 |
| The 14ft replica head of Jimmy Carr awaits shipping, as Jersey Finance prepare for their first ever entry in Jersey's Battle of Flowers with their K2 themed exhibit - we are told they will use a 'special purpose vehicle' to tow their float |
Rumours are rife that Mr Battle is going to be revived as passengers boarding at Portsmouth spied a giant replica head of Anglo-Irish Comedian and erstwhile tax dodger, Jimmy Carr waiting to be loaded onto the Commodore Goodwill yesterday evening in Portsmouth.
It is understood that the giant head was secured by Jersey Finance Ltd, who had originally wanted to buy the head last year and burn it as an effigy on Guy Fawkes night because of all the 'bad press' the island had received because of him. However, the delivery was delayed due to a localised strike from courier staff in the South-East region who thought that this might have been an intricate LVCR scheme to sell it back to the UK - minus the VAT.
 |
| Jersey Finance's, Geoff Cook is tight-lipped on the identity of Mr Battle |
'Unfortunately, it did not make it here in time for November, so we had an office brain-storm to think of an alternative use', said Mr Cook. 'One of our young female staff members suggested that we could use it as part of a exhibit for the Battle of Flowers. I thought this was a great idea and when one of our senior managers suggest using all the left over Option B posters from the referendum to make the body of the float that simply sealed the deal. We take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and this was a great example of recycling Jersey style.'
When asked about the rumour that Mr Carr himself may have been making an appearance as this year's Mr Battle, in the absence of the organisers being able to find any suitably famous tracksuit-wearing, cigar-smoking nonce, Mr Cook just gave us a cheeky smile and avoided (but did not evade) the question.
-----------------
DISCLAIMER
The content of this post is purely comedic in purpose, not real and not intended to offend.
Sweet!
ReplyDeleteWell done for standing up to Pip on BBC Radio Jersey. It is abhorrent that any alternative view is used to demonise the holder of that view.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as a point of order PO does not seem to understand what the regulator actually DOES when it goes into a trust company. It checks anti-money laundering provisions, four eyes checks on payments, compliance with various regulations, etc. What it does NOT have the capacity to check is the terms of every single trust deed administered by that trust company. It would be too onerous a job for the small number of regulatory staff.
If you ask me, PO does not understand the regulatory function of the regulator that he is responsible for. Ask him if the JFSC read every trust deed, see what his answer is.
Perhaps now is the time for Jersey to have a register of all trusts administered by local trust companies. A full public list of all the trusts, settlors, beneficiaries and property. No idea how practical that would be, but it would give a degree of transparency to it, and if you have no thing to hide, what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteWell, as soon as the UK publishes a list of trusts, Jersey should follow. The UK does not, nor will it. A trust is, after all, a private arrangement. You, Sam, as a law student, should understand that.
DeleteCompanies are different. The luxury of limited liability is balanced by being on a list of companies. Jersey has such a list, as does the UK.
You have quoted on twitter about there being no “illegal” trusts – what little evidence there is published suggests you may be wrong. This is a very rough summary of the only case I can find so far this year using Trust Company and tax from the link to www.jerseylaw.je/judgements/unreportedjudgements
ReplyDeleteCase date 17 April 2013. W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff:-
This is another application arising out of an inheritance tax and estate planning scheme devised by the firm of English solicitors called Baxendale Walker (which is what got my interest)
In or about August 2003, the representors made some enquiries in relation to possible arrangements to protect their children against any future inheritance tax burden. They were referred by independent financial advisers to Messrs Baxendale Walker, which was an unfortunate referral. That firm, together with an entity called FSL Global Services Limited produced a scheme …
(to be honest I don’t understand much of this but the following points I think are important)
5. It is not obvious that the representors would have perceived any (referring to a list of items) of these as problems. They were looking only to save tax, as Baxendale Walker must have known.
28.1 The trust instruments themselves envisage that the trustees would grant deferred annuities. The provision of such annuities would fall within the long term insurance business for the purposes of Schedule 1 of Part 1 of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996, and by virtue of Article 5 of that Law, no person is permitted to carry on such business without a permit issued by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Neither Atlas nor the successor trustees are or have been registered for the purposes of carrying out long term insurance business. Accordingly the Estate Annuity Purchase Deed, to the extent that it imposed upon Atlas the obligation of paying deferred annuities, was illegally entered into.
29. For these reasons we think that the Annuity Investment Trust and Sub-Trust, and the Estate Annuity Purchase Deeds were incapable of performance as drafted.
30. … The possession and enjoyment of the underlying property was never transferred .. If one of the main purposes of the arrangement was to pass property tax free to the representors’ children, that simply did not happen, nor on any proper analysis was it in fact intended to happen during the lifetime of the representors. The documents were a sham.
31. Furthermore there are other difficulties with the trust instrument apart from the inability of the trustee to perform any annuity contracts as set out above. Clause 3 of the instrument provides that the primary purpose of the trust is the negotiation arrangement execution and performance of authorised contracts. There are the same difficulties with the construction of Schedule 2 of the trust instrument (see paragraph 7 above) as described in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Court’s judgment in Tait-v-Apex Trustees Limited. It is hard to see how the trustee could sensibly make an authorised contract for the provision of a deferred annuity to a person who was excluded, as Clause 3.6 of the instrument makes expressly clear. In our view the provisions by which one could identify a person for whom an investment annuity contract could be made are uncertain.
A lot of the above seem to disprove what Ozouf was on about this morning so if you can make any sense out of this?
I'm one of those people who's occasionally worked in the finance industry, usually as a temp. although in the two events I describe, both were 'permanent' positions. I've since left finance (with no regrets).
ReplyDeleteHere's my story-
When I worked in one very small trust company, I was invited to go to Amsterdam by my boss, all expenses paid. Some money exchanged hands at a client dinner table and when I got back to Jersey, I immediately lost my job. The reason- "for seeing too much"!!!
A few years later I worked in a much larger Trust Company and the entire team was invited for a weekend trip to Amsterdam, all expenses paid! About 10 of us went and had a great time. There were no 'client meetings' as in the previous example. However, we were told before we left Jersey that the trip was being financed by a "slush fund" which the director/s wanted to "loose".
With hindsight, perhaps I should have contacted JAC's regarding the smaller company for my unfair dismissal and handed myself into the Police as a willing beneficary of dodgy funds in respect of the larger one!!!!
I have no need to fabricate events and I bear no grudges against these former employers. However, I do wonder, if approached, would these people follow TJW and simply deny it? More than that, as a whistleblower, will I end up getting 'done for'? 'Shooting (the messenger)' being another powerful Jersey Way tool for maintaining the status quo and keeping Jersey's image 'right.' As for the debate on the morality of the finance industry- it's merely one of the many elephants-in-the-Chamber, elephants who are becomming larger, heavier and more restless, with each passing day.
Montfort.
ReplyDeleteBusiness as usual.........THE JERSEY WAY.
You know it's gaining ever more attention, when even the techy news sites are covering it! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/14/uk_firm_subsidiaries_tax_havens/
ReplyDeleteCher ami normand de Jersey, vous trouverez un billet vous concernant et soutenant votre combat pour Jersey libérée de l'enfer de la finance sur le blog "Etoile de Normandie" blog militant pour l'unité de la Normandie continentale française et suivant l'actualité politique, économique et culturelle de toute la Normandie.
ReplyDeleteCourage, tenez-bon, continuez: vous n'êtes pas seuls... Les patriotes normands existent!
Amitiés,
Philippe Cléris, collectif citoyen et républicain "Bienvenue en Normandie" (Caen / Granville)