Just read in the Times that Venables was one of those 'investing' in the Icebreaker scheme along with Gary Barlow, Colin Jackson and about 1,000 other wealthy people. It's not clear to me whether the scheme is actually illegal as opposed to just a bit nausea inducing. Our Tel, of course, has a record of iffy financial dealings and has been involved in various 'entrepreneurial' activities since his early days as a player. I can still forgive him just about anything, and my retro-fitted rationale for this is people of his generation and background (very similar to my Dad, who had a similarly 'creative' approach to wealth generation and preservation, but nothing illegal as far as I know and on a pretty modest scale) knew poverty at first hand when young and have a genuine and justified fear of encountering it again. I'm not so forgiving of Barlow and his kind.
It is not illegal. These schemes take advantage of supposed loopholes in the law. What makes it look so bad is that these people have millions to "invest". It is all a question of degree. Most of the "names" that are reported don't even know where their money is most of the time as their investments, etc, are handled by hired professionals, tax accountants, etc.
From the Telegraph - 'The three men invested £66 million into two partnerships styled as music-industry investment schemes but which the court ruled were artificial tax havens for the super-rich. The partnerships, set up by a company called Icebreaker Management, allowed musicians to avoid tax on about £63 million from world tours and CD sales following their reunion in 2005. Of the trio Barlow was the biggest investor in the scheme. Last week a tax judge rejected arguments that more than 50 Icebreaker partnerships had been set up for commercial purposes or for profit. In total about 1,000 investors are accused of sheltering more than £300 million through the scheme. Judge Colin Bishopp said in his ruling: “Icebreaker is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be a tax avoidance scheme. The aim was to secure [tax] relief for members, and to inflate the scale of the relief by unnecessary borrowing.” The judge concluded that icebreaker members inflated investments through “entirely circular” loans. In doing so they could offset losses against other tax bills. The judge found that none of the icebreaker partnerships made any profit, investing in a range of obscure artists as well as some well known figures such as Sinead O’Connor, the Irish singer. “No serious or even moderately sophisticated investor, genuinely seeking a profit... would rationally have chosen an icebreaker partnership,” said the judge. ' Sounds slightly 'illegal' to me Eamon, 'circular loans' sounds very much like the old VAT carousel fraud from a few years back.
Some people need to look at the difference between Tax AVOIDANCE, which is completely legal, and Tax EVASION, which is not. None of the people involved in this Icebreaker thing have broken the law.
