Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
It does all rather sound like tax avoidance. I can see how they are in a difficult position though. It's not hard to see how this is beneficial for anyone freelance..let's say a DJ who works for many venues or something but it does leave a sour taste in the mouth when we are talking about such huge sums.

In defence of Lineker, I think it's clear to see why being freelance is right for him - he may not want to be tied to one organisation and he probably doesn't need the benefits or security that provides. That said, we assume that with the top rate of tax being 45% that the most wealthy should be paying that and it seems thats unlikely to be the case, but who knows? ��
The only reason this ever came out was because of the Panama Papers hack. David Cameron had his company called Blairmore (ironic) . One of Linekers other companies was called GoalHanger, that was also involved in the property purchase (it seems he had more than one company..) - a bit similar to how a Tony Blair arranges his web of companies.

Listen - I know that there are lots of people and companies earning lots of money - and surprisingly they want to "invest" it in schemes so it lowers their profits and if they can do it overseas even better. Lower or no profits = no corporation tax.
Chris Moyles got caught whilst trying to pretend he was a used car salesman - dealing in cars overseas, Jimmy Carr if I remember boasted on not paying at all, turns out he was "investing" / loaning money in a jersey film company that never made a profit - he paid up.

They all think they are clean as - until it goes to court - and then it depends how good their legal team is. None of the above passes the sniff test to me, legal or illegal - less tax was paid than if they had traded as a 'normal' company