Chris Moyles tries to distance 'some of my best friends' style comment by saying he's aware it's a 'some of my best friends' comment

Miranda Sawyer delivered a sympathetic interview with Chris Moyles for yesterday's Observer; she was firm with him and, for his part, he came across warmer than he has for quite a while. Although he still tried to skip the difficult questions:

I ask him about being involved in a tax avoidance scheme, and he gets frustrated again. He gives me a very long explanation that boils down to: he thought it was OK and it turned out it wasn’t and he paid it back in full.

Yeah. Because if you're claiming tax for being a second-hand car salesperson, and you don't sell cars, what possible reason for thinking it might be dodgy could there be?

Sawyer talks about sexuality, and his apparent problems with it, and as in the past he reaches for his transgender friend as proof that he can't possibly be homophobic. He's tried this tack in the past, and has been derided for such an obvious "some of my best friends are..." pitch; but he seems to have come up with an answer for that:

“I’m not homophobic, but what can I say about that?” he says. “Whatever I say sounds like ‘some of my best friends are black’. Christ almighty, one of my best friends came out a couple of years ago as transgender. Simon is now Steph, which is fine. But I don’t know what to say about that. Because if I say the wrong thing, I’ll be crucified in Leicester Square.”

The trouble is, having gay friends doesn't 'prove' that you're not gay; not really knowing the difference between transgender people and gay people doesn't entirely make the case any stronger.

Let's just remind ourselves of Moyles' Will Young joke, shall we?

During the imitation the presenter adopted an effeminate and high pitched
voice.

When singing his alternative version of ‘Evergreen’, Chris Moyles broadcast the
lyrics: “It’s my birthday, gonna wear my new dress tonight. And I smell nice. I’ve had
a shower and I’ve shaved my legs. Going out later, might go to Nob-oooh for dinner.”

During the alternative version of ‘Leave Right Now’, Chris Moyles broadcast the
lyrics: “Oooh Will Young here, mmmmh. I’m here, it’s Will’s birthday and as the years
go by I get more very gay. When you saw me years ago you didn’t know, but now I’m
the gayest fella you probably know. mmm I like to wear a silly hat, I get camper by
the hour, oh would you look at the muck in here. I’m Will Young and I’m gay.”

But it's okay, because he's got one friend who is a transgender person.

I think all that really proves, Chris, is that Steph is more tolerant than you are.

Bono tries to claim he's a business person, not an arsehole

Having previously attempted to explain his 'do as I say, not as I do' line on tax as being somehow an obligation, high priest of the tax weasels Bono is now suggesting he's merely being sensible:

Asked about his position on tax, he told Sky News that just because he had campaigned for a fairer society it did not mean he had to be “stupid” in business.

Bono said: “It’s just some smart people we have working for us trying to be sensible about the way we’re taxed. And that’s just one of our companies, by the way. There’s loads of companies.”

They're just being sensible. Because minimising your tax bill - or minimisering, if you'd prefer - is sensible.

The trouble with this line is that if you accept it, there's not really any way to object to a UKIP spokesperson saying that foreign aid is expensive, and if we stopped paying any foreign aid we could reduce everyone's tax burden. Because that, too, is a sensible statement. It's also fucking selfish.

When Bono said "it’s just some smart people we have working for us trying to be sensible about the way we’re taxed", what he means is "it’s just some fucking selfish people we have working for us trying to be fucking sensible about the way we’re taxed."

Because you'll note those "smart people". This isn't Bono turning up at a tax place, with one box saying '20% tax' and one saying '80% tax' and choosing the smaller figure. It is people who are working to come up with "smart" ways to avoid paying tax. Bono and U2 are actively trying to avoid paying tax. It's not sensible, it's deliberate. Different thing.

Hang about, The Edge is also keen to not be seen as some sort of rich arsehole avoid taxes:

U2’s lead guitarist, The Edge – real name David Evans – said: “So much of our business is outside Ireland. It’s ridiculous to sort of make a big deal about the fact that we operate outside of Ireland.”

Yes, that's true. A lot of your business is outside Ireland. In a huge part because you channel a lot of your business outside Ireland to avoid paying tax in Ireland. That's not a defence against the charge of tax avoiding, it's the methodology you use to avoid tax:

[T]he Rolling Stones and U2 also channel royalties through the country, and that both bands have an office on Amsterdam’s Herengracht.

It's hard to imagine how U2 could make this any more insulting to our intelligence, but Bono manages it:

Bono added: “And we pay a fortune in tax. Just so people know, we pay a fortune in tax; and we’re happy to pay a fortune in tax, people should."

Bono, when you're discussing how you sensibly avoid paying a fair share of taxes, that might not be the best time to tell people that they should be paying their taxes.

And you might pay a lot in taxes, but don't you dare come round trying to argue that you're doing the right thing by making that amount as small as possible and expect thanks for paying that smallest possible amount.

Your behaviour is legal. Your behaviour is rational.

Your behaviour is selfish.

Bono: Low tax will save us all

Our old friend Bono granted a lengthy interview to The Observer at the weekend. It appeared in the New Review section, but really should have gone on the business pages it appeared to be marking the point where Bono shifted from apologist, to spokesperson, for capitalism.

Most notably, Bono attempted to justify Ireland's low tax regime as providing a route to prosperity:

"Look, Ireland is not going to back down on this,” he says. “We are a tiny little country, we don’t have scale, and our version of scale is to be innovative and to be clever, and tax competitiveness has brought our country the only prosperity we’ve known. That’s how we got these [tech] companies here."

Trying to use the lure of tiny corporate tax rates to build a prosperous nation is a bit like hoping to find a lasting, loving relationship by sticking your cock through a glory hole.

The companies opening their headquarters aren't actually headquartering there - generally, these tax-efficient operations consist of a bored person on minimum wage answering the phone with "no, we're not expecting Mr Cook in today" and a really, really huge shredding machine. (Although to be fair, Apple also have a room where they've stored all the unsold U2 limited edition iPods.)

The only local businesses who experience an uplift as being part of a low tax economy are brass plate engravers as the multinationals arrive, followed by a similar boost for carpetbag manufacturers.

U2 themselves are a pretty good example themselves - Bono, busily defending the idea that low corporate taxes are brilliant for Ireland did, of course, shift huge chunks of his own money over to mainland Europe when a more eye-catching low corporate tax rate waved a come-hither finger.

On that point, Bono is amusingly slippery, as he ignores the central problem - that he's shafted the country that he professes to love in order to save himself a few quid - by pretending that what's really upsetting people is the secrecy:

It isn’t a clandestine offshore tax haven, Bono insists. “All of our stuff is out in the open. How did people find out about it? Because it’s published. The sneakiness is when you don’t even know what’s going on.”

No, Bono. If someone livestreams themselves pissing through your letterbox, so you can watch as they do it, it doesn't make it alright.

It raises the alarming idea that when Bono watches a movie where the villain tortures the hero, but the villain starts by detailing what that torture will involve, Bono isn't horrified but reaches for the popcorn going "well, the cutting off of the arm and beating around the head has been publicly declared so I don't see there's a problem here."

Apple might be comfortably at home in Cork now - although the most generous headcount is 4000 Apple people, less than one-in-four of all their European staff. But people with longer memories will recall the tremor that ran through the area in 1999 when the globally nimble business realised it was better off making iMacs in Wales, taking two-thirds of the jobs across the border.

And Apple are probably amongst the most generous of the companies who have headquartered in Ireland - the Financial Times visited Endo, a pharmaceutical company who are now based in Dublin:

The global headquarters of Endo International is so new that, apart from a few desktop computers, the most visible purchase to date is the Nespresso machine in the kitchen. Located in the basement of a Georgian house in central Dublin, the company, which makes branded and generic medicines, does not even have a brass plate on the door.

Not even the brass plate engraver got a call.

Maybe the glory hole metaphor is the wrong way round, as Ireland isn't the one shoving its cock through the wall. It's on the other side, providing the service. And, sure, it's getting something out of the arrangement as long as it lasts, but everything could be pulled out without warning, leaving Ireland with a mess to clean up. And never able to look into the eyes of the person making the decision.

Gary Barlow would quite like to apologise

It's now three months since Gary Barlow and some of his chums were found to be "avoiding" tax by putting their money into a made-up scheme to allow rich people to shirk their responsibilities.

Gary has finally got around to sort-of-muttering an apology.

After three months. It's true, there are some operations you'd wait longer for on the NHS, but that's partly because rich people like Gary Barlow put their cash into dubious schemes to avoid paying their share of taxes.

Still, three months in the making, so let's hear it, Gary:

Three months. Two tweets. He's been writing his apology at 35 characters a week.

Three months. And what do we get?

I want to apologise to anyone who was offended by the tax stories earlier this year

There's no need, Gary. Genuninely no need to apologise, as nobody was offended by "the tax stories". In fact, we were grateful for the tax stories.

It's your tax affairs you ought to be apologising for, chuckles. The idea of very, very wealthy men investing in a company designed to lose money just so they could keep a few extra pennies out of paying for the police, and roads, and schools - that's what was offensive.

Not that you were found out and some people wrote about it.

And what does "working to settle things with all parties ASAP" even mean? Maybe you're going to write a cheque to the Exchequer - although I suspect if you were, you'd be a bit more explicit about that - but that doesn't "settle things", because it doesn't undo the fact that, when the nation was passing the hat round to pay for things we all share, your first thought was to try and avoid chipping in.

And you can't even bring yourself to say 'sorry' properly.

Leave your OBE on the hall table and sod off back to your mansion, Barlow.

Bookmarks: Arctic Monkeys

Luke Nightingale, in the New Statesman, on why it hurts more when the Arctic Monkeys choose to minimise their tax payments:

Their tales are of the streets we walked; streets that were built by public investment. They were born in NHS hospitals, attended state-funded schools. The Arctic Monkeys flourished as a result of incisive and witty lyrics of social realism that chimed with the everyman. And yet, any reference to civic pride from now on will be warped with bitter irony.

Gary Barlow to launch investigation into how he could have been avoiding tax

I think the most heartbreaking thing about Gary Barlow's response to his tax "avoiding" ways is that it's taken him months of knotted-brow think-clunking to come up with the "I know, I'll pretend that when I signed off on that scheme that was going to save me all that tax, nobody told me I was signing off on a scheme that was going to avoid tax" defence:

He is now investigating how accounting staff allowed his money to be put into the fund.

The singer has vowed to “leave no stone unturned”.

It's not clear yet whether Barlow has appointed a person to carry out this investigation into Barlow, but rumours suggest he might invite Gary Barlow to lead the inquiry.

A source close to the star revealed: “This is an incredibly complex issue and Gary is looking into it carefully.

"He is trying to get to the bottom of it."

'For instance, just yesterday, he went through one of the big chests stuffed with money and jewels to see if he could find any of the paperwork relating to the tax scheme.' (Pictured)

The "source" is keen to stress that there's no way that Gary could be expected to know what he was doing:

“Gary’s view is that he put his trust in the hands of financial experts. He is a musician, he knows nothing about money, he never has, so he entrusted people to advise him.

“He writes music and he sings and he pays finance ­experts to keep his money safe and do the right thing with it.

"Gary isn’t evil, he isn’t a money grabber and he is very upset about this."

Very, very upset. You know, how can you be expected to know when your financial advisors tell you that putting your money into a scheme will magic away your tax liabilities that that's a bad thing to do, right?

“He isn’t passing the buck ­either.

“He is trying to sort this out, to make sure others don’t find themselves in the same position.”

That's Gary Barlow, there, bravely not passing the buck by, erm, blaming his advisors and threatening to sue them.

You'll notice that Barlow's ire is directed at finding out who got him involved in the arrangements that got him into trouble. If he was really contrite, wouldn't he be trying to get sympathetic journalists to write about how he's investigating if he's been badly advised into joining other schemes?

Twittergem: Barlow's OBE

My cartoon - I didn’t realise that the Conservative Party is a charity! #Barlow pic.twitter.com/0mrMJJlOaf

— Martin Shovel (@MartinShovel) May 12, 2014

That nice Gary Barlow has all our money

Ah, Gary Barlow. Isn't he lovely? Isn't he a lovely, lovely man? Isn't he just lovely, lovely, willing to help everyone?

Except when he, Howard Donald, Mark Owen and That manager Jonathan Wild are avoiding £20million worth of tax.

But he's lovely, isn't he?

In the past he has been praised for raising millions for charity in the UK.

Barlow’s fundraising efforts for BBC Children in Need included concerts with star names playing for free. In 2013 they raised over £1.7 million and were described by the BBC as “amazing”.

You see? He's lovely. Happy to help society by getting other people to give their money to try and patch up the holes created by people like him failing to fulfil their responsibilities. He's not a monster.

Lovely, lovely, Gary Barlow OBE.

Jason Orange hasn't avoided tax, although HMRC report that Gary Barlow's insistence that Orange is paid solely in mangelwurzels and turnips has always made it difficult to fix a rate at which he should be charged. Tax records show in 2012/13, Orange received a small tax refund in the form of three parsnips.

Chris Moyles: Would you buy a used car from this man?

The really odd thing about Chris Moyles' tax scam - where he signed papers during his tenure as breakfast show presenter on Radio One claiming to be a second hand car dealer for tax purposes - is how would anyone think this a good idea in the first place?

The only possibility is that Moyles' accountant actually does double-up as a second-hand car salesperson. Let's hope he's better at flogging Ladas than doing sums.

Let's enjoy those Moyles 'apology' tweets, shall we?

I want to comment about a recent tribunal tax ruling.

— Chris Moyles (@CHRISDJMOYLES) February 21, 2014

Upon advice, I signed up to a scheme which I was assured was legal. Despite this, my knowledge of the dealings of the scheme were naive.

— Chris Moyles (@CHRISDJMOYLES) February 21, 2014

I take full responsibility and have learnt a valuable lesson.

— Chris Moyles (@CHRISDJMOYLES) February 21, 2014

"I take full responsibility for this matter, by, erm, saying someone else told me to do it and I don't have the expert tax knowledge to grasp that pretending to be selling second hand cars while presenting one of the highest profile radio programmes in Europe wasn't entirely legitimate. I mean, that's the sort of thing you'd need years of professional experience to understand, right, when you sign a piece of paper that says 'I make a living selling second hand cars' despite not ever having done so much as hung a piney tree in a 1996 Skoda, that you might be claiming something that isn't true. But, yeah, full responsibility up until that point."

Bono misses the point on tax, presumably deliberately

So in his big Observer interview at the weekend, Bono took the opportunity to address U2's "efficient" tax arrangements, and explain why he isn't a shitty, cash-nuzzling hypocrite. Go on, Bono:

The other persistent criticism is about the band's decision to offshore part of their income through the Netherlands to avoid tax. Was it not hypocrisy for you to try to hold the Irish government to account for its spending while going through fairly exhaustive efforts to avoid paying into the Irish exchequer yourself?

It is not an intellectually rigorous position unless you understand that at the heart of the Irish economy has always been the philosophy of tax competitiveness. Tax competitiveness has taken our country out of poverty. People in the revenue accept that if you engage in that policy then some people are going to go out, and some people are coming in. It has been a successful policy. On the cranky left that is very annoying, I can see that. But tax competitiveness is why Ireland has stayed afloat. When the Germans tried to impose a different tax regime on the country in exchange for a bailout, the taoiseach said they would rather not have the bailout. So U2 is in total harmony with our government's philosophy.

Now, what this is is a fair attempt to defend the Irish government's relaxed approach - you make tax-paying a thing that becomes a matter of choosing where you wish to pay tax, you must accept that some people will choose to pay tax elsewhere.

What it doesn't do, though, is even begin to address the charge that Bono and the boys make that choice.

"If people leave their front door open, they shouldn't be surprised if people steal their televisions" isn't a justification for stealing a television, it just explains the context in which you're walking down the street with someone else's Viera under your arm.

Furthermore, it really doesn't explain why you'd feel justified in telling people what to do with the valuables you hadn't pinched.

So, okay, Bono: you've established that the Irish Government might accept that what you've done is to be expected. Can you have another go at explaining why it was right?

Gordon in the morning: Tax it like Rupert

Gordon raises a curious eyebrow at Keira Knightley's tax arrangements this morning:

FOR an actress famous for playing posh girls, KEIRA KNIGHTLEY lives a pretty frugal life.
Accounts just released show that despite being one of the highest-earning actresses in the world, the star paid herself just £30,000 last year.

That’s a long way from her total earnings.

Keira’s firm Kck Boo Ltd banked £1.5million through her films and commercial deals with fashion firms.

And the details show she has cut down on spending outside of her salary, too.
A source said: “Keira took home £20,000 in dividends from the company in 2012 and a salary of £11,000.'

Ah, yes. We should all take a close look at the extraordinary lengths Knightley's gone to avoid paying her fair share of tax - although, of course, she's not the only one.

Perhaps tomorrow Gordon might like to raise his curious eyebrow at this chart:

But maybe it's different when it's the boss, eh?

Music Industry Trust honours famous tax dodger

Really, Music Industry Trust? You couldn't think of anyone who actually pays their taxes to give your Award to?

Gary Barlow picked up the prize, and the MIT fawned all over him:

It’s probably true to say that, in what is already a remarkable career, 2012 has been like no other year for Gary. I can’t think of another artist who works with both Simon Cowell and Her Majesty The Queen; eventful is an understatement.

Funny thing, that: working with the Queen. A woman funded from central taxation, which Barlow goes out of his way to avoid paying. Let's give him a prize, shall we?

Gordon in the morning: Barlow garlands

Gordon is announcing this morning that Gary Barlow is being nominated for a Music Industry Trusts Award.

Hmm. Really? The Music Industry Trusts is going to give its prize to someone who has been accused of using music industry investments as a way to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Are they sure that's such a good idea?

At a time when, say, music education in schools is being cut back couldn't the Music Industry Trusts find someone who isn't averse to helping out by not trying to avoid the taxes that fund services like that?

I don't often say this, but well done to Gordon Smart for revealing this scandal in the making. (I don't think that's what he thought he was doing, obviously.)

Bob Geldof: Well, tonight, thank God, it's mine instead of yours

Who was the keynote speaker at the annual global gathering of Private Equity firms in Berlin last month?

Why, it was Bob Geldof.

Not just there because 'putting Geldof on the bill' is an easy way to pretend you're socially responsible and ethical, but also because Geldof is one of them:

He is now the chairman of an Africa-focused private equity fund which said earlier this month it had raised $200 million from investors, close to half its targeted size of $450 million.

Dubbed 8 Miles, the fund plans to invest in companies that can develop into "African champions" in sectors such as agribusiness, telecoms and consumer goods.

"We put together our little thing - a goldilocks thing, not too small, not too big, just right. And we will make a lot of money, a lot. For me I want to leave behind me firms, farms, factories. Fuck the money, that's me," Geldof said.

Geldof's fund is promising a rate of return of 25% - or, in other words, is promising to take a large chunk of any wealth created straight back out of the continent into the developed world.

But remember, Geldof's not really bothered about the money:

Geldof referenced the big payday of some of private equity's titans, including Henry Kravis and George Roberts, who got $94 million each in 2011 from buyout firm KKR & Co LP , in also making a wider case for philanthropy.

"You have got the four houses, the three jets, the 10 cars, the 65th fucking Picasso. What's the point? So its stuff, and right now it's the stuff that will get us out of that mess," Geldof said.

So, Geldof's big idea is that you encourage people to invest in Africa, to rake enormous profits out the natural resources and endeavours of those who live there, on the sort-of-off-chance that the people who've made all that money will decide they don't really need it and give some of it back?

Righto, Bob.

Because, as we know, it's not like Bob Geldof is greedy, is it?

In other news: Oh, look, Geldof's playing a tax dodge:

The country is missing out on more than £1bn in tax as the rich and famous have registered thousands of their exclusive properties into offshore companies, it has been revealed.

Town houses, mansions, vast country estates and castles are among the 94,760 properties which have been placed offshore, according to the Land Registry.
[...]
Rock stars Mick Jagger and Bob Geldof and Ringo Starr are among the many who have taken advantage of the loophole.
[...]
BVI companies own poverty campaigner Geldof's homes in London and Kent which his spokesman said was 'perfectly legitimate' tax planning and not a way to avoid stamp duty.

Ah, 'prefectly legitimate tax planning'. It's an irregular verb, isn't it?

I plan my taxes
You avoid your taxes
He dodges his taxes

Did I say that the private equity industry could cite inviting Geldof as an example of its social commitment? Maybe I was wrong. Maybe they should have avoided tarnishing their reputation by bringing him along.

We're all in this together (except Sting)

Sting made a massive loss in the year he's just published accounts for - over £20million quid.

Don't worry, though: before we start to have a whip-round, it was just an accounting move to save him from £2million worth of tax.

Because, hey, why should Sting pay his share like the rest of us?

Bookmarks: Internet stuff - The Fall

Is it a Fall song, or is it a tax avoidance scheme (i.e. a tax dodging scheme)? Asburyandasbury want to know Play along at home:

The names given to these ingenious tax dodges are strangely resonant – things like “The Double Luxembourg” and “Outward Domestication”. In fact, they sound very much like lost B-sides by Manchester songsmiths The Fall.

[From 2009, but beautifully rediscovered today by Boing Boing]

Guy Hands: A charming man

Having screwed up EMI, loaded it with debt and sent it churning towards oblivion, you're unlikely to see Guy Hands outside Abbey Road studios anytime soon.

It turns out he's so mean, to avoid paying tax he won't even go and see his family:

Guy Hands, who moved from Kent to Guernsey last April in protest at higher income and capital gains tax rates, says he has "never visited" his school age children since he left the country. They have remained with his wife at their former family home in Kent and they now have to travel to Guernsey to see him.

Neither has he visited his mother and father – and wouldn't unless there was a family crisis: "I do not visit my parents in the United Kingdom and would not do so except in an emergency."

You wonder what would constitute an emergency large enough to shake Hands into a trip to the UK? Because, clearly, family ties are so much less important than keeping as much money as you possibly can.

Hands, by the way, is boasting about how much of a selfish moneygrubber he is - he's using this example of his extreme selfishness as an argument to try and stop Citigroup being allowed to hold the Terra Firma court case in London:

In a personal statement lodged in New York's southern district court Hands says he faces a top tax rate of 64% on earnings from employment from April, plus 18% CGT. He says he has been an "outspoken" critic of UK tax levels and fears that the Revenue will be watching him closely to ensure he does nothing that could threaten his move to obtain non-resident tax status.

Hands hasn't actually been able to explain why a country that has given him so much should be denied tax revenue that everyone else has to pay, nor why his meanness should be a determining factor in where a court case is held.

How would it be if someone facing court tried to argue the hearing shouldn't be held in, say, Liverpool because he doesn't fancy stumping up for the train fare?

Still, on the bright side, Hands, if you do have to come to the UK to fight your case, you might be able to pop in and see your parents. If they'll open the door to you. Not that they wouldn't want to, but they might be trying to save the cost of wear and tear on the hinges.

More upset for Guy Hands

As if it wasn't hard enough trying to keep EMI afloat with nothing more than a promise to do something sometime from Chris Martin, things are looking grim for Guy Hands on a personal front now.

The New York Times is reporting that HMRC is taking a close look at his claims to be a Guernsey resident for tax purposes:

[H]is lawyers hope to make the case that not only are the funds of his company, Terra Firma Capital Partners, administered in Guernsey and all the main investment decisions taken here, but Mr. Hands also has publicly vowed not to set foot again in Britain for the immediate future. If so, that should establish beyond a doubt that he is a resident of Guernsey.

But others are not so sure. Tax experts point to the fact that his wife, who owns their stately home in the Kent countryside southeast of London, runs a hotel business that is based in Britain. Three of his four children still go to British schools and the majority of Terra Firma employees, about 60 in number, are based in its London office.

While the lawyers argue about if it's legal or not, the "is it moral" question is much more easily settled, don't you think?