has the same "Dharna" mentality that will bring the country onto its knees, if it is not already.

I disagree with this and I also think that the way you describe the public of Pakistan is condescending. Firstly, it is a very easy cop-out to not vote.

It is the duty of every citizen of Pakistan to vote because when you do not vote, you do not have the right to complain.

People who criticize PTI policies (or PML-N, PPP for that matter) have earned the right to do so, because they voted for these parties and have/had certain expectations.

When a person does not vote, he/she makes no personal effort for betterment, so what is the justification for complaining?

Also, it seems as if you don't want people to vote because all of them are evil and they are blind and believe in miracles by casting votes.

If people shouldn't vote, what should they do?

Looks like you advocate military dictatorship, and we have seen how that has worked for Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

At least, his honest. It's very hard to find honest people in Pakistan.

He is not honest at all.

Under the umbrella of honesty, the only thing that his supporters could take pride on was his financial honesty, because he lost his moral honesty years ago.

Unfortunately, his financial honesty bubble has been burst as well. This really is a tough blow for Imran supporters.

 

[Waseem]

Awwww how cute Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari brothers are better than Imran Khan hahahaha, sure they are both better, at least they have never become PM or president like this looter Imran Khan who has become PM 3 times and whole family ruled Pakistan for 3 decades, at least innocent Nawaz/Zardari don't have any corruption cases like this corrupt Imran Khan.

 

[Syed1]

Awwww how cute Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari brothers are better than Imran Khan hahahaha, sure they are both better, at least they have never become PM or president like this looter Imran Khan who has become PM 3 times and whole family ruled Pakistan for 3 decades, at least innocent Nawaz/Zardari don't have any corruption cases like this corrupt Imran Khan.

Bechara Nawazo he needs to do all that corruption because he is so poor he only paid a few hundred ruppees in income tax. He hardly manages to put food on the table for his wife and kids. Ghareeb admi karay bhi tou kya karay. It's very harsh of us to call him out on his corruption he is only doing what he needs to do so that his kids don't go to bed hungry.

 

[StreetSmart]

No it is a " BEE-JAMAALO "

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

hahahahahahah Talent bhai app bhi naaaaaaa. Sir they wont realize Imran Khan dont have to steel money from country to make any off shore property

 

[godzilla]

Being citizen or domiciled has nothing to do with it, there was nothing preventing IK from buying property in England like a ''normal person'' would a pay the taxes due on it. He made the choice of using a parasitic fiscal haven so that he could avoid paying those taxes. The moral duty of a person is to not exploit loopholes and fiscal havens so that they can avoid paying the taxes ''normal'' people pay.

I do not over-pay, neither do I use fiscal havens to under-pay.

im afraid this is utter garbage and highlights just how badly you misunderstand taxation.

he didnt pay taxes like a "normal person" in britain, because he wasnt one. he was a non-domiciled temporary resident of foreign citzenship. he was taxed precisely according to that designation. if he had paid like a "normal person" he would would have over paid. "normal people" in britain are NOT non-domiciled, and they are NOT of foreign citizenship, both criteria which are defining in taxation laws, so why on earth would he be taxed like someone who is in an entirely different category?

im not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand, it could hardly be any simpler.

i presume since you think in his case he is "greedy rich elite born win a golden spoon in their mouth" and you dont overpay either, you are a greedy rich elite born with a silver spoon in your mouth too.

 

[endymion248]

im afraid this is utter garbage and highlights just how badly you misunderstand taxation.

he didnt pay taxes like a "normal person" in britain, because he wasnt one. he was a non-domiciled temporary resident of foreign citzenship. he was taxed precisely according to that designation. if he had paid like a "normal person" he would would have over paid. "normal people" in britain are NOT non-domiciled, and they are NOT of foreign citizenship, both criteria which are defining in taxation laws, so why on earth would he be taxed like someone who is in an entirely different category?

im not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand, it could hardly be any simpler.

i presume since you think in his case he is "greedy rich elite born win a golden spoon in their mouth" and you dont overpay either, you are a greedy rich elite born with a silver spoon in your mouth too.

I'm afraid you're the one misunderstanding taxation here. It is competely possible for a non-domiciled person to buy property in the UK, especially if they earn money locally, and pay taxes on it. What Imran did was use the off-shore fiscal haven that is the Channel islands in order to buy property through an off-shore company, thus avoiding paying taxes. This is not something 99% of normal people do as claimed by another imran apologist.

 

[godzilla]

He is not worse than Sharif or Zardari.

It's premature of you to claim that country will face bankruptcy soon, when in last 20 years or more of PPP and PML(N) power, the country has not faced it.

You are just arguing it would happen, if Imran eventually didn't come to power, while it could have happened even 10 years ago, with Zardari looting every single day.

oh for gods sake, please do even the tiniest bit of research before you make this nonsensical statements. if you are in a car hurtling towards a cliff, are you going to complain that someone wanting to take evasive action is premature since you are not yet falling off a cliff?

let me make it even easier for you:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/balance-of-trade

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/external-debt

look a the maximum time lines. most economic measures are ambiguous depending on assumptions and inclusions and exclusions in the relevant data sets - balance of trade, and external debt are not. these are train wrecks waiting to happen.

 

[godzilla]

He is not worse than Sharif or Zardari.

It's premature of you to claim that country will face bankruptcy soon, when in last 20 years or more of PPP and PML(N) power, the country has not faced it.

You are just arguing it would happen, if Imran eventually didn't come to power, while it could have happened even 10 years ago, with Zardari looting every single day.

incidentally, the most important point again, which is also the simplest and which for some reason doesnt seem to be sinking into your mind is that if you are going to criticise imran, which is fair (if its logical) - its meaningless without context. if you are saying that the alternatives are worse, what is the point of highlighting imrans warts without the context that they are still better than sharifs or zardaris (in general massivley better) - when there is a risk that idiots reading your comments without knowing your background thoughts might be persuaded to vote for the worse candidates?

what exactly is this line of argument designed to achieve?

 

[godzilla]

I'm afraid you're the one misunderstanding taxation here. It is competely possible for a non-domiciled person to buy property in the UK, especially if they earn money locally, and pay taxes on it. What Imran did was use the off-shore fiscal haven that is the Channel islands in order to buy property through an off-shore company, thus avoiding paying taxes. This is not something 99% of normal people do as claimed by another imran apologist.

what???? its possible for a non dom to pay more taxes than he is required to?? of course it is. its also possible for you to pay more taxes than you need to, why dont you? what kind of argument is that? its possible for him to do it? its possible for him to do all kinds of things - this is just categorically plainly stupid.

what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?

again, an off shore company is something 99% of people would not use because 99% of people are not non-dom. when it makes economic sense, 99% of non-doms would make use of offshore companies, because that is what the legislation is in place for. why is this difficult for you to grasp, is there some kind of problem?

 

[godzilla]

excellent responses by imran, completely in line with anyone looking at this issue with any degree of impartiality or intelligence.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1104130...pond-to-allegations-leveled-against-me-imran/

yet another rank humiliation for the attention seeking immoral mud slinging imran haters.

 

[srh]

Told you guys. Imran Khan is corrupt too.

 

[endymion248]

what???? its possible for a non dom to pay more taxes than he is required to?? of course it is. its also possible for you to pay more taxes than you need to, why dont you? what kind of argument is that? its possible for him to do it? its possible for him to do all kinds of things - this is just categorically plainly stupid.

what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?

again, an off shore company is something 99% of people would not use because 99% of people are not non-dom. when it makes economic sense, 99% of non-doms would make use of offshore companies, because that is what the legislation is in place for. why is this difficult for you to grasp, is there some kind of problem?

Why are you talking about requirement when Imran intentionally decreased what is required by exploiting a tax loophole and using an off-shore tax haven which is the Channel Islands? Paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens is not paying ''more than he is required to''. Stop trying to justify tax dodging, you make PTI and its supporters sound even more crooked than by just admitting what IK did.

 

[Black Zero]

Part of the blame also goes to all the Pakistanis who would hold this child born out of wedlock against Imran if he acknowledged her.

I agree as I blame Pakistani society, educational system, weather and load shedding for all my weaknesses.
Good to be born in Pakistan..so many reasons not to the the right thing

 

[godzilla]

Why are you talking about requirement when Imran intentionally decreased what is required by exploiting a tax loophole and using an off-shore tax haven which is the Channel Islands? Paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens is not paying ''more than he is required to''. Stop trying to justify tax dodging, you make PTI and its supporters sound even more crooked than by just admitting what IK did.

jesus christ. its not exploiting a loop hole, its paying the correct amount of tax, and using the correct facility to do that. paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens would be overpaying for a non-dom - that is enshrined in tax legislation - its the law, it not something i or imran or the tens of thousands of non-doms have made up, its LAW. im not justifying tax dodging, im doing the exact opposite, im justifying the exact correct tax application for people according to their circumstance, neither under paying nor over-paying. he intentionally reduced his tax burden because otherwise he would be over-paying tax.

im talking about requirement because THATS WHAT TAX IS!!

its like saying that if you are given the wrong tax code by the tax authorities and as a consequence are paying too much tax, you would personally feel it immoral to contact them and have it reduced. can you not see that this is idiotic?

why are you refusing to answer the question - ill repeat it again, since without this, its like debating with a monkey:

"what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?"

 

[endymion248]

jesus christ. its not exploiting a loop hole, its paying the correct amount of tax, and using the correct facility to do that. paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens would be overpaying for a non-dom - that is enshrined in tax legislation - its the law, it not something i or imran or the tens of thousands of non-doms have made up, its LAW. im not justifying tax dodging, im doing the exact opposite, im justifying the exact correct tax application for people according to their circumstance, neither under paying nor over-paying. he intentionally reduced his tax burden because otherwise he would be over-paying tax.

im talking about requirement because THATS WHAT TAX IS!!

Alright, then you're welcome to show me what law says that a non-dom earning his income in the UK can't buy property in the UK without using an off-shore tax-haven like the Channel Islands. If it's LAW (in big words) then it should be easy enough to find.

its like saying that if you are given the wrong tax code by the tax authorities and as a consequence are paying too much tax, you would personally feel it immoral to contact them and have it reduced. can you not see that this is idiotic?

why are you refusing to answer the question - ill repeat it again, since without this, its like debating with a monkey:

"what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?"

I can't show you a made up excuse for tax evasion that doesn't exist.

 

[Black Zero]

jesus christ. its not exploiting a loop hole, its paying the correct amount of tax, and using the correct facility to do that. paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens would be overpaying for a non-dom - that is enshrined in tax legislation - its the law, it not something i or imran or the tens of thousands of non-doms have made up, its LAW. im not justifying tax dodging, im doing the exact opposite, im justifying the exact correct tax application for people according to their circumstance, neither under paying nor over-paying. he intentionally reduced his tax burden because otherwise he would be over-paying tax.

im talking about requirement because THATS WHAT TAX IS!!

its like saying that if you are given the wrong tax code by the tax authorities and as a consequence are paying too much tax, you would personally feel it immoral to contact them and have it reduced. can you not see that this is idiotic?

why are you refusing to answer the question - ill repeat it again, since without this, its like debating with a monkey:

"what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?"

May I ask one question...

What are/were the products/services of IK's offshore company?

 

[anakin]

jesus christ. its not exploiting a loop hole, its paying the correct amount of tax, and using the correct facility to do that. paying the taxes he would have paid without the fiscal havens would be overpaying for a non-dom - that is enshrined in tax legislation - its the law, it not something i or imran or the tens of thousands of non-doms have made up, its LAW. im not justifying tax dodging, im doing the exact opposite, im justifying the exact correct tax application for people according to their circumstance, neither under paying nor over-paying. he intentionally reduced his tax burden because otherwise he would be over-paying tax.

im talking about requirement because THATS WHAT TAX IS!!

its like saying that if you are given the wrong tax code by the tax authorities and as a consequence are paying too much tax, you would personally feel it immoral to contact them and have it reduced. can you not see that this is idiotic?

why are you refusing to answer the question - ill repeat it again, since without this, its like debating with a monkey:

"what is the law regarding non doms, and what is the justification for that law - are you aware of any of this given it is pretty much the fulcrum of the whole issue?"

Hmm.. So when huge giant Company like Apple shifts its base to tax havens(having little actual business there), nothing wrong in that right?
They are not exploiting the loophole.

Pfizer wanted to merge with a smaller company Allergan and infact would have been inversion, so that base could be shifted to Ireland to save billions in taxes. There was nothing wrong in there, was it?

Just because it is your hero in the crosshairs don't try to reclassify unethical behaviour.

 

[godzilla]

Alright, then you're welcome to show me what law says that a non-dom earning his income in the UK can't buy property in the UK without using an off-shore tax-haven like the Channel Islands. If it's LAW (in big words) then it should be easy enough to find.



I can't show you a made up excuse for tax evasion that doesn't exist.

Where did I say there is a law (not that big a word, but relevant when it come to making up morality to suit your argument) that says you can't pay more tax than you owe? Can you literally not read? I wrote explicitly that it is possible, but why on earth would anyone pay more tax than the law requires them to pay?

As for your second non sequitur comment, you're the one moralising about non Dom tax laws, yes you don't know anything about them? Do you see how this is a problem in your ability to make any sense on this topic. I'm not asking you to agree with me or anyone else, it's a simple question - what is a law and if you think it's a moral loop hole, what's the legal justification of non Dom tax laws.

Why can't you back up your position with some facts rather than repeating the same unsubstantiated allegations?

 

[endymion248]

Where did I say there is a law (not that big a word, but relevant when it come to making up morality to suit your argument) that says you can't pay more tax than you owe? Can you literally not read? I wrote explicitly that it is possible, but why on earth would anyone pay more tax than the law requires them to pay?

As for your second non sequitur comment, you're the one moralising about non Dom tax laws, yes you don't know anything about them? Do you see how this is a problem in your ability to make any sense on this topic. I'm not asking you to agree with me or anyone else, it's a simple question - what is a law and if you think it's a moral loop hole, what's the legal justification of non Dom tax laws.

Why can't you back up your position with some facts rather than repeating the same unsubstantiated allegations?

So there is a law that says non-doms must use tax havens to buy property in England? The onus of proving this is on you. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as owing more taxes than you owe for non-doms if there isn't a specific exemption for them in the law. Again, your onus of proof, not mine.

The fact of the matter is that using fiscal havens has nothing to do with being a citizen or non-citizen. This attempt of ''dom'' ''non-dom'' is merely an attempt to offuscate the truth by Imran and his cronies.

Both british citizens and non-british citizens use fiscal havens to avoid paying taxes.

There is no such thing as ''paying more than you owe''. If you earn money in the UK and buy a property with it on your name, dom or non-dom, you owe taxes on it. If you decide that, no, this is not the taxes I owe, I'm going to create a phony corporation in Jersey and then use that to buy the property, then don't pretend you were going to pay more than you owe, you are a crook who exploited loopholes to defraud the state.

 

[godzilla]

Hmm.. So when huge giant Company like Apple shifts its base to tax havens(having little actual business there), nothing wrong in that right?
They are not exploiting the loophole.

Pfizer wanted to merge with a smaller company Allergan and infact would have been inversion, so that base could be shifted to Ireland to save billions in taxes. There was nothing wrong in there, was it?

Just because it is your hero in the crosshairs don't try to reclassify unethical behaviour.

Well looks like it will have to be nursery school language for it to sink in. Unfortunately the topic is such that unsurprisingly most kindergarten level brains struggle to comprehend it.

Personal tax law and corporate tax law are different things which is why one is called personal and one is called corporate. The reason that the tax laws are created in each case is specifically for different circumstances with risks and benefits for each. im unaware of corporate tax laws, why they are created and what their motivation is. If there are facilities to headquarter off shore I don't know if that's a purposeful option in order to incentivise corporate activity, to compete with other jurisdictions in order to create jobs or generate other associated revenue, whether there are contingent amounts of business that have to be agreed with other national companies, whether it's a necessity as a result of trade agreements or whether it's a genuine loophole that someone hadnt thought about. Do you know the answers to those questions since you seem to be so well versed in corporate tax law? Without knowing mthem, what kind of idiot would point a finger and cry about immorality?

In terms of personal tax law, as with virtually every single country on the face of the planet, there is a different tax regime for citizens and non citizens, with various sub categories and definitions for residency and domiciliary. If an individual fulfils all criteria for a certain category and then is taxed fully for that category, that is not immoral. If the law is unfair, that's an issue for legislature and government and its legislative body that ought to be questioned for its morality, not the person that abided by the states rules and laws. Non Dom laws are in place in the uk specifically and precisely for people like Imran - that's what these laws were designed for. One of thereabouts are that the country in questions benefits from investment and velocity of capital that the investor could invest elsewhere since they are not like the 99% of resident citizens and have the choice of where to invest. The laws are designed to attract capital and for the respective country to benefit from that investment.

So if you have a moral issue with them, try to find out what the justification for them were rather than band waggoning on the buffoon bus because that rare occasion for you to believe there might be a reason to take down someone you hate has emerged, irrespective of whether the clowns on that bus actually have anything at all to hold on to.

I'm afraid yours was a stupid question.

 

[anakin]

Well looks like it will have to be nursery school language for it to sink in. Unfortunately the topic is such that unsurprisingly most kindergarten level brains struggle to comprehend it.

Personal tax law and corporate tax law are different things which is why one is called personal and one is called corporate. The reason that the tax laws are created in each case is specifically for different circumstances with risks and benefits for each. im unaware of corporate tax laws, why they are created and what their motivation is. If there are facilities to headquarter off shore I don't know if that's a purposeful option in order to incentivise corporate activity, to compete with other jurisdictions in order to create jobs or generate other associated revenue, whether there are contingent amounts of business that have to be agreed with other national companies, whether it's a necessity as a result of trade agreements or whether it's a genuine loophole that someone hadnt thought about. Do you know the answers to those questions since you seem to be so well versed in corporate tax law? Without knowing mthem, what kind of idiot would point a finger and cry about immorality?

In terms of personal tax law, as with virtually every single country on the face of the planet, there is a different tax regime for citizens and non citizens, with various sub categories and definitions for residency and domiciliary. If an individual fulfils all criteria for a certain category and then is taxed fully for that category, that is not immoral. If the law is unfair, that's an issue for legislature and government and its legislative body that ought to be questioned for its morality, not the person that abided by the states rules and laws. Non Dom laws are in place in the uk specifically and precisely for people like Imran - that's what these laws were designed for. One of thereabouts are that the country in questions benefits from investment and velocity of capital that the investor could invest elsewhere since they are not like the 99% of resident citizens and have the choice of where to invest. The laws are designed to attract capital and for the respective country to benefit from that investment.

So if you have a moral issue with them, try to find out what the justification for them were rather than band waggoning on the buffoon bus because that rare occasion for you to believe there might be a reason to take down someone you hate has emerged, irrespective of whether the clowns on that bus actually have anything at all to hold on to.

I'm afraid yours was a stupid question.

Bub, Seriously??

So the all the legal systems of the world and the Federal banks are kindergarten by your standard?

Off shore company formation expressly to avoid taxes is considered unethical world over! Its crystal clear.
You are resort to 5 yr child argument "But our saint Imran can never do anything wrong"

Your understanding of tax treaties is so dumb. I would give it a pass. I can easily guess that this is the first time you heard about off shore companies, tax havens and tax avoidance and evasion (the difference between the two).

I don't give a crap about whether it was Imran or Sharif involved. What baffles me is the utter distortion of actual definitions in defense of your political ideologies. You guys have lost objectivity. For a neutral POV, you guys are making yourselves less credible by going out of the way distorting accepted definitions in terms of law.

I have expressly defined the terms in a few posts in this thread. But I think its a wasted effort for people blindly following a "religion".
[MENTION=43242]Dr_Bassim[/MENTION]: This thread is an example why I tend to despise organised religions. It takes away rational thinking from its followers. Your "Prophet/God (and in this thread the "Hero") can do wrong, is above any stigma and epitome of purity. That's the fundamental basis on which the followers start any discussions, if any. They will end up distorting actual evidence and accepted definitions and theories to stick to their belief. Because it becomes so personal and is vital to their identity.

 

[Anfield]

May I ask one question...

What are/were the products/services of IK's offshore company?

what kind of questions is this? Are you saying corporations are formed only to do sell products or services? really that's your knowledge on companies/corporations?

 

[godzilla]

So there is a law that says non-doms must use tax havens to buy property in England?

where did i say they must do this?

The onus of proving this is on you. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as owing more taxes than you owe for non-doms if there isn't a specific exemption for them in the law. Again, your onus of proof, not mine.

The fact of the matter is that using fiscal havens has nothing to do with being a citizen or non-citizen. This attempt of ''dom'' ''non-dom'' is merely an attempt to offuscate the truth by Imran and his cronies.

the onus certainly isnt on me to demonstrate anything, you are the one making accusations of wrongdoing, not me. the reason the onus is on you is because of the patently false bs you have been spouting as evidenced in that second comment about dom and no-dom is an attempt to obfuscate. if it is, and there are no differences in british tax law, and given you seem unable to google "hmrc non dom tax", how do you explain that there is an immense amount of complex legislation about this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/464664/RDR1_FB15_updates_RB_and_CGT.pdf

from the uk government website:

"The government wants to attract talented individuals to live in the UK who will help to contribute to the success of this country by investing here and creating jobs. The long-standing tax rules for individuals who are not domiciled in the UK are an important feature of our internationally competitive tax system, and the government remains committed to that aim"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...iles/reforms-to-the-taxation-of-non-domiciles

and of course theres a billion other sources confirming the same, since it widespreadly known to anyone who can be bothered to literally google four words before mouthing off lies and idiocies:

"An individual’s liability to personal taxation in the UK depends largely on that person’s tax residence and domicile status, and on other factors such as the situs of assets (the place where they are located) and the source of income and capital gains. Broadly, an individual is domiciled in the jurisdiction which he regards as his homeland and many foreign nationals living in the UK will have a good case for claiming to be non-UK domiciled (“non-dom”)"

http://www.taxadvisorypartnership.com/advisory-services/tax-advice-non-uk-domicile/

Both british citizens and non-british citizens use fiscal havens to avoid paying taxes.

There is no such thing as ''paying more than you owe''. If you earn money in the UK and buy a property with it on your name, dom or non-dom, you owe taxes on it. If you decide that, no, this is not the taxes I owe, I'm going to create a phony corporation in Jersey and then use that to buy the property, then don't pretend you were going to pay more than you owe, you are a crook who exploited loopholes to defraud the state.

you are categorically wrong, and have shown absolutely no evidence to support what is a libellous position. if i were pp, i would ban you just for the insistence of repeating these kinds of unsupported lies - it either shows extreme lack of intelligence on your part or political propaganda.

 

[endymion248]

Well looks like it will have to be nursery school language for it to sink in. Unfortunately the topic is such that unsurprisingly most kindergarten level brains struggle to comprehend it.

Personal tax law and corporate tax law are different things which is why one is called personal and one is called corporate. The reason that the tax laws are created in each case is specifically for different circumstances with risks and benefits for each. im unaware of corporate tax laws, why they are created and what their motivation is. If there are facilities to headquarter off shore I don't know if that's a purposeful option in order to incentivise corporate activity, to compete with other jurisdictions in order to create jobs or generate other associated revenue, whether there are contingent amounts of business that have to be agreed with other national companies, whether it's a necessity as a result of trade agreements or whether it's a genuine loophole that someone hadnt thought about. Do you know the answers to those questions since you seem to be so well versed in corporate tax law? Without knowing mthem, what kind of idiot would point a finger and cry about immorality?

In terms of personal tax law, as with virtually every single country on the face of the planet, there is a different tax regime for citizens and non citizens, with various sub categories and definitions for residency and domiciliary. If an individual fulfils all criteria for a certain category and then is taxed fully for that category, that is not immoral. If the law is unfair, that's an issue for legislature and government and its legislative body that ought to be questioned for its morality, not the person that abided by the states rules and laws. Non Dom laws are in place in the uk specifically and precisely for people like Imran - that's what these laws were designed for. One of thereabouts are that the country in questions benefits from investment and velocity of capital that the investor could invest elsewhere since they are not like the 99% of resident citizens and have the choice of where to invest. The laws are designed to attract capital and for the respective country to benefit from that investment.

So if you have a moral issue with them, try to find out what the justification for them were rather than band waggoning on the buffoon bus because that rare occasion for you to believe there might be a reason to take down someone you hate has emerged, irrespective of whether the clowns on that bus actually have anything at all to hold on to.

I'm afraid yours was a stupid question.

As far as Corporate Tax Law is concerned, what business was Niazi Limited doing?

As far as non-dom law is concerned, you are very right about why non-dom laws are in place. They are supposed to attract off-shore investment. It just so happens that Imran Khan was earning his income in the UK at the time and created an off-shore phoney corporation in Jersey/Channel Islands (not part of the UK, fiscal haven with banking secrecy, which means questions can't be asked about where the money came from) to exploit these tax laws. This is the loophole I am talking about.

Why does the UK allow this loophole to exist? That's the complex matter. Fiscal havens are hard to fight and, at the same time, the elites of the UK themselves use them. That's actually the whole matter Panama Leaks are such a big deal. Do you think Cameron's father or Iceland's PM got busted for tax evasion? No, that's a criminal activity. The whole matter is tax avoidance and to learn that Imran is the same as them is a big disappointment.

 

[endymion248]

where did i say they must do this?



the onus certainly isnt on me to demonstrate anything, you are the one making accusations of wrongdoing, not me. the reason the onus is on you is because of the patently false bs you have been spouting as evidenced in that second comment about dom and no-dom is an attempt to obfuscate. if it is, and there are no differences in british tax law, and given you seem unable to google "hmrc non dom tax", how do you explain that there is an immense amount of complex legislation about this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/464664/RDR1_FB15_updates_RB_and_CGT.pdf

from the uk government website:

"The government wants to attract talented individuals to live in the UK who will help to contribute to the success of this country by investing here and creating jobs. The long-standing tax rules for individuals who are not domiciled in the UK are an important feature of our internationally competitive tax system, and the government remains committed to that aim"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...iles/reforms-to-the-taxation-of-non-domiciles

and of course theres a billion other sources confirming the same, since it widespreadly known to anyone who can be bothered to literally google four words before mouthing off lies and idiocies:

"An individual’s liability to personal taxation in the UK depends largely on that person’s tax residence and domicile status, and on other factors such as the situs of assets (the place where they are located) and the source of income and capital gains. Broadly, an individual is domiciled in the jurisdiction which he regards as his homeland and many foreign nationals living in the UK will have a good case for claiming to be non-UK domiciled (“non-dom”)"

http://www.taxadvisorypartnership.com/advisory-services/tax-advice-non-uk-domicile/






you are categorically wrong, and have shown absolutely no evidence to support what is a libellous position. if i were pp, i would ban you just for the insistence of repeating these kinds of unsupported lies - it either shows extreme lack of intelligence on your part or political propaganda.

None of which applies to Imran's situation as he wasn't an offshore investor. He was going to buy that appartment as he was playing county cricket in England and earning money in the England. This is the reason he needed to create a corporation in Jersey so that the investment would be a foreign investment, not a local investment. Like I said, it's a loophole he exploited.

 

[godzilla]

None of which applies to Imran's situation as he wasn't an offshore investor. He was going to buy that appartment as he was playing county cricket in England and earning money in the England. This is the reason he needed to create a corporation in Jersey so that the investment would be a foreign investment, not a local investment. Like I said, it's a loophole he exploited.

no - try reading before you comment on something. it all applies to imran precisely. you made the claim that there is no difference in tax for a dom or non-dom. ive just proved you wrong. why cant you admit it - its black and white. he was a non-dom. fact. there are different tax rules for non-doms. fact. her majesty explains why the uk benefits from these rules. fact. offshore company facility is offered as an option for non doms. fact. therefore, its not a loophole, its by uk government design. fact.

from her majesty's revenue and customs, once again: "The government wants to attract talented individuals to live in the UK who will help to contribute to the success of this country by investing here and creating jobs. The long-standing tax rules for individuals who are not domiciled in the UK are an important feature of our internationally competitive tax system, and the government remains committed to that aim"

 

[MenInG]

Discuss all legal matters etc but if you speak about Imran's personal life on our forums then you may well find yourself not posting on Timepass.

 

[endymion248]

no - try reading before you comment on something. it all applies to imran precisely. you made the claim that there is no difference in tax for a dom or non-dom. ive just proved you wrong. why cant you admit it - its black and white. he was a non-dom. fact. there are different tax rules for non-doms. fact. her majesty explains why the uk benefits from these rules. fact. offshore company facility is offered as an option for non doms. fact. therefore, its not a loophole, its by uk government design. fact.

from her majesty's revenue and customs, once again: "The government wants to attract talented individuals to live in the UK who will help to contribute to the success of this country by investing here and creating jobs. The long-standing tax rules for individuals who are not domiciled in the UK are an important feature of our internationally competitive tax system, and the government remains committed to that aim"

How does it apply to Imran who was already working and earning in the UK? You can read your own post, it refers to foreign investors being attracted to the UK. I never denied that the UK doesn't try to attract foreign investors with specific tax regimen. In fact, you can even earn citizenship from a certain point of investment.
If your money is already in the UK then it doesn't apply to you, hence Imran needed to create a phooney off-shore company by sending his money first to Jersey and then from Jersey to UK. Loophole exploited.

 

[Black Zero]

what kind of questions is this? Are you saying corporations are formed only to do sell products or services? really that's your knowledge on companies/corporations?

I am not saying anything...I am just asking a question...
Answer simply could be from everything to nothing..but i am interested in the answer...

 

[godzilla]

As far as Corporate Tax Law is concerned, what business was Niazi Limited doing?

As far as non-dom law is concerned, you are very right about why non-dom laws are in place. They are supposed to attract off-shore investment. It just so happens that Imran Khan was earning his income in the UK at the time and created an off-shore phoney corporation in Jersey/Channel Islands (not part of the UK, fiscal haven with banking secrecy, which means questions can't be asked about where the money came from) to exploit these tax laws. This is the loophole I am talking about.

Why does the UK allow this loophole to exist? That's the complex matter. Fiscal havens are hard to fight and, at the same time, the elites of the UK themselves use them. That's actually the whole matter Panama Leaks are such a big deal. Do you think Cameron's father or Iceland's PM got busted for tax evasion? No, that's a criminal activity. The whole matter is tax avoidance and to learn that Imran is the same as them is a big disappointment.

i dont care what business he was doing in it, why do you? since youre all about onus, where are your references for where it says that a temporary resident foreign citizen must be taxed in the same was as a permanent resident citizen, since you seem to be repeating this ad nauseum as some kind of reason for your position?

where is your justification that every and all offshore structures are immoral? suddenly now its a complex matter whereas throughout this thread you have been suggesting it is anything but with your libellous, unsubstantiated blanket judgements.

again, its not a loop hole. its by design. without it, the country would be worse off according to HMRC. the reforms suggested last year to the non-dom laws were designed to address debate around some abuses of the system - explicitly from PERMANENT residents. Imran was never one of these. he categorically, by any measure did not exploit a loop hole, he paid precisely what he owed, both in the uk and in pakistan. i have liked black and white proof as to why and how the uk government makes it clear that people like imran are given the facility to invest via offshore companies in the uk. all you have done is state that its wrong. show us some proof.

 

[Pakpak]

Well looks like it will have to be nursery school language for it to sink in. Unfortunately the topic is such that unsurprisingly most kindergarten level brains struggle to comprehend it.

Personal tax law and corporate tax law are different things which is why one is called personal and one is called corporate. The reason that the tax laws are created in each case is specifically for different circumstances with risks and benefits for each. im unaware of corporate tax laws, why they are created and what their motivation is. If there are facilities to headquarter off shore I don't know if that's a purposeful option in order to incentivise corporate activity, to compete with other jurisdictions in order to create jobs or generate other associated revenue, whether there are contingent amounts of business that have to be agreed with other national companies, whether it's a necessity as a result of trade agreements or whether it's a genuine loophole that someone hadnt thought about. Do you know the answers to those questions since you seem to be so well versed in corporate tax law? Without knowing mthem, what kind of idiot would point a finger and cry about immorality?

In terms of personal tax law, as with virtually every single country on the face of the planet, there is a different tax regime for citizens and non citizens, with various sub categories and definitions for residency and domiciliary. If an individual fulfils all criteria for a certain category and then is taxed fully for that category, that is not immoral. If the law is unfair, that's an issue for legislature and government and its legislative body that ought to be questioned for its morality, not the person that abided by the states rules and laws. Non Dom laws are in place in the uk specifically and precisely for people like Imran - that's what these laws were designed for. One of thereabouts are that the country in questions benefits from investment and velocity of capital that the investor could invest elsewhere since they are not like the 99% of resident citizens and have the choice of where to invest. The laws are designed to attract capital and for the respective country to benefit from that investment.

So if you have a moral issue with them, try to find out what the justification for them were rather than band waggoning on the buffoon bus because that rare occasion for you to believe there might be a reason to take down someone you hate has emerged, irrespective of whether the clowns on that bus actually have anything at all to hold on to.

I'm afraid yours was a stupid question.

anakin is trolling, having no knowledge of Pakistani politics. You're a top poster, no point wasting your time typing out long responses to him.

 

[Black Zero]

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/120...-dormant-as-he-filed-annual-returns-till-2014

ISLAMABAD: The latest documents of the Government of Jersey, Channel Islands, show that the PTI chief’s benaami offshore company Niazi Services Limited not only remained operational till October 1, 2015 but Imran Khan’s team also continued to file annual returns till February 2014 and paid a fee for filing returns.

The PTI in its official version claimed that Niazi Services Limited owned by Imran Khan has been dormant for long. The documents of Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC) officially obtained by The News show that the last Annual Return of Niazi Services Limited was filed on February 20, 2014.

Interestingly, Imran Khan’s team of accountants submitted the annual returns of Niazi Services Limited for the year 2013 on February 28, 2013, the JFSC documents reveal. However, the official documents of the Election Commission of Pakistan show that PTI chief Imran Khan filed his nomination papers on March 29, 2013.

The 2013 nomination papers of Imran Khan show that neither he declared his offshore company in asset statement nor mentioned his investment or capital of the company. The 2013 nomination papers show that Imran Khan even declared on oath in categorical terms that he didn’t own any company.

The JFSC’s record shows that PTI chief’s offshore company Niazi Services Limited was incorporated in Jersey, Channel Island, on May 10, 1983. A notice of Registrar was issued to the Niazi Services Limited on April 3, 1984 by JFSC.

Imran Khan purchased a flat in South Kensington, London, in 1983 which was registered with Land Registry Department of UK government on May 3, 1984. The JFSC record shows that the offshore company filed its first annual return on February 17, 1986. It received two notices from the Registrar’s office on April 24, 1987.

Interestingly, on April 2, 1987, PTI chief Imran Khan wrote an application to the then Punjab chief minister to acquire a plot and stated that he didn’t own any house or land. The plot was subsequently allotted to him.

JFSC’s record shows that the offshore company filed its annual return for the year 1987 on May 26, and June 22. Niazi Services Limited received a notice of registrar on April 25, 1988. It filed returns for the year 1988 on June 8. The offshore company received notices from the Registrar’s Office on April 28, April 29 and June 30, 1989. It filed its annual returns for the year 1989 on July 21.

Under the law, filing return every year is the basic condition to continue operations of an offshore company in Jersey, Channel Island. On January 1, 1990, Imran Khan changed the directors of the company from i)- Langtry Trustees Limited; ii)- Langtry Secretaries Limited; iii)- Langtry Consultants Limited to i)-Barclays Private Bank & Trust Limited ii)- Barclay Trust Channel Limited iii)- Barclay Trust Jersey Limited. The company’s paid capital was GBP10,000. It had 10,000 shares and all the above mentioned directors had merely three shares each.

Niazi Services Limited received notices from Registrar Office on April 26 and May 25, 1990 and annual returns were filed on June 25, 1990. Another notice was sent to the company on August 7, 1990. The offshore company filed annual returns on dates Feb 7, 1991, Feb 5, 1992, Feb 12, 1993, Jan 27, 1994, Jan 27, 1995, Feb 27, 1996, Jan 16, 1997, Feb 11, 1998, Jan 25, 1999, Jan 19, 2000, Jan 30, 2001, Feb 20, 2002 and on Feb 24, 2003 respectively.

In 2003, PTI chief sold out his flat purchased in the name of the be-naami offshore company. However, the company remained fully operational afterwards and Imran Khan continued to submit annual returns with the JFSC punctually.

The JFSC documents show that Imran Khan filed annual returns on 25 Feb 2004, 07 Feb 2005, 23 Feb 2006, 06 Feb 2007, 07 Jan 2008, 23 Feb 2009, 19 Jan 2010, 07 Feb 2011, 29 Feb 2012, 28 Feb 2013, 20 Feb 2014 for the respective years. The company was served a notice from the JFSC on June 30, 2015 and it was finally dissolved on October 1, 2015 after a final notice from the Office of Registrar for not filing annual return for the year 2015.

 

[godzilla]

How does it apply to Imran who was already working and earning in the UK? You can read your own post, it refers to foreign investors being attracted to the UK. I never denied that the UK doesn't try to attract foreign investors with specific tax regimen. In fact, you can even earn citizenship from a certain point of investment.

1) he was foreign

2) he invested his money in the uk

= he was a foreign investor.

If your money is already in the UK then it doesn't apply to you, hence Imran needed to create a phooney off-shore company by sending his money first to Jersey and then from Jersey to UK. Loophole exploited.

where is the HMRC ruling for that?

the link i provided says that you are deemed non dom if you have resided less that fifteen of the last twenty tax years amongst other criteria - that means you can be a non dom even if you live for several years in the uk, where you will have money already in the uk. that directly contradicts your statement, so where do you get that statement from?

 

[endymion248]

i dont care what business he was doing in it, why do you? since youre all about onus, where are your references for where it says that a temporary resident foreign citizen must be taxed in the same was as a permanent resident citizen, since you seem to be repeating this ad nauseum as some kind of reason for your position?

where is your justification that every and all offshore structures are immoral? suddenly now its a complex matter whereas throughout this thread you have been suggesting it is anything but with your libellous, unsubstantiated blanket judgements.

again, its not a loop hole. its by design. without it, the country would be worse off according to HMRC. the reforms suggested last year to the non-dom laws were designed to address debate around some abuses of the system - explicitly from PERMANENT residents. Imran was never one of these. he categorically, by any measure did not exploit a loop hole, he paid precisely what he owed, both in the uk and in pakistan. i have liked black and white proof as to why and how the uk government makes it clear that people like imran are given the facility to invest via offshore companies in the uk. all you have done is state that its wrong. show us some proof.

The reference is in Imran's own action. If foreign residents are not taxed in the same way as citizens then Imran would have NOT needed to use an off-shore phooney corporation from Jersey. He could have gone to his bank, transfered the money WITHIN the UK and paid the same tax that he did with his off-shore phooney corporation. The fact that he needed to go through all this trouble PROVES my stance.

Why did he need to send his money to an off-shore tax haven if the UK law was on his side from the start?

It's a complex matter as to why governments allow fiscal havens to exist. Doesn't change the fact that their use is immoral in all situations.

If it's not a loophole then Imran wouldn't have needed to use a phooney Jersey corporation.

 

[endymion248]

1) he was foreign

2) he invested his money in the uk

= he was a foreign investor.



where is the HMRC ruling for that?

the link i provided says that you are deemed non dom if you have resided less that fifteen of the last twenty tax years amongst other criteria - that means you can be a non dom even if you live for several years in the uk, where you will have money already in the uk. that directly contradicts your statement, so where do you get that statement from?

Then you should have told Imran that before he went through the trouble of transfering the money he earned IN THE UK to an OFF-SHORE TAX HAVEN to buy a property IN THE UK. It's completely possible the law changed since 1983. Personally, just looking at Imran's action and what he said, it's clear what happened here.

 

[godzilla]

He could have gone to his bank, transfered the money WITHIN the UK and paid the same tax that he did with his off-shore phooney corporation.

how do you know thats how it works for non-doms? he may have been able to do that, but if the government says that he can do it another way, who are you to say that its wrong? based on what?

 

[godzilla]

Then you should have told Imran that before he went through the trouble of transfering the money he earned IN the UK to an off-shore tax haven to buy a property IN the UK. It's completely possible the law changed since 1983. Personally, just looking at Imran's action and what he said, it's clear what happened here.

i see youre backing off slowly now your position has been blown to pieces.

why are you unable to answer a simple question? you wrote "If your money is already in the UK then it doesn't apply to you" - prove it.

 

[endymion248]

i see youre backing off slowly now your position has been blown to pieces.

why are you unable to answer a simple question? you wrote "If your money is already in the UK then it doesn't apply to you" - prove it.

Proof: Imran sent his money to an off-shore tax haven. If it applied to him at the time, he wouldn't have needed to. Thus he needed to go around the law which didn't apply to him.

 

[endymion248]

how do you know thats how it works for non-doms? he may have been able to do that, but if the government says that he can do it another way, who are you to say that its wrong? based on what?

Yeah sure, let's pretend people use tax havens for the fun of it when they could just write a simple cheque and obtain the same result.

If that's what you think, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

[MENTION=3393]godzilla[/MENTION]


Brother there is a rich debate worldwide that whether Tax Avoidance is an Immoral Act or Not. Because it is legal where ever the option is available.


Well I believe that if you are temporarily living in a country and earning there and you pay 35 % of your income in tax than you are doing your job which is a moral aswell legal binding. Now wrt buying property with your earning / saving than if law does not allow tax avoidance than its upto you to buy property there or elsewhere. Because you are investing your own savings. For instance there are many ex pat Pakistanis who are national of those western countries Yet they buy properties in Pakistan and invest in pakistan because they save some money this way by avoiding taxes plus they invest their savings in their country of birth.

Now when there are two legal options of either buying property directly on your own name or through some offshore company than its upto the individual. Morally if your are national of that country for instance national of France, Netherland, England etc than morally you should buy property on your own name and pay more taxes because of the facilities gov provides to you and your family aswell you contributing more to the society of which you are national.


Now don't debate further because you like me with say that morally he was right in doing tax avoidance while on his property while he was not national of UK while others with different opinion will take out their knives and say No morally it was not right and it was immoral to do so and he exploited the system.


So just accept it as a difference of Opinion between two groups wrt Morality.

 

[godzilla]

Proof: Imran sent his money to an off-shore tax haven. If it applied to him at the time, he wouldn't have needed to. Thus he needed to go around the law which didn't apply to him.

dude, prove it. prove that in order to make use of his tax status he could have done it in this way. the onus is on you. just because you think thats how it should have been done does not mean that thats the only way it is done for a category of tax payer you lied about earlier in this thread.

the fact is you cant. thats because the method you described is for resident doms. he wasnt.

 

[godzilla]

Yeah sure, let's pretend people use tax havens for the fun of it when they could just write a simple cheque and obtain the same result.

If that's what you think, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

since you know all about how non-doms pay their taxes, and what they owe, why dont you tell us the rules citing hmrc references - like i did?

ive shown you proof. youre replying with childish non sequiturs.

 

[godzilla]

anakin is trolling, having no knowledge of Pakistani politics. You're a top poster, no point wasting your time typing out long responses to him.

yes i know, but sometimes when a child starts peeing all over the floor, he needs a smack on the back of his head to help him understand how to behave.

 

[endymion248]

[MENTION=3393]godzilla[/MENTION]


Brother there is a rich debate worldwide that whether Tax Avoidance is an Immoral Act or Not. Because it is legal where ever the option is available.


Well I believe that if you are temporarily living in a country and earning there and you pay 35 % of your income in tax than you are doing your job which is a moral aswell legal binding. Now wrt buying property with your earning / saving than if law does not allow tax avoidance than its upto you to buy property there or elsewhere. Because you are investing your own savings. For instance there are many ex pat Pakistanis who are national of those western countries Yet they buy properties in Pakistan and invest in pakistan because they save some money this way by avoiding taxes plus they invest their savings in their country of birth.

Now when there are two legal options of either buying property directly on your own name or through some offshore company than its upto the individual. Morally if your are national of that country for instance national of France, Netherland, England etc than morally you should buy property on your own name and pay more taxes because of the facilities gov provides to you and your family aswell you contributing more to the society of which you are national.


Now don't debate further because you like me with say that morally he was right in doing tax avoidance while on his property while he was not national of UK while others with different opinion will take out their knives and say No morally it was not right and it was immoral to do so and he exploited the system.


So just accept it as a difference of Opinion between two groups wrt Morality.

The difference is that godzilla is not admitting that Imran Khan did tax avoidance (even though Imran himself admitted to doing so).

If we admit that Imran did tax avoidance then your post is fair and balanced as far as both opinions are concerned.

But I will make a correction on your description. According to people like me who consider tax avoidance using tax havens morally wrong, it is not just a matter of citizen vs non-citizen. For example, I mentionned earlier in the thread that the US tax income earned in foreign countries (only countries to do so) and I consider avoiding this not to be morally wrong. It's a matter of where the income is earned and what is due by law without exploiting loopholes.

Even non-citizens use the service of a country, especially if they live there, study there, work there, use roads, use infrastructures, etc... Imran himself used the NHS to treat his parents and his own kids are exploiting all services available to them through the UK. It is within his moral duty to pay all the taxes that can be expected of him based on the money he has earned or parked in the UK, including not only income tax but also property tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc...

 

[godzilla]

The difference is that godzilla is not admitting that Imran Khan did tax avoidance (even though Imran himself admitted to doing so).

If we admit that Imran did tax avoidance then your post is fair and balanced as far as both opinions are concerned.

But I will make a correction on your description. According to people like me who consider tax avoidance using tax havens morally wrong, it is not just a matter of citizen vs non-citizen. For example, I mentionned earlier in the thread that the US tax income earned in foreign countries (only countries to do so) and I consider avoiding this not to be morally wrong. It's a matter of where the income is earned and what is due by law without exploiting loopholes.

Even non-citizens use the service of a country, especially if they live there, study there, work there, use roads, use infrastructures, etc... Imran himself used the NHS to treat his parents and his own kids are exploiting all services available to them through the UK. It is within his moral duty to pay all the taxes that can be expected of him based on the money he has earned or parked in the UK, including not only income tax but also property tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc...

im afraid this long streak of being wrong is continuing. the terms of avoidance or tax planning or evasion is an issue of semantics. where it is relevant is whether there was wrong doing or not. there is nothing morally or legally wrong in paying the amount of tax you are legally due to pay, and not paying more, however the government allows you to do that. ive quoted precisely why the uk government offers these incentives to foreign citizens, wherever they are earning their money.

you are wrong in pointing to the us being the only country that taxes its citizens on a worldwide basis, the uk does it too. avoiding that IS immoral and illegal - your measure of morality seems to be entirely on a whim. if the basis of a debate on a subject like this comes down to how you happen to feel that particular day, your contribution is meaningless.

 

[www787]

Based on the fact that you paint Imran as some sort of saint who has done everything possible for the people only.

Such a man doesn't exist, never did, never will.

Add it to the fact, he's as naïve as politicians come, he's a proper terrible person for the head of the state.

Not a single supporter of Imran Khan has painted Imran Khan as Saint, rather it is his non supporter have used the word "saint" to discredit his supporter and his philanthropist work, and to be honest it is a weak and pathetic way to put forward their blind hate towards the man.

Such a man exist, and his name is Abdul Satar Edhi, no one can doubt his generosity and genuinity, not even when if Abdul Satar Edhi decide to support Imran Khan.

If stating that there should be an equal law for everyone, police should be de-politicized, corrupt should be held accountable, and justice should be equal for everyone is as naive as politician then most of us would accept this because inherited moral of any human being would be happy to have that in a system they live in.

There are two kind of people who try their best to discredit Imran khan with empty and pathetic argument. First one are those who enjoy corrupt system and would use any excuse or say anything about his family, his kids, his parents to keep that corrupt system alive to make money.
Second ones are those who mostly reside on internet to argue for the sake of argument to put themselves on pedestal, and those people have only came up with "naive, he is not a politician, etc" to support their elementary argument.

 

[www787]

No one is fit to lead the country.

Imran can come, I have nothing against him.

What I have against is , his supporters, who try to show, that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, when all evidence points he is not.

Second is the myth that as Imran comes "country will start prospering".

You don't change people that way.

Then how do you change people?

History has shown from time and time again that great leaders either have change the course of people lives or made it worse.

 

[endymion248]

im afraid this long streak of being wrong is continuing. the terms of avoidance or tax planning or evasion is an issue of semantics. where it is relevant is whether there was wrong doing or not. there is nothing morally or legally wrong in paying the amount of tax you are legally due to pay, and not paying more, however the government allows you to do that. ive quoted precisely why the uk government offers these incentives to foreign citizens, wherever they are earning their money.

you are wrong in pointing to the us being the only country that taxes its citizens on a worldwide basis, the uk does it too. avoiding that IS immoral and illegal - your measure of morality seems to be entirely on a whim. if the basis of a debate on a subject like this comes down to how you happen to feel that particular day, your contribution is meaningless.

''Paying the amount of taxes you are due to pay and not more'' is a fallacious way to try to make the undefendable seem defendable to the people who are not familiar with what is being done here.

To the average person, it will seem like the government somehow made a mistake and people are using rightful arguments to decrease their tax loads.

What has actually happened is that the taxes due are lowered by sending money to an off-shore tax haven and then having it come back under the guise of a phooney corporation.

The amount due is thus ''legally'' lowered but it doesn't mean that this is the amount of money that is rightfully or morally due. It is a loophole and a form of exploitation towards all the people who pay what they actually owe without trying to use tax havens.

As for the point about foreign earnings, in a global world, the US has nothing to do with money produced and earned in another country. If I am a US citizen and I own a factory in China, selling goods in Europe, then why should it be entitled to money from these earnings? And the proof of this is that you don't have to pay those taxes anymore if you give up US citizenship.

You still haven't explained why, if it's all legal and there is no loophole,if IK should have normally benefitted from those exemptions, why did he use a tax-haven.

It doesn't matter how you cut it. IK earned money in the UK, sent it off to an off-shore tax haven to create a phoney corporation and then sent that money back to the UK to buy property.

This is not the behaviour of someone paying the taxes that are due, and IK admitted as much by saying that he evaded British taxes (although he avoided them rather than evaded).

 

[endymion248]

you are wrong in pointing to the us being the only country that taxes its citizens on a worldwide basis, the uk does it too. avoiding that IS immoral and illegal - your measure of morality seems to be entirely on a whim. if the basis of a debate on a subject like this comes down to how you happen to feel that particular day, your contribution is meaningless.

No, you are the one who is wrong. The US taxes non-resident citizens, the UK doesn't.