Dan Neidle Profile picture
Jul 13, 2022 30 tweets 13 min read Read on X
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? ImageImage
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. Image
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? ImageImage
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): ImageImage
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) ImageImageImageImage
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. ImageImage
27 November 2001. More consultants get to buy cheap shares: ImageImage
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. ImageImageImageImage
... and more Kellner - catching up somewhat with the original founders. He's paying a bit, but it's not what you'd call capital. ImageImageImageImage
August 2003, and another consultant pays nominal 1p each for some shares: ImageImage
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): ImageImage
Start of 2005 - another consultant gets shares for 1p each: ImageImage
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. Image
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). Image
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? ImageImage
The £91k is still there in the next few years, but there's no corresponding entry in Balshore's accounts. Image
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. Image
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.
For anyone wanting to go hunting:

Here are all the pre-IPO 88(2) forms in one place: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/pre-IPO…

Here are the 2000 accounts: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/yougov_…
Here's the Jan 2005 balance sheet: taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/yougov_…

And all the Companies House filings are here: …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/036073…
My full analysis is here: taxpolicy.org.uk/zahawi
I've compiled this thread into a blog post for those who find that more convenient: taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/07/13/zah…
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dan Neidle

Dan Neidle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DanNeidle

Sep 25
Is Andy Burnham right? Is there "definitely a case" for reintroducing the 50p tax rate? Image
The top ("additional") rate was 50p from 2010 to 2013, on income over £150k.

The additional rate was cut to 45p from 2013. Image
Image
The best estimate is that the 50p rate raised a small amount of revenue (around £100m).

It's also possible it caused a *loss* of a similar amount. Here's the IFS analysis: ifs.org.uk/articles/50p-t…Image
Read 15 tweets
Sep 18
NEW: Britain’s fiercest libel firm, Carter-Ruck, acted for the $4bn OneCoin fraud and threatened its critics. Now they’re being prosecuted at the SDT.

Their response? An anonymity order to cover it up. But Carter-Ruck just lost that order - and it's all coming out.

Thread Image
Image
We’re publishing everything - the background, the filings, the timeline: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/09/18/car…
OneCoin claimed to be a cryptocurrency. It wasn't - it was a pure fraud... a Ponzi scheme. This was obvious to many people at the time.

But somehow it wasn't obvious to Carter-Ruck. They threatened anyone who said it was a fraud. Image
Image
Read 22 tweets
Sep 14
What happens when you pay a fortune for tax advice from someone, and the advice turns out to be incompetent? And HMRC demands the tax back plus penalties?

If you guessed "you get all your money back" then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Image
Dodgy R&D tax firm ZLX made large research and development tax credit claims for its clients, charging a 30% fee. Often these claims had no legitimate basis
I'm aware of one case where ZLX advised a small firm to make £200k in claims, for which they paid ZLX £60k fees.

They're now being pursued by HMRC for the £200k plus £100k penalties. And they're £60k out of pocket. They believe ZLX was extraordinarily negligent...
Read 11 tweets
Sep 9
Every second a Labour MP spends campaigning for a wealth tax is a second that could be spent campaigning for real tax reform that could make the tax system fairer, boost economic growth and (unlike the wealth tax) actually happen.

A thread: Image
There will never be a wealth tax in the UK. Anyone who's looked at the evidence knows it would take years to implement, would hit investment, damage growth and kill jobs.

The evidence: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/22/uk-…Evidence shows the wealth tax would hit long-run GDP by 2% to 5%, would produce no revenues before 2029, and those revenues would be much less than proponents claim.
There's lots of tax reform that MPs should be pushing for, that would make our tax system fairer *and* boost growth.

But hardly any Labour MPs are talking about tax reform, thanks to the obsession with the wealth tax.
Read 13 tweets
Sep 4
Last Tuesday, I awoke to an email from the High Court, rejecting an attempt to silence me with an interim injunction

This came as a surprise, because I'd no idea anyone had applied for an injunction. Even though this was an "on notice" injunction application

A quick WTF 🧵 Image
Longer version of this thread, with copies of the injunction application and the court's response.

(Spoiler: it wasn't a very favourable response)

taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/09/04/set…
What kind of lawyer would apply for an "on notice" injunction without giving notice?

The answer: the "leading tax barrister in the country"

At least that's what tax barrister Setu Kamal wanted me to describe him as. Or he'd sue me. Image
Read 19 tweets
Sep 4
The Telegraph says Ms Rayner sought advice from "a conveyancer and two experts in trust law".

So how could they all get the law wrong? A 🧵
with some speculation.

(Pure speculation, but based on my experience of how clients and advisers behave.) Image
Some possible scenarios:
1. the Telegraph is wrong (or was wrongly briefed), and Ms Rayner either didn't approach the right lawyers, or didn't disclose the trust to them.

If that's what happened, then fair to blame Ms Rayner. She was careless (in my view).
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(