#Zahawi update: his lawyers have written to me, denying that HMRC investigated him under COP 9, the procedure for investigating fraud. Since they are in such a helpful mood, I'm optimistic they'll answer some further questions. Full correspondence below:
My email:
The Osborne Clarke reply:
And my response:
I have updated my list of Zahawi questions to reflect the COP 9 answer.
Obvious addition: anyone thinking of sending abusive messages to Ashley should ask themselves some pretty fundamental questions.
I publish Ashley’s name because I believe lawyers engaging in SLAPP should be accountable, to the public and to their other clients.
A response from Zahawi's lawyer:
The last time Ashley suggested I contact Zahawi's press officer, it did not go well:
But I am hopeful this time is different, so:
You can bookmark this thread to catch the reply.
But I probably wouldn't bother.
I'm delighted to say I received a response to my questions. The response says that Mr Zahawi is not going to answer any questions:
Ian Clifford Stamp makes £500k/month by selling made-up "sovereign citizen" get rich quick schemes to vulnerable people.
Stamp doesn't like people pointing that out this is all pretend- so he's pretending to sue me for $1.5m.
I say "pretending" because he's sent me something written in blue ink requiring that that, within 14 days, I agree to everything he says, deny everything he says and deny some of what he says. Nakedness is also involved.
Whatever this is, Stamp doesn't seem very good at it.
The points he wants me to agree or deny include: the United Kingdom is a limited company registered at 6 Sharon Court in Alexandra Park, in North London.
I often get legal threats. This one's a little different - it's printed on blue ink, babbles incomprehensibly about mail fraud, and was also served on Janet Yellen and Richard Hermer (UK attorney general). A quick thread about why this isn't funny.
The document is from Ian Clifford Stamp, who runs "Matrix Freedom". They sell get-rich-quick schemes that promise to eliminate debts/mortgages and "create currency". This email shows them selling £500,000 of "currency creation" for the low, low, price of £2,000.
It's all "sovereign citizen" inspired nonsense - a conspiracy theory that there are hidden legal and financial truths that can make you rich. That's been going round the internet for years - these people have monetised it: you pay them 1% of the debt you want to "disappear".
New data on farms and inheritance tax: a third of farm estates over £1.5m aren’t farmers but wealthy people avoiding IHT by sinking money into farmland.
The Budget hits farmers too hard and tax avoiders too lightly. It needs to change.
Detailed analysis and full proposal here, with technical input from farm tax specialists like @StuartMaggs.
@StuartMaggs The previous data we had showed agricultural relief claims by farmers, but not business property relief claims (broadly, APR covers the agricultural value of land; BPR covers other stuff). We now have more. And it comes with a surprise, hidden in this paragraph:
People bringing court/tribunal cases don't get to be anonymous. Open justice is an important principle, and so your name will be published unless there's a very good reason.
The Budget employer national insurance increase will mostly end up being passed to employees in the form of lower wages and reduced employment. A thread on why I'm disappointed by the Budget, and why this chart makes me sad.
A longer version of this thread here: , with links to references, sources, and the spreadsheet generating the charts. taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/11/21/the…
Some of the worst features of the UK tax system are the product of short term political expediency:
A horrible mess for some private school parents who paid fees in advance to try to avoid Labour's VAT hike. And it's entirely the fault of the private schools and their associations.
A quick thread on how to avoid VAT successfully, and how the schools didn't..
We warned back in May that private schools were encouraging parents to pay in advance to avoid Labour's VAT hike, but structuring these schemes *really badly*.
We said that, under usual VAT principles, there was a high risk these schemes would fail, and parents *would* end up paying the VAT. taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/05/09/pri…
The problem was that most of the schemes weren't *really* paying fees in advance. They looked more like putting money on deposit, to be used to satisfy future fee demands. And that doesn't work.