Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs


8:46 am - March 16th 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Andreas Paterson

While looking into the claims being made about Ken Livingstone’s tax affairs I was struck by something very strange.

Andrew Gilligan stated: “Mr Livingstone has made attacking the rich a major feature of his campaign. In three years, however, he has now channelled total earnings of £755,778 through the company, putting him comfortably in the top 1 per cent of all earners.”

The Guardian reported: “Livingstone said that he earned £55,000 in the last year and paid the full rate of income tax on that but did not earn enough to pay the top rate of income tax.”

Only one of these statements has Ken in the leagues of the mega rich.

The other has him earning a decent but by no means excessive amount. I can’t help asking myself who’s right?

To get a better idea I took a look over the accounts for Ken’s company, Silveta Limited.

In 2009, the company retained a significant amount profit, £232,550 of which was retained in the company, in 2010 the retained profits rose to £284,580, in 2011 the retained profits dropped to £238,646 indicating that the company is likely to have made a loss.

At this point I noticed that these three numbers added up to the figure of £755,776, just £2 off Gilligan’s figure. The £2 difference could be explained by the fact that figure for shareholders funds in the account is £2 higher and Gilligan could have read the wrong column.

What Andrew Gilligan had done was to take the level of retained profits in the company and treat it as the company’s trading profits. Ken Livingstone is definitely not in the top 1% of earners, although Boris Johnson certainly is.

* * * * * * * *

I’ve also looked at Ken’s tax affairs in more detail – you can see the working out there.

What in fact we have in this situation is that the limited company arrangement saves a grand total of £17,561.18, not insignificant but a good way off from the £50,000 we’ve seen in other reports.

The spirit of the law matters to a great degree – compare the relocation of company headquarters to avoid tax with starting an ISA. Under a strict technical definition both are “tax avoidance” but it would be ridiculous to call everyone with an ISA a tax avoider.

When campaigning against tax avoidance what most people mean is the kind of tax avoidance that falls outside the spirit of the law.

Unless Ken’s critics can demonstrate that Ken Livingstone is against the wider definition of tax avoidance their accusation of hypocrisy is incorrect.


Andreas Paterson blogs here

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,London Mayor

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Useful analysis.

I think the other, perhaps smaller point to make is this: if Livingstone had NOT set up a company to run his affairs, it is much more likely that those who provide their services to him (his employees, given the company status) would have operated as self-employed. This would/could then have led to them setting legitimate expenses off against tax and thereby leading to a smaller overall tax take for HMRC. It might even be that HMRC could have collared them for declaring as self-employed when they are de facto employees, because they are offering regular services at a regular rate to a single client. Andrew gilligan would then, presumably, have had a field day, accusing Livingstone for NOT setting up a company.

It seems to me therefore that by setting up a company to run his affairs Livingstone was only really ensuring good practice in relation to his employees by ensuring his activities had proper scrutiny from Companies House.

Whatever this detail, it is clear that Andrew Gilligan have either no idea, or wish to have no idea, of how to read an abbreviated (small, “closed” company set of accounts). As Andreas says, these accounts give no real clue of income/expenditure in a year, as they just provide a balance sheet of assets (which are inclusive of fixed assets and these may make up a considerable chunk) and liabilities at the Financial Year end. Anything to do with how much money is “channelled” will surely be guesswork. Further, an end of year balance of 228k seems pretty reasonable as a reserve if the company has (3?) staff (given business good practice about having a certain number of months operating costs as a cushion to allow for orderly closure if the order book dries up).

£17k per year is £54k tax saving over the three years, which I guess is where the £50k figure is coming from.

There’s nothing wrong with Ken arranging his affairs in the most tax-efficient manner.

What people object to is that he has been busily attacking others for doing the same thing. It makes him a bully and a hypocrite.

There are also concerns that he has failed to declare the corporate donations for his campaign financing. If so, he is running his campaign on illegal donations.

“What Andrew Gilligan had done was to take the level of retained profits in the company and treat it as the company’s trading profits.”

If that’s what Gilligan has done then full marks to you for working it out.

Well done indeed.

To confirm it we’d need to know that no dividends were paid but I think I’ve seen someone saying that there weren’t.

4. Shatterface

What in fact we have in this situation is that the limited company arrangement saves a grand total of £17,561.18, not insignificant but a good way off from the £50,000 we’ve seen in other reports.

£17,561.18 is approximately the yearly wage of an Admin Officer in the Civil Service, so not insignificant doesn’t really do it justice.

Unless Ken’s critics can demonstrate that Ken Livingstone is against the wider definition of tax avoidance their accusation of hypocrisy is incorrect.

I take it that LibCon are no longer opposed to companies like Vodafone ‘avoiding’ tax? Because those of us not wealthy enough to afford accountants to fiddle, I mean manage our finances don’t fully appreciate the difference.

Tim @3: To be fair to Andreas here, his workings in the link to his blog make clear that he doesn’t know all the facts, and that he’s taking an example case of someone/a company earning 300k in a year. This is where he get the final tax calculations from, and he says he assumes from the retention that not much has been paid out by dividend. He is simply setting out an example to show that the corp/income tax difference is not likely to be anywhere near the levels Gilligan suggests.

I suspect there’s a bit of Sunny editing going on here.

6. Shatterface

Of course, Ken’s declaration of himself as a corporate entity is fully consistant with his time at the GLC.

The blurring of the distinction between the individual and corporate bodies is at the heart of multi-culturalism, which treats individuals as representatives of a collective, no matter how ‘representative’ they actually are.

Once Livingstone abolished the individual it was only a matter of time before he abrogated his own personal responsibilities.

7. Shatterface

Buggering html

This is just like that “riddlegate” thing, because I just can’t work up the outrage the critics think is going to come for free.

When I read about international elite tax avoidance, it’s the “double irish”, “the dutch sandwich”, tax paid to a post box in Guernsey, I do not accept this as a scandal or ken as a hypocrite.

Zac Goldsmith kept being a a non-dom even while he was running for parliament and only admitted in when the papers found out. He inherited his non-dom status from his father making him quite literally a BORN TAX DODGER. And the law only males can inherit the status. Rich people buying privilege with power, power buying only more power is how the aristocracy gets started.

And, you know, that whole “Michael Ashcroft” thing. Still doesn’t pay taxes, still won’t admit he lied, still in Parliament (we’ve got one tax dodger in each house), just got a Prime Minister of his circle into office…in Belize. His PM collection now adds up to TWO.

I was one of the lucky few to get a glimpse of that Guardian “Barclays have an army of accountants getting them rebates on taxes they hadn’t paid” a few years ago in the brief few hours it was online before they sued it off the internet.

Ken is paying his taxes in one big simple way so straightforward the laziest journalist can spin it like he wants. It’s like the old saying about Northern Ireland flipped on its head: If you can understand the problem, it’s not really a problem.

But I don’t quite. So, he’s got 200k in total accumulated, that’s not what he’s earning. And I’m guessing if he takes it out of the company he as to pay that income tax he’s being accused of avoiding, doesn’t he?

He inherited his non-dom status from his father making him quite literally a BORN TAX DODGER. And the law only males can inherit the status.

Um, what? You don’t inherit non-domicile status from anybody. I think you may have missed a point or two back along the line.

“You don’t inherit non-domicile status from anybody.”

Well, yes you do, sorta.

If you’re born in the UK to two UK domiciled people then you’re not ever going to be able to claim non-domiciled status in the UK. Non-resident, sure, you can drop the citizenship and live elsewhere and be not domiciled, but you’ll never quite manage the trick of living in the UK and not being domiciled.

Which is what we normally mean by non-dom.

@Shatterface 4. – My view on tax avoidance is that it falls into two categories, one where the arrangement is both legal and consistent with the lawmakers original intentions (say using a Cash ISA) and the second where the arrangement is legal but not consistent with the lawmaker’s intentions. The second is the variety that I believe we should still be cracking down on, I’m not sure if that view’s consistent with the LibCon collective.

As for the 17K figure, this is an example figure assuming Ken has arranged the affairs of the company to minimise the tax due, Ken’s accounts don’t show income and expenditure so we can’t tell how he’s arranged his affairs. This point is moot however, since the figure’s for Ken’s income that have done the rounds in the press are nonsense resulting from Andrew Gilligan’s inability to interpret a balance sheet.

12. Andrew Dicker

‘In 2009, the company retained a significant amount profit, £232,550 of which was retained in the company, in 2010 the retained profits rose to £284,580, in 2011 the retained profits dropped to £238,646 indicating that the company is likely to have made a loss.’

No the last statement is incorrect. Retained profits is always taken after dividends are taken into account.

So Retained Profit for 2011= Retained Profit for 2010 + Profit/loss for year – Dividends taken for year.

So what your final statement says is actually: Profit for 2011-Dividends taken= -£45,934.

So if no dividends were taken in 2011, then yes, there would have been a loss for the year. However (as I assume you have taken these figures off filed abbreviated accounts at Companies House), you cannot say that a loss did occur.

Your second point is also based on a dodgy assumption. Which is that all of the income from the company will end up being taxed as a dividend, and that the company is paying out all it’s earnings in this form. Indeed as there are reserves in the form of a profit and loss account, this is clearly not the case.

If in the future the company ceases to trade, it can apply to have it’s final distribution being taxed not as dividend income, but as a capital gain which will lead to a greatly reduced level of tax payable.

13. paulnewman

I would love to see what he had down as costs

Andrew Dicker @12 – I qualify the point saying “is likely to have made a loss.” rather than saying explicitly that the company made a loss. You’re right in saying that I can’t say much more than that. On the capital gains point, my original post does mention this as a possibility.

I think the far more important issue is that a blogger for a respected national newspaper has written a series of smear stories about Ken Livingstone and his income based on figures that are quite obviously wrong.

Good grief.
No-one is interested in the details.
Livingstone has attacked people for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance.
He has undertaken (perfectly legal) tax avoidance.
Has he done anything wrong?
No.
Has he been exposed as a total hypocrite?
Yes.

cjcjc – You seem to be viewing all forms of tax avoidance as equal, they are not. Treating them that way though is a convenient way of letting powerful individuals and corporations off the hook.

Like I say though, the more important issue is the smear campaign being run against Ken by Andrew Gilligan based on figures he may as well have just made up.

Well I’m sure Livingstone will be happy to supply a detailed rebuttal with complete numbers.

(Not holding breath…)

One trick pony Gilligan attacks Ken again. The man can only write about 1 issue.

Good grief.
No-one is interested in the details.

Of course you’re not. You’re only interested in smearing.. rather than Andrew “sockpuppet” Gilligan

I think this debate massively misses the point.

Gilligan is politically motivated, of course. And if he’s used a figure of in excess of £700,000 then he’s wildly wrong.

But it’s equally true to say that the assumption that the company lost money is also wrong and wholly without foundation – that could have been the result of paying a dividend. We just don’t know.

What we do know is that having limited companies can deliver substantial tax savings to those on higher incomes and that’s not in the spirit of the law – HMRC clearly say it is not, especially if involving income splitting. We do not know if Ken did that.

They can also be used to defer income without reason bar tax – and that is tax avoidance – 10% unavoidably so. If the opposite of tax avoidance is tax compliance and tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes then there’s avoidance here. So let’s not beat around the bush and be silly about it because a left winger has done it. The time for reform is now.

And Ken could have helped himself no end by publishing his full accounts – but chose not to. That was unwise.

So we need a new system of business structuring for small business that does not allow deferral, limits opportunity for income splitting, creates a level playing field with self employment (which is the proper benchmark here – undoubtedly) and which requires full accounts for the use of limited liability on public record.

That’s the key point – and why I got engaged in this debate. Ken has laid himself open by hiding his affairs to allegation that he has something to hide. that unfortunate and a poor judgement on his part.

And there’s no doubt his behaviour has been tax driven – he has said so. In the process he has avoided and deferred tax and created the possibility (no more) that it may be split. Again, all of that;s unfortunate – not least because he has not put justification for it in the public domain.

So whilst f course I want a Labour mayor I’d really like one who was transparent too.

Then he might also stand up to the City with a clear conscience – something ken has never been good at and which has always disappointed me.

So let’s not get personal about this. But let’s also admit there are real issues to debate here and denying that is no credit to the left at all.

And for the record – I have had companies, but I choose to run all my affairs through an LLP and have for some number of years since I really became fully aware of the possibility of doing so; I put full accounts on public record and my wife does get 1% of my LLPs profits – which probably under-rewards her for what she really contributes, but we have the same tax rate anyway.

I just wrote a lengthy comment here that seemed to disappear on posting.

I haven’t the inclination to write it again.

Suffice to say by the definition of the Tax Justice Network ken is avoiding as he is not tax compliant. Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.

But the big issue is not that. It’s that:

a) His accounts are not fully disclosed

b) This could cover up for income splitting and other issues which would complicate this issue further

c) Limited liability is creating an unlevel playing field in business – and is incredibly poorly regulated, and is maybe one of the biggest areas of tax evasion (but not by Ken)

d) We should be arguing for systemic reform to remove opportunity for abuse as a result – not whitewashing it

e) Ken has made errors of judgement – he should put full accounts on public record for a start.

f) If he did show better judgement we’d have more confidence he’d stand up to the abuse of the City – but right now I for one have no such confidence at all, and that for me is the most worrying aspect of this.

Ken does hav a lot of answering to do – and seeking to cover that up does his apologists no credit in my opinion, whether left or right.

And yes – Gilligan does look as though he does not understand accounts, bot nor does the author of this article either. There is, for example no reason at all to assume the company made a loss. That’s just speculation and about as wrong as Gilligan – a dividend could as easily explain the move in reserves.

So shall we stick to the systemic issues?

There is a fallacy in that Andreas Paterson assumes that Ken hasn’t spent any money on food and clothes in the last three years. He also seems to assume that the retained profit after tax is the same as Ken’s total earnings.
The retained profit for 61 weeks in 2008-9 was 232,550 after tax implying a profit of *at least* £294,360. The creditor of 72598 suggests that pre-tax profit was in fact £294,699 pa just below the limit for small companies rate. Likewise the retained profit of 284580 at June 2010 means retained profits of just 52030 but the creditor of 62511 implies pre-tax profits of £297671 again just below the small companies limit; the June 2011 figure shows a fall in retentions of 55934 but the creditors (excluding £3190 owed to Mr Livingstone and Ms Beal) implies profits of 213838. This gives a total of £857,214, an average of £270,152 per annum. Well inside the top 1%.
If one takes the Andreas line and assumes that all profit was retained while Ken lived on savings from prior years, then the retained profit to June 2010 means that he averaged pre-tax of £165,768 per annum for 2008-10 (if that’s outside the top 1% it not far out) and paid tax of £76,618 instead of £147,838 a saving of £71,220. Some of this will be recouped if he draws the retained profit as dividends, but …
Ken’s tax saving is not just the £17, 561 PER YEAR that Andreas calculates because half the dividends should go to Ms Beal who may not, in the absence of dividend income, be a higher-rate taxpayer so up to £30k a year in dividends pays no additional tax – that alone is a saving of £15k a year compared to them counting as part of Ken’s massive income.
So it appears that Andreas may be better than Gilligan at reading accounts but he has still got the answer wrong. Ken’s tax saving for 2008-11 is well over £50k and may be over £100k

My word, that’s very good of you Richard:

“And for the record – I have had companies, but I choose to run all my affairs through an LLP and have for some number of years since I really became fully aware of the possibility of doing so; I put full accounts on public record and my wife does get 1% of my LLPs profits – which probably under-rewards her for what she really contributes, but we have the same tax rate anyway.”

So, given that income splitting, the inappropriate uses of a Ltd, dodging NI through dividends and all that, given that they are tax abuse, well:

” Fulcrum Publishing Ltd:

“Publishes original written materials”, seems to have been his old vehicle for paid writing.

Jointly owned 50:50 by Ritchie and Jacqueline Murphy (same address, born 1963, presumably his wife).

Hasn’t traded since 2003, but when it was trading it paid out all of its profits as dividends. Incorporation and taking dividends from the company instead of a salary is a classic tax/NI avoidance strategy – as he set out in his Observer article.

I wonder how much of the company’s work his wife did, or whether giving her shares was just a device to save tax by transferring half of the income to her? Did “the rewards paid [to her] match the underlying economic substance” (Ritchie’s own test of whether incorporation is “abusive”)? It seems unlikely that she was generating 50% of the profits from his writing.

It’s difficult to see what legitimate non-tax reason he would have for incorporation, and (as he said in his reply to you) he regularly argues against incorporation – for other people.”

And:

“The Tax Gap Ltd (formerly Tax Research Ltd):

Carries out “social science research”. Shares owned 90% Ritchie, 10% Jacqueline.

Paid out small (£3-4k) directors’ salaries in 2005, 2006 & 2007 (another classic tax/NI avoidance strategy, keeping the salary under the personal allowance).

Paid out a £12,000 dividend in 2006 (classic NI avoidance strategy, to take money out as NI-exempt dividend rather than salary).

Profits of nearly £13,000 retained in the company (another classic tax avoidance strategy, to delay paying dividends until a year when your income is below the higher rate threshold).”

As I’ve said, often enough, I have no problem with this entirely legitimate use of the tax system (Yes I’ve even said it about Ken).

But you, Richard, you do have a problem with it. That’s also fair enough. Neither I nor anyone else has a problem with people who disagree with us.

But here’s the thing. After doing what you now think you should not have done, after using tax provisions that you think no one should use, should you not pay the tax that you did not pay?

It’s easy enough, just send a cheque to “The Accountant”, 2 Horse Guards Rd, SW1. They do send a receipt, something you can show us all.

And yes I do know: you’re of the Quaker persuasion and I am of a Catholic background even if not of current belief. But one of the things that I do recall about Confession is that it requires not just the promise to not do it again but also the making of amends for having done it.

The receipt for your having paid the NI and income tax you dodged over those years of having a sercives company is the least you could provide.

Accumulated interest won’t be necessary…..not yet.

Tim

Tell us news

Fulcrum Publishing’s profits were really very, very small. Never enough to pay NI on a salary!

And it sold services by both of us, and there was no deferral and no NI avoidance as NI was being paid on a self employed basis.

Ditto, as explained many times The Tax Gap. I was paying full NI already.

What was my continual comparator? Self employment – where I paid max NI. So I did not avoid.

And why did it retain cash? For two reasons. a) In case of litigation b) In case it was needed to finance another iteration of the work. Totally sound commercial reasons.

Would I use a company again? No. But did I hide anything? No. Did I defer anything – bar retaining cash for commercial purposes? No.

Would I on the basis of the experience recommend LLPs? Yes.

But was I always tax compliant by the standard above and fully transparent (which is how you know so much)?

Do I know anyone on the right as transparent? No.

And when do we see your accounts to explain how you can fund your continual blogging Tim? Tell us that.

In the meantime it is you, the Taxpayers’ Alliance and so many others who deny their accountability who are on the back foot.

Richard

Irrelevant argument because it is not the amount that is being complained about. It is that Ken is a hypocrite.

“If you’re born in the UK to two UK domiciled people then you’re not ever going to be able to claim non-domiciled status in the UK.”

Logically you would think so. Oddly enough it has been done in at least one case. I have no details as to who or why.

“And when do we see your accounts to explain how you can fund your continual blogging Tim? Tell us that.”

There is no funding of my blogging.

As I’ve pointed out several times.So I’m afraid that you’re going to come up dry looking for anything like the £35k a year you get from the J., Rowntree folks. It simply doesn’t exist.

I earn money by being a wholesaler in rare metals. I get paid for freelance articles as and when such freelance pieces are published (Forbes, on exactly the same basis that you were paid, monthly fee plus traffic bonus, ASI, Anorak, occasionally in newspapers etc) and then finally there’s a small advertising income from the blog.

And that’s it. There’s no funding of my blogging, no sugar daddy coughing up the cash for me to read and critique your pretensions to economic knowledge. I do that purely for fun.

Oh joy. Gilligan still appears to be claiming his sums are correct http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100144736/ken-livingstone-can-he-count-up-to-five/

He doesn’t seem very bright.

29. Simon Jester

Oh joy. Paul can’t multiply 17 by 3.

He doesn’t seem very bright.

@29: I’m aware that 17×3 is Gilligan’s defence.

Gilligan, and I assume from oyur comment you, are aparently not aware that the figures in the OP are which arive at the 17k figure are an example only, and make no claim to be based on Livinstone’s income. Gilligan also appears to remain unaware that he has confused assets on the balance sheet with earnings – a figure for the latter does not appear in abbreviated accounts of the type Gilligan has taken from Companies House, and the lack of which leads Andreas to provide an example in the first place.

The fact that Andreas’ example, leading to 17k assumed tax difference between company and slef-employed modes of tax payment, is roughly a third of Gilligan 54k guess, is entirely conincidental.

@29: Sorry, “lack of which” in final para should read “lack of this”.

There is no getting away from the fact that Ken IS a tax avoider (just like The Guardian). He has arranged his affairs in such a manner to avoid paying taxes on some portion of his earnings. Why else would he set up a service company ? Would he have paid more tax had all these earnings been taxed on a personal basis ? Yes he would.

There should also be more comment on the source of much of this money. It was PressTV, the television channel run by the mad Mullahs of Tehran who execute the odd homosexual every now and again.

The hypocrisy of Ken Livingston knows no bounds, and nor does that of many of his defenders on here. Shame on the lot of you.

@ Richard Murphy, 20

“What we do know is that having limited companies can deliver substantial tax savings to those on higher incomes and that’s not in the spirit of the law – HMRC clearly say it is not”,

Where have HMRC said that? Link, please…

What you really mean is that YOU don’t think that it is within the spirit of the law.

Fortunately, even if HRMC did say it, their opinion is of no more weight than Murphy’s or mine. That’s why we have Parliament and the Courts.

As for the article itself, Gilligan may not be able to read a set of accounts, but I’m not sure Paterson can either.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken's tax affairs http://t.co/nUEBITsk

  2. Tristram Wyatt

    RT @libcon: Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken's tax affairs http://t.co/7ar7x4W5

  3. Jason Brickley

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs http://t.co/X6LFA6qy

  4. Paul Crowley

    Does opening an ISA make you a "tax avoider"? http://t.co/jiFaND5u have long thought the term highly problematic for just this reason.

  5. Neil Courtman

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken's tax affairs http://t.co/nUEBITsk

  6. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs http://t.co/CGuk4nuw

  7. Lambeth NUT

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken's tax affairs http://t.co/nUEBITsk

  8. Rory Hegarty

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken's tax affairs http://t.co/nUEBITsk

  9. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken ’s tax affairs http://t.co/yAMXvQkZ

  10. Alex Braithwaite

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XxzSVlvI via @libcon

  11. Mayoral Election: Candidates Clash At Business Hustings | Londonist

    [...] mansion tax while both Johnson and Paddick took the opportunity to snipe at Livingstone over his much-publicised tax affairs; the former in saying he would rather see a crackdown on tax avoidance and the latter [...]

  12. Frank Morris

    And how many shareholders can call on that company cash? RT @sunny_hundal: Ken massive tax avoidance http://t.co/hvfSEgqA

  13. Wendy Hibbs

    Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken Livingstone’s taxes – not just with the numbers but explaining them http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  14. Natacha Kennedy

    http://t.co/KqLLMTei Andrew Gilligan (like Nick Cohen) making up nonsense about Ken Livingstone again.

  15. Tania Ziegler

    All those people attacking Ken for massive tax avoidance are nowhere to be found now http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  16. John Turner

    All those people attacking Ken for massive tax avoidance are nowhere to be found now http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  17. phil dodd

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/qm2qXcKI All those critised Ken for Tax READ THIS

  18. phil dodd

    All those people attacking Ken for massive tax avoidance are nowhere to be found now http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  19. Andrew Miles

    Excellent article Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zWecgitn via @libcon

  20. Giselle Green

    Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken Livingstone’s taxes – not just with the numbers but explaining them http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  21. Ivan White

    All those people attacking Ken for massive tax avoidance are nowhere to be found now http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  22. Ken Livingstone: can he count up to five? – Telegraph Blogs

    [...] Speaking of poor arithmetic, I enjoyed the valiant attempt by one lone lefty blogger to claim that Ken’s tax avoidance didn’t really save him the £50,000 I claimed but merely… [...]

  23. arthur jordan

    Where Andrew Gilligan is wrong about Ken’s tax affairs | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/0z9c5H0B via @libcon

  24. sunny hundal

    I see Andrew Gilligan has replied on Ken's taxes http://t.co/YbLdgU4P Doesn't explain where he got £755,778 figure tho http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  25. BevR

    I see Andrew Gilligan has replied on Ken's taxes http://t.co/YbLdgU4P Doesn't explain where he got £755,778 figure tho http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  26. Foxy52

    I see Andrew Gilligan has replied on Ken's taxes http://t.co/YbLdgU4P Doesn't explain where he got £755,778 figure tho http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  27. Warren Peace

    I see Andrew Gilligan has replied on Ken's taxes http://t.co/YbLdgU4P Doesn't explain where he got £755,778 figure tho http://t.co/NJ0lj6Jv

  28. Why is the Financial Times promoting tax avoidance? « Though Cowards Flinch

    [...] tax by “funnelling” earnings through a company is in the news a lot recently, what with the Livingstone smear/scandal and the inability of a high-profile journalist to read a simple set of accounts.   It seems an [...]

  29. EXCL: Gilligan to use TPA against Ken | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] Gilligan hasn’t explained how he arrived to the figure of £755,778 and declared Ken Livingstone to be “comfortably in the [...]

  30. Journalist Thickometer « Though Cowards Flinch

    [...] week Liberal Conspiracy published a Sunny-edited piece from Andreas Paterson , setting out how stupid/what a smearer Andrew Gilligan is with his accusation that Ken [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.