Tosser alert

To those of us, whether as adviser or client, who wile away our days immersed in the intricate world of tax planning and wealth management, there’s rarely anything which is a simple as it might at first seem.

Except, tucked in amongst the usual round of petulant belly aching about Sir Philip Green, and others, who avoid payment of their “fair share” of tax, has been increasingly frequent mention of Lord Laidlaw. Lord whom ? Hmm, well exactly. Time for you to come to the front of the class, Baron Irvine Laidlaw.

Lord Laidlaw is worth a few bob, is a substantial political donor and an all round, first rate pratt, lacking in any sense of perspective. But, given that there’s many others who could be described similarly, what makes Lord Laidlaw remarkable when it comes to not paying tax ?

The avoidance of tax is not unlawful, but there are rules (10,000 pages of them, and counting) which represent a hideously complex matrix of rights and obligations. Add to this, a government which, more often than not, displays the legislative capabilities of a retard having a bad day, and it can all get pretty murky. But not so murky that the likes of Sir Philip, et al, do not understand that if you want to play the game, the game comes with obligations as well as rights. Take advantage of the rights afforded by the law to minimise tax, but don’t think obligations imposed upon you don’t also apply.

So, back to the charming Lord Laidlaw. Like Sir Philip’s wife, Lord Laidlaw is a Monaco resident and pays sod all UK tax. Most particularly, he is seeking not to pay UK capital gains tax on the sale of shares in his company in 2004 (I say seeking because, if temporary non- residence applies, the ultimate success of his planning might yet depend upon non UK residence not being resumed by Laidlaw for another two or three years).

Notwithstanding, and in isolation, this would not be legally objectionable; if he has arranged his fiscal affairs within the constraints of the law, that would ordinarily be the end of the matter. Except, in contrast to Sir Philip and the other much maligned, but law abiding, job creators who are keeping UK Plc afloat, Lord Laidlaw is subject to one further obligation.

In 2004, Irvine Laidlaw, and his ego, was appointed to the House of Lords. A condition of any such appointment is that the appointee is UK tax resident; an obligation reported to have been acknowledged by the, then, Mr Irvine.

[What actually makes matey boy worthy of a peerage in the first place is unclear. Woe betide the cynic who suggests it might be connected with the bankrolling of a political party and we know it cannot be for his wisdom because, as Lord Laidlaw has, himself, so helpfully demonstrated, he doesn't have any.]

Three years after his enoblement (and three years after the sale of his company for a not inconsiderable sum) the, now, Lord Laidlaw remains purportedly non UK tax resident. A mere oversight, methinks not. Lord Laidlaw can only think he is above the law and can do what he damn well pleases even though (and this bit is important) the tax at stake is apparently only £50M which, when compared to his reported wealth, of £750M, is hardly life changing in relative terms.

So Lord, or should that be Mr, Laidlaw, keep your money and give back your baronetcy, or cough up the tax you are obliged to pay. Failing that, and for as long as you think you can have it both ways, take note that there are some of us law-abiding plebs wondering whether, within the strict statutory requirements of revenue law, your commitmemt to the House of Lords does render you UK tax resident and that your tax planning is, therefore, deficient; if so, this means you are nothing more than a greedy, egomaniacal tax evader deserving of the humiliation of being stripped of your title, and lots more besides. If this line of argument gains momentum, you will probably decamp for good to South Africa,, where it is reported you own the largest house in the whole country. If so, bye-eeeee.