Nadhim Zahawi founded YouGov, but took no shares in it. A Gibraltar company, Balshore Investments, did instead. Zahawi says this wasn't tax avoidance, but was his father injecting capital into the business.
Here's my hunt for evidence. A very lengthy thread:
I'll start with my conclusion. Only three possibilities:
1. I am missing something.
2. Balshore did provide capital, but this was omitted from all of YouGov's accounts and filings, and not even picked up during the IPO.
3. Zahawi is lying, and this was tax avoidance.
Here's the first YouGov share issuance from 2000
Neil Copp provided £287,500 of capital & got 15% of the shares
Balshore provided no capital and got 42.5%
The same deal as Stephan Shakespeare - one of the founders
Zahawi, the other founder, got nothing.
Why?
But perhaps the form is wrong and Balshore did provide capital. Let's look at the accounts.
Here's the balance sheet from two months after that share issuance.
No sign of any equity capital other than Copp's.
Startups often make mistakes, and Companies House filings and accounts can be wrong. This is generally picked up as a company matures... particularly if it's planning an IPO (which is the path YouGov was on).
YouGov did just that...
... Two years later, YouGov filed a late form showing Shakespeare & Balshore acquied more shares back in 2000. But for "nominal" value - only £7k each
This wasn't a capital injection - just (typical) cheap shares for founders.
Balshore wasn't a founder. Why did it get this?
More share issuances in the next few years.
The wonderful Peter Kellner got involved, so got shares for free. As did Roland Berger & Partners (consulting firm):
Small freebie shares dished out to employees and consultants (including @JamesDuddridge). Again, perfectly normal for a startup:
(the last page is missed out, due to Twitter's four image limitation, but it's not interesting)
Chime Communications then acquired 27,500 shares for the (bargain) nominal price of 10p each. There's a good reason for that - we'll come to it later.
27 November 2001. More consultants get to buy cheap shares:
Then Peter Kellner gets to buy more shares at the cheap but eccentric price of 6.1p each. Then the same a few months later.
... and more Kellner - catching up somewhat with the original founders. He's paying a bit, but it's not what you'd call capital.
August 2003, and another consultant pays nominal 1p each for some shares:
There are now a lot of shareholders. At this point, founders often want to preserve their power to direct the organisation and take "special" shares.
That happens here: Shakespeare, Zahawi, Kellner each get two special shares (with Shakespeare's giving one of his to his wife):
Start of 2005 - another consultant gets shares for 1p each:
And that takes us up to the April 2005 IPO.
At this point I count £113,630 of share capital, £312,711 of share premium.
None of that was from Balshore.
That is broadly consistent with the Jan 2005 balance sheet - except it shows £370,767 of share premium.
I can't see where the additional £58k comes from, but it's hardly a significant amount of capital, and it wasn't Balshore (as they haven't received any shares since 2000).
What about the creditors? Could Balshore have provided loan finance and that's how it got the shares for free?
Back in the year Balshore got its shares, there were £91,459 of "other creditors". Could that be it?
The £91k is still there in the next few years, but there's no corresponding entry in Balshore's accounts.
It's possible Balshore's accounts are wrong, and the £91k was a loan from Balshore.
But it's credible (and wouldn't have been legal) for Neil Copp to pay £287,500 cash for a 15% stake, but Balshore to *lend* £91k and get a 45% stake.
There was some debt funding, from Chime Communications. Which explains why (way upthread) they got cheap shares.
So to conclude this very lengthy thread: Zahawi is saying that Balshore got a 45% stake in YouGov because it provided capital to YouGov.
There is zero evidence of any capital from Balshore
(except, just about possibly, a £91k loan - but that wouldn't justify a 45% stake).
I see only three possibilities:
1. I am missing something. What?
2. Balshore did provide capital, but this was omitted from all of YouGov's accounts and filings, and not even picked up during the IPO.
3. Zahawi is lying, and this was tax avoidance.
If the answer is 1 or 2 then Zahawi should prove it by pointing us towards some actual evidence, and not just making assertions in background briefings to journalists.
Obviously I would be delighted if @nadhimzahawi or his team would get in touch and explain their position. My DMs are open and my email address is at taxpolicy.org.uk.
Henley & Partners’ wealth migration reports have been reported all over the world, both to prove both that there's a massive exodus of wealth from the UK and that there isn't.
Our forensic review finds the data riddled with anomalies - and in key places looks fabricated:
Our full review is here, with the data and methodology set out in full, and links to the spreadsheet and GitHub with the working: taxpolicy.org.uk/henley-partner…
I'm in touch with lots of private wealth advisers. Many say the H&P numbers don't make sense - too little migration (OBR expected 25%!), too many $1m millionaires in the UK, too few $100m centimillionaires
So we set some statisticians and forensic accountants to work...
A UK wealth tax sounds simple: "tax the super‑rich, fund public services"
But it's not.
Our 16,000 word deep‑dive shows revenues are fragile, it puts growth, investment and jobs at risk, and there's no revenue before 2029.
Here’s the evidence:
This thread is a *very* short summary of our full report, which is here:
The full report contains all sources and references, linked where possible, plus additional detail of the arguments and counter-arguments.taxpolicy.org.uk/uk-wealth-tax-…
The proposed taxes claim to raise £24bn+ from 2% on wealth over £10bn. They tax *everything*
The Spanish wealth tax raised a feeble €619m
Why so little? Because the Spanish socialist government understood a wealth tax on everything is damaging - so made lots of exemptions
Douglas Barrowman made a fortune from selling tax avoidance schemes. When the schemes failed, his companies aggressively sold their clients another avoidance scheme which supposed rescued them from the first scheme.
It was all a scam. A disaster for the clients.
We reported on this last year, and said there seemed enough evidence to prosecute Barrowman and his team for defrauding HMRC and their own clients.
It's not often you accuse a billionaire of fraud and don't hear a peep out of his lawyers. Guess why. taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/bar…
Iain Clifford Stamp runs a "sovereign citizen" scam which promises people he'll magically eliminate their mortgage and other debt (for a hefty fee).
A judgment on Wednesday shows justice is catching up with him. Thread.
Iain Clifford Stamp is a "sovereign citizen": a weird pseudo-legal conspiracy theory that believes the entire legal and financial system is a delusion which will disappear (and give you free money) if you say the magic words.
There are lots of loonies on the internet. The thing that makes Stamp special is that he's monetised it. His "Matrix Freedom" organisation makes $500,000/month.
A few people have asked me what I think of this list. Some of the items are realistic. Some (including the big ticket items) are not. Some are too vague to assess.
Significant sums can be raised by raising capital gains tax, BUT you have to reform the tax significantly, in particular make sure you only tax real gains, not inflationary gains. Otherwise you'll knacker investment and lose tax, not raise it. See taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/16/how…
If "end stealth subsidies for banks" means stopping the Bank of England paying interest on reserves, then the £50bn figure is nuts. Even Reform UK claimed only £35bn. True figure likely £5-10bn. . taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/17/ref…