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

Jun 2
Starmer is correct. We can't tax our way to growth.

But we can *tax reform* our way to growth. Some ideas: Image
1. Corporation tax simplification. The UK corporate tax system is currently less competitive than Italy or Greece, never mind Sweden and Denmark. ft.com/content/9a9515…
2. Eliminate crazy high income tax marginal rates. When people face marginal tax rates of 60%+, they often choose not to work. Sometimes our tax system creates marginal rates of over 100%. taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/10/17/ref…
Read 11 tweets
May 11
Our new report: local political parties are renting out office space to MPs — who claim the cost on expenses.

But in most cases, they pay no tax on that income — or on rent from local businesses.

We reviewed 630 sets of accounts. What we found is a systemic failure. 🧵 Image
Our full report is here, with all the data, links to the accounts and the code we used to analyse everything. taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/11/pol…
There is a £40bn "tax gap".

About £40bn of tax which should be paid, isn't.

All the political parties talk about the importance of closing the tax gap.

So we'd expect them to go out of their way to ensure that their branches across the country pay all the tax that is due.
Read 22 tweets
May 8
Here's Gary Stevenson calling for a return to the 1970s, when the top rate of tax was 98%. But did the rich ever pay it?

We spoke to 1970s tax dodgers and ex-HMRC staff & and crunched the data.

A 🧵, but here's a spoiler: the rich pay more tax *now*.
A much longer version of this thread is here, with references, links to sources and footnotes taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/08/tax…
The post-war tax rates were, to modern eyes, amazing.

In 1978 they hit 83% on employment income and 98% on investment income. These rates applied to incomes over £24,000; in today's money, around £120,000. We're not talking oligarchs. Image
Read 25 tweets
Apr 10
ZLX — the R&D tax firm that sued a client for refusing to claim a £30k tax refund for installing a fridge — has quietly rebranded.

Meet TaxTek.

Same people. Same nonsense. New name.

🧵👇 Image
The background: last year, an R&D tax firm called ZLX became a laughing stock in the tax world. They'd advised a fruit and vegetable wholesaler that they could claim £30,000 in research and development tax relief on the installation of a fridge. taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/04/06/unt…
Read 21 tweets
Apr 3
Compelling article in yesterday's Telegraph on Frankie Dettori's fight to keep his tax avoidance secret. Not paywalled - recommended for anyone interested in tax/tax avoidance/horses

& I'm publishing below all the legal documents from Dettori's attempt to stay anonymous Image
The Telegraph piece is here. It is really good - wish I'd written it. telegraph.co.uk/racing/2025/04…
More background to the anonymity fight on our website: taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/05/08/mys…
Read 11 tweets
Apr 2
Today might be the day Donald Trump slaps tariffs on UK goods — because he thinks VAT is a tariff. Yes, he's wrong. But the reason *why* he's wrong is surprisingly deep.

So here's a 🧵 on the nerdy detail of VAT: via beer, Jaffa Cakes and an economic theorem from 1936.
Obviously I'm really here to promote my new Radio 4 series, Untaxing. The episode on Jaffa Cake airs at 1.45pm today.

I receive a tax rebate for every listener.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
And if you're really here for footnotes and *all* the detail, there's an expanded version of this thread here: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/04/02/no-…
Read 65 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!

:(