The BBC - Tax Avoidance - Hypocrisy on Cuts

[Teddy Bear]

I read an article today about how BBC newsreader Moira Stuart was avoiding paying a higher rate of tax on her substantial earnings, by having set up a service company, Moira Stuart Ltd. This allows her to pay corporation tax, set at 21%, instead of the 50% top tax rate which she'd be liable for based on her income.

Now I also know there are many BBC executives and 'celebrities' who do exactly the same, and have been doing it for a while. This article from 2009 tells of similar actions by their staff then - Top BBC presenters at centre of tax dodging row as they snub contracts to remain 'freelance'

So I decided to do a little research to see how the BBC itself reports on the issue of tax avoidance, especially as they are so vocal with regard to opposing cuts and savings implemented by the present government, made necessary by the deficit left by the previous government.

So with the saying 'Money Talks and Bullshit Walks' in the back of my mind, I was certain that BBC hypocrisy was only going to be further exposed than it was already. I found a few interesting pieces that really show the 'one rule for them' mentality held by the BBC, and may also stimulate your own thinking about the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance.

In September 2010, the Chief Treasury Secretary, Lib Dem MP Danny Alexander, addressed the party conference, which the BBC headlined Alexander launches 'ruthless' tax evasion clampdown. He stated this
"There are some people who seem to believe that not paying their fair share of tax is a lifestyle choice that is socially acceptable," he said.

"Just like the benefit cheat, they take resources from those who need them most. Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today's circumstances it is morally indefensible.

"We will be ruthless with those often wealthy people and businesses who think they can treat paying tax as an optional extra."

Tax evasion and avoidance cost the Treasury an estimated £14bn a year and successive governments have vowed to take action against it.

It was clear that this also directly implicated those at the BBC engaged in these practices. So in response, the next day BBC business editor Robert Peston wrote this article: Is avoiding tax immoral?, in which he asserts I am sure that many of you would agree with him. But "tax evasion" is illegal whereas "tax avoidance" is not: tax avoidance is the use of lawful devices to reduce taxable income and thus the tax payable to the Exchequer.

Now, there are plenty of individuals who see tax as just another of those irksome costs of doing business, such that they would be certifiable if they didn't do all that's necessary to shrink their tax bills. They would take the view that if they're not breaking the law in reducing the tax they pay on their income, then they're doing nothing wrong. He goes on to cite many examples where across business this is an accepted practice, although most of his subjects are business leaders and entrepreneurs, He avoids using examples like media presenters since even he can see there's quite a distinction. It's clear though that he wants to justify the practice.

I haven't checked but I'm willing to bet he didn't feel the same on the issue of banker bonuses, which according to his supposed philosophy he should be quite okay with it.

Then in June 2011 the BBC commissioned a poll on tax avoidance for one of its upcoming programmes and were probably quite disappointed to see the results

“The Government should crack down on tax avoidance by businesses operating in the UK.”Agree: 84%Disagree: 12%
Don’t know: 3%

The poll also stated:
“The Government should crack down on tax avoidance by businesses, even if it causes unemployment, or some companies to leave the UK.”
Agree: 60%
Disagree: 34%
Don’t know: 6%

This time, political editor Nick Robinson writes an article in advance of the programme Decision Time: The tax avoidance issue He opens with
With the country facing a squeeze, with tax rising and spending being cut, the demand that companies and the rich should pay what they owe grows louder and louder.

You don't have to be one of those who occupied Topshop or Fortnum and Mason to wonder why the taxman can't get his hands on billions of pounds shielded by offshore schemes and onshore wheezes.

But on the other hand, you may worry whether Britain really can afford to increase the taxes paid by those who create wealth and jobs and who are, after all, minimising their tax bills quite legally.

Could the final cost of a crackdown on tax avoidance be higher than the bill of letting it go on?

So Robinson wants to try and change public opinion by justifying avoidance for 'those who create wealth and jobs', which for the BBC is their usual self-serving agenda. Otherwise they are far from fitting that description.

I see also that while the programmed aired on the 8th of June 2011, and is still available to be listened to, the usual description that accompanies most broadcasts has been made quite neutral so nobody would know the subject material by looking at it, as the picture shows.


In November 2011 the New Statesmen reports Tax avoidance costs UK economy £69.9 billion a year, so it looks to remain quite a contentious issue for a while.

My feeling about the subject is there may be a justification for businesses to seek ways to reduce taxes, provided those ways also serves the public. But when public servants, as those at the BBC are supposed to be, and paid for out of the public coffers, well in excess anyway of what they are truly worth, there is absolutely no justification for them to be avoiding paying their fare share of taxes- especially so when they are so instrumental in creating the same society that needs those taxes.

I also think if a poll was done specifically related to tax avoidance by BBC staff, the result would be closer to 100% opposed.

[Teddy Bear]

Seems as if the number of those employed by the BBC using tax-avoidance strategies may be a lot higher than first realised. I wonder what justification for it they will use, other than the obvious wishing to avoid paying. No doubt they will try to moralise their position, which frankly is reprehensible.

Thousands of BBC workers paid through limited companies
Thousands of BBC workers are being paid through limited companies in arrangements which enable employees to reduce their tax bills.

The corporation said “around 3,000” employees bill the BBC through personal service companies under deals which allow them to make their own tax arrangement rather than being paid through the PAYE system.

The broadcaster admitted that 31 of these workers are paid more than £100,000 a year without having tax deducted at source, while five earn more than £150,000 annually.

However, the true figure could be higher as the BBC said it excluded “talent” such as high-profile presenters and reporters, as well as people working in commercial subsidiaries, including BBC Worldwide.

David Mowat, a Conservative MP who obtained the figures through a Freedom of Information request, said the BBC should be included in a Whitehall-wide review of the practice ordered by the Government.

Mr Mowat told Exaro, the investigative news website: "The government is rightly clamping down on this practice. The board of the BBC should do the same."

The MP for Warrington South raised the issue in the House of Commons on Wednesday during a debate on the budget.
He highlighted the broadcaster's admission that it had 318 people earning more than £50,000 without paying tax at source, saying: "That is not acceptable.”

Mr Mowat, a member of the Commons public accounts committee (PAC), added: "The review that is being conducted across government ... explicitly excludes the BBC. I ask ministers to reconsider that."
The BBC disclosed that it has 20,000 salaried staff and "typically" 12,000 freelancers in any year.

Its response said: "Around 3,000 of these choose to provide their services via a limited company." It added that 1,363 workers paid through limited companies earn above £26,000 a year.

Stephen Barclay, another Tory MP on the PAC, said: "This reply shows that there is a need for much greater transparency at the BBC because the figures do not include so many people from BBC's talent – which covers its main presenters – and its commercial operations.

"There is also a duty on the BBC Trust over accountability to check whether people who are employed through these companies do not have rolling contracts running every year and are working exclusively for the BBC."

A BBC spokesman said:"We have written to Mr Mowat to correct him explaining that these individuals are not permanent members of BBC staff so do not have their tax deducted at source in the way a the vast majority of employees do.

"In the main they are hired to do specific jobs for a fixed period of time such as directing, editing and other craft skills. When a person is contracted in this way it is their responsibility to organise their tax arrangements directly with the HMRC.
"This is entirely in keeping with HMRC regulations and is standard practice across the broadcasting and many other industries."

The findings follow last month’s disclosure that Ed Lester, chief executive of the Student Loans Company, was potentially allowed to avoid paying thousands of pounds in tax by being paid through a private firm in a deal approved by the Coalition.

Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury has since ordered a review of civil servants' contracts.

It was also disclosed this month that almost 100 council staff are paid through limited companies in arrangements described as “totally wrong” and “tax avoidance” by Margaret Hodge, the PAC chairman.

[Teddy Bear]

Kelvin MacKenzie heard this interview and commented.
Typical BBC hypocrisy.

The politics of envy is in full cry right now. Unless you are dying in a ditch, suffering from scurvy, it appears you should be forced to pay 100p in the pound income tax.

And do smile as you hand over the cheque.

So it came as no surprise to me that when George Osborne appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme, the presenter Evan Davis took up the socialist cudgel and wanted to know if the Chancellor was himself better or worse off after his Budget, in which he lowered the top rate of tax to 45p and reduced corporation tax.

Mr Osborne courteously pointed out that his salary was less than the £150,000 threshold. This wasn’t enough for the persistent Mr Davis who insisted he must have other income and therefore that would take him into the top bracket. Once again, Mr Osborne pushed back and pointed out that he was not a 50p taxpayer. Being a suspicious cove, the exchange got me wondering: of the two men sitting in front of the microphone of the state-funded BBC, who did best out of the Budget?

Thanks to my friends who see the invoices at the BBC, the answer by a mile is Mr Davis.

As a heavyweight presenter of the Today programme, he will earn around £250,000-a-year; as the frontman of the BBC TV show Dragons’ Den, he will pocket another £100-125k, plus he will pick up a handy £30k for a business interview programme on Radio 4. And the cash doesn’t stop there. Due to his chosen journalistic subject being business and economics, he will trouser another £100k annually through being chairman of economic conferences and the like.

I have no complaints at Mr Davis’s earning power — although I would like to see the BBC claiming 20 per cent back from its news presenters’ outside interests as it is the Corporation that makes them famous — but it’s a bit rich giving the Chancellor a hard time when the Budget winner was the Great Man himself.

Would it make sense for presenters to reveal their pay packets on air before they start spouting their moralising questions? Just a thought.

[Teddy Bear]

In the post above from the 23rd of March
A BBC spokesman said:"We have written to Mr Mowat to correct him explaining that these individuals are not permanent members of BBC staff so do not have their tax deducted at source in the way a the vast majority of employees do.

"In the main they are hired to do specific jobs for a fixed period of time such as directing, editing and other craft skills. When a person is contracted in this way it is their responsibility to organise their tax arrangements directly with the HMRC.
"This is entirely in keeping with HMRC regulations and is standard practice across the broadcasting and many other industries."

Now it's discovered that at least 2 permanent post senior executives at the BBC are also using this kind of scheme.

Since the BBC demonstrate their corruption on so many levels as evidenced by their output, it's not surprising that other avenues of their behaviour will also be corrupt.

Two BBC staff earning over £100,000 avoid income tax
Two BBC executives earning more than £100,000 a year have been able to avoid income tax by channelling earnings through service companies.

By Edward Malnick

The arrangement allows the full-time employees to pay corporation tax of 20 per cent - potentially saving them thousands of pounds.
Both staff members have been working for the BBC for more than a year and are still employed by the corporation.

The revelation that two of the BBC's staff are paid in this way is likely to embarrass the corporation, coming after George Osborne, the Chancellor, promised to crack down on "inappropriate" uses of private service companies by employees.

The BBC disclosed the arrangement in response to an inquiry from Labour MP David Winnick, a member of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, according to The Observer.

Replying to Mr Winnick's query about the number of employees working full-time and paid more than £100,000 annually, Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, wrote: "We do have two service company arrangements in place for two individuals who have been paid more than £100,000 over the last 12 months, and whose work is now of a continuing nature, but who were both initially contracted on a fixed-term basis."

The BBC was "reviewing" the arrangements for both employees, Mr Thompson added, telling the MP: "We do not engage any other service companies on a continuous basis."
He would not name the members of staff, who are not in a "senior management position".

Last month the BBC revealed it pays 3,000 freelancers through service companies, of which 36 received at least £100,000 in 2011.
This is not the first time it has courted controversy over pay arrangements for executives.

Lord Birt, the BBC's former director-general, was employed by the corporation on a freelance basis through his own company, John Birt Productions.
A BBC spokesperson said: "The use of service companies is standard practice in the broadcasting industry and is entirely in keeping with HMRC guidelines.

"The great majority of these are people who have been hired to do specific jobs for a fixed period of time such as directing and editing, and when a person is contracted in this way it is their responsibility to organise their tax arrangements directly with the HMRC.”

[Teddy Bear]

It appears MP's have been giving the BBC a grilling over their high amount of staff using tax-avoidance schemes.

The 148 BBC stars avoiding tax: MPs attack 'immoral' tactics of presenters who reduce their tax bills by being paid through private companies

• The BBC employs the TV and radio presenters through ‘personal service companies’ that allow them to minimise contributions to the Exchequer
  
• The deals also allow the corporation to sidestep millions of pounds in national insurance
  
• Six top BBC presenters earned at least £1million last year
  
• 16 of its 'top talent' earned at least £500,000
  

By Geri Peev

The BBC is helping dozens of its top stars to avoid paying full income tax.

It employs the TV and radio presenters through ‘personal service companies’ that allow them to minimise their contributions to the Exchequer.

The deals also allow the corporation to sidestep millions of pounds in national insurance.

In a grilling by MPs yesterday, BBC finance chief Zarin Patel admitted that 148 of the broadcaster’s 467 presenters – nearly a third – were paid ‘off the books’.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the scale of the legal tax dodge was shocking.

‘The BBC is funded through the taxpayer and licence fee. It makes it entirely unacceptable for anybody to be on a contract that is in any way avoiding tax,’ added the Labour MP.

Last night Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs announced it would step up its investigations into personal service companies.

The BBC insisted the arrangements were standard industry practice but yesterday agreed to review how it pays its big names.

The 148 stars are among 25,000 freelance contractors working for the corporation.

Mrs Hodge said it was wrong that the BBC allowed tax arrangements that did not seem ‘morally right’.

She rejected the idea that the stars were freelances, adding: ‘A lot of people I think are probably on these contracts are the face of the BBC and therefore to pretend that they are anything other than pretty permanent features on our television screens and on the radio is pretty naive.’
Controversial: In a grilling by MPs yesterday, BBC finance chief Zarin Patel, pictured, admitted that 148 of the broadcaster¿s 467 presenters ¿ nearly a third ¿ were paid ¿off the books¿

Dozens of household names are employed through the one-man-band companies, which both minimise their tax bills and let bosses off the hook for national insurance contributions.

Stars benefiting are thought to include Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce. They have set up companies through which they channel their earnings.

Instead of paying the 50p top tax rate they can, with careful financial planning, get away with a lower corporation tax rate. Someone with a personal services company would be liable to corporation tax of 20 per cent on profits of up to £300,000 in a tax year. Above this profits are taxed at up to 24 per cent.

The BBC is accused of encouraging the arrangement because it pays less national insurance.

The practice also means that thousands of freelancers who do not have glamorous jobs or high wages are not afforded the same protection, holiday or sick pay as full employees.

Miss Patel, whose pay packet of £337,000 a year is more than double the Prime Minister’s, argued that the BBC’s use of freelancers was ‘custom’ in the industry.

Freelancers were paid a higher rate than staff, usually, to reflect that they had to pay their own tax and national insurance.

To the incredulity of the committee, Miss Patel denied that the BBC was trying to reduce its tax bill through the arrangements.

‘I emphasise that none of this is designed to avoid tax. That is not why we use an extensive number of freelance contracts at the BBC,’ she insisted.

Miss Patel did agree to a demand from MPs to review the way it employs its workers, however, and admitted that there seemed to be serious concerns.

She said 12,000 interim staff were on the low-tax contracts. Mrs Hodge revealed that one long-term presenter was threatened by the BBC with a very substantial pay cut unless he agreed to use a private service company.

The unnamed whistleblower, who had been with the corporation for more than 20 years, was told to go freelance.

Mrs Hodge said he had been bullied, adding: ‘He was told he would not be employed unless he did that and when he asked for that to be put in writing that was refused to him.

‘He was told by the person whom he was negotiating with – he works full-time with the BBC, has no other employment, has been on his contract for probably getting on for 20 years – “Don’t worry, if you have a service company HMRC is much less likely to investigate you”.’

She added: ‘I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that he was telling me anything other than the truth.’

Miss Patel pledged to investigate, adding that the HMRC had been kept informed at every stage.

She argued that the BBC would be unable to reduce presenters’ salaries by the desired 25 per cent without the use of service companies.

She was unable to guarantee that the 148 ‘off the books’ presenters had paid the proper amount of tax, saying she could not comment on individuals’ tax affairs.

But Miss Patel pointed to a tax law aimed at freelancers, known as IR35, which is aimed at ensuring the same tax is paid by people working through personal service companies as well as by full-time employees.

In the same Commons session, HMRC chief Lin Homer admitted that tax inspectors had investigated just 23 personal service companies. She pledged to increase the number of investigations ‘ten-fold’ over the next year.

The Treasury recently revealed that some 2,400 senior Whitehall workers earning more than £58,000 a year are not being paid under PAYE but through limited companies.

Earlier this year it was disclosed that the head of the Student Loans Company, Ed Lester, was being paid via a personal service company.
ITV routed

Until February, he received his pay packet without deductions for tax or national insurance. An outcry over the arrangements led to a review of public sector pay. Meanwhile, the BBC’s annual report yesterday revealed that more than half of all BBC2 shows are repeats.

The channel’s re-run rate was 55 per cent in the 12 months to April, compared with almost 50 per cent the previous year.

In the daytime, it is airing archive shows and more recent repeats, with most original shows moving over to BBC1.

BBC1 has a repeat level of 33.1 per cent, up from 32.5 per cent in the previous year, the annual report shows. At peak time, 8.4 per cent of its shows are re-runs compared with 31 per cent for BBC2.

The Corporation is airing less TV drama on its flagship channel and replacing it with more repeats from the archives.

£3million man! Clarkson is BBC's biggest earner

Jeremy Clarkson earned more than £3million from his role on Top Gear last year, it emerged yesterday.

His income from the motoring show shot up by almost £1million – making him the corporation’s highest earner.

Dividends paid out by the company he co-owns with the BBC’s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, jumped from £6million to £9million.

His bonanza emerged as the BBC revealed figures that show up to six performers are on £1million-plus deals.

Clarkson, 52, is technically not among them as most of his pay does not come from the licence fee but from the commercial deal.

His dividends are thought to net him £2.7million and, in the past, the company has awarded him a ‘services’ fee of £350,000. On top of this, he receives a BBC talent fee of around £500,000, pushing his potential income to £3.5million.

His nearest rivals are Match of the Day host Gary Lineker, on around £2million a year, and chatshow presenter Graham Norton, on more than £1.5million. The BBC’s annual report yesterday showed that 16 stars earn £500,000 or more, down from 19 in 2010/2011.

Others thought to be near the top are Chris Evans and Alan Hansen. But payments to stars earning £1million or more had dropped from £14.7million to £9.7million.

Between three and six stars are understood to have received the seven-figure amounts. Last year it was between seven and nine. Jeremy Paxman, Anne Robinson and Evans may have slipped out of the top pay band.

The overall ‘talent’ bill was shown to have dropped from £212million to £203million. Director general Mark Thompson’s pay dropped from £779,000 to £622,000. His successor George Entwistle will earn £450,000. The Clarkson payout emerged in BBC Worldwide’s annual report.

Robert Oxley, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘Jeremy Clarkson is paid a fortune by the BBC at a time while Auntie has to tighten her belt.’

But a source close to Clarkson defended his BBC pay. They said: ‘He works incredibly hard and makes an incredible amount of money for BBC Worldwide. Top Gear is what it is because of Jeremy.

[Teddy Bear]

Stephan Glover at The Mail spells out the particular hypocrisy and insidiousness of the BBC over this issue.

The BBC claims the moral high ground. So why are so many of its stars tax avoiders?

By Stephen Glover

The BBC is a public sector broadcaster essentially funded by the taxpayer. We look to it, as we would to any official or government body, to maintain the highest ethical and legal standards, and to set an example to all of us.

On Monday the BBC’s finance chief, Zarin Patel, admitted that 148 of the broadcaster’s 467 presenters were paid ‘off the books’. That is to say they do not pay PAYE. Instead, many of them have set up private companies.

This means that BBC stars, who might be expected to pay tax at the 50p top rate, can end up paying corporation tax at 20 per cent on annual profits of up to £300,000, with profits above this figure taxed at up to 24 per cent.

The potential savings are enormous. There are thought to be a number of top presenters (possibly Fiona Bruce, Sophie Raworth, Emily Maitlis and Jeremy Paxman) being paid between £500,000 and £1 million a year who may be avoiding vast amounts of tax having set up private companies.

There are three points which the humble licence-payer should raise. One is that these people are paid by public money. The second is whether they are behaving morally. And the third is whether they compromise the BBC’s editorial integrity.

A journalist who is freelance is legally entitled to set up a company to pay tax at the lower rate. However, Miss Patel told the Commons public accounts committee on Monday that ‘a lot of people I think are probably on these contracts are the face of the BBC and therefore to pretend that they are anything other than pretty permanent features on our television screens and on the radio is pretty naive.’

Well-known presenters such as Ms Bruce, Ms Raworth and Ms Maitlis could come into this category. They work almost entirely or exclusively for the BBC, and any money they make from lucrative speaking engagements arises directly from their employment by the Corporation.

Others possible beneficiaries such as Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Marr might seem to be slightly different inasmuch as they derive considerable income from writing books. However, these tomes are often spin-offs from BBC programmes.

The BBC has a long record of paying employees as though they were self-employed freelances. Nearly 20 years ago, it was revealed that the then director-general, John Birt, was being paid as a freelance (even setting the cost of his Armani suits against tax) although he was clearly a full-time employee of the Corporation. This arrangement enabled him to pay tax at a lower rate.

Despite the hullabaloo, which almost resulted in Mr Birt being sacked, the BBC has gone on treating some of its senior full-time employees as though they were freelances. All other considerations apart, the practice deprives the Exchequer of millions of pounds in lost tax and national insurance.

There was much justified anger when it was recently revealed that some 2,000 top civil servants were being treated as self-employed so they could set up private companies and pay tax at a lower rate. If it wrong for civil servants, it is wrong for the BBC.

Lower paid civil servants and most BBC employees and the great majority of workers in the public and private sector pay income tax whether they are employed or self-employed. Why should well-paid — sometimes grossly overpaid — BBC presenters be treated differently?

I am no tax expert, but this practice seems to me immoral. I don’t say this believing we have a duty to pay as much tax as possible, and it is obviously true that the Government wastes many billions of pounds.

But it can’t be right for the BBC to expect thousands of its not-very-well paid journalists to pay tax at 40 per cent while enabling a minority of stars earning ten or 20 times as much to pay tax at less than 24 per cent.

Pay for BBC stars has, in any case, rocketed in recent years. It’s not as if they are nurses, or squaddies serving in Afghanistan. For example, BBC nabob Alan Yentob (a former executive turned presenter) is sitting on a seven-figure pension pot having been on the Corporation payroll since 1968.

Incidentally, I should probably mention that as a self-employed person who derives income from sources other than the Daily Mail I am entitled (so my accountant tells me) to set up a private company to avoid income tax. More out of sloth than principle, I have decided not to do so.

The BBC’s moral inconsistency seem particularly egregious in a public sector broadcaster which repeatedly takes the high moral ground, reasonably exposing bankers for their failings.

When it recently emerged that the comedian Jimmy Carr was practising tax avoidance on an industrial scale, despite having lampooned bankers for escaping tax, the BBC was at the forefront of those who criticised him.

Indeed, the same presenters, who we now learn are also avoiding tax, solemnly inform us about the excesses of Mr Carr, bankers and others without disclosing their tax-saving schemes. People who avoid tax are generally treated as morally reprehensible by the BBC, which nonetheless cheerfully colludes in it by these arrangements.

And yet BBC presenters are apt to become as communicative as Trappist monks when their own tax affairs are raised. When a couple of months ago the tax avoidance schemes of senior civil servants were being discussed on BBC2’s Newsnight, Tory MP Richard Bacon remarked to Jeremy Paxman: ‘I think it’s quite possible some people are even doing it at the BBC.’

To which a stony-faced Paxo replied disingenuously: ‘Quite possible, er, I don’t know who.’ Well, I can enlighten him. Jeremy Paxman is a director of his own company, Out In The Dark Limited, whose accounts are so opaque as to resist analysis. We cannot be 100 per cent certain Paxo does not pay PAYE, but why else would he go to the trouble and expense of setting up a private company?

Here we come to the nub of the scandal. The rage of the BBC’s presenters whenever tax avoidance or evasion are revealed is obviously unconvincing, not to say hypocritical, for the reasons I have given. It is also clear that the tax affairs of senior employees, which are a matter of public interest, are an absolute no-go area for the Corporation.

On Monday, Newsnight, introduced by Kirsty Wark, should have devoted an item to BBC chief Zarin Patel’s gripping testimony to the Commons public accounts committee. Guess what? They found much else to talk about.

Amazingly, Margaret Hodge, chairman of the public accounts committee to which Miss Patel had given evidence earlier in the day, was invited to talk about the London Olympics. Tax avoidance by BBC presenters was not once mentioned. It is a subject far too close to home ever to be discussed on the BBC.

In fact, I blame the broadcaster more than Paxo and the rest of the gang. By spoiling and indulging its senior presenters so that they don’t have to pay income tax, the BBC compromises its reputation for truthfulness and even-handedness, as well as the integrity of presenters. A banker being grilled by its inquisitors would be justified in demanding to know about their tax affairs.

BBC News and Current Affairs likes to appear virtuous and high-minded. Yet as a result of institutional tax-avoidance on a grand scale, it has failed to offer the country an example, besides depriving it of millions of pounds of tax. Until it cleans out its own fetid stable, our public sector broadcaster will remain irrevocably tainted.

[Teddy Bear]

James Delingpole also comments in his inimitable style.

BBC endorses tax avoidance. Good. Now can we stop paying our licence fees?
By James Delingpole

I wonder what the BBC's favourite Lefty "tax expert" – aka otherwise obscure Norfolk accountant Richard Murphy – will make of this story about the BBC helping its top stars avoid income tax by channeling their earnings through private companies.

Normally – Murphy being ever-available and ideologically in tune with the BBC's Fabian Weltanschauung – I'm sure they'd have him on in a trice to explain in his usual way how if we all paid more tax we'd all be happier and the sun would shine every day just like it did in the Ukraine in the great days of Comrade Stalin. Given the circs, though, I suspect on this occasion the BBC will pass. There are few things the BBC enjoys less than being called on its own grotesque hypocrisy.

Look, if the BBC were Fox News (please God, I'd crawl on my knees all the way Canterbury Cathedral if you made this happen) few of us would have any problem whatsoever with its stars using whichever legal tax avoidance system they wished. That's because Fox, in its fair and balanced way, is a tireless and outspoken advocate of free markets, smaller government and lower taxation.

But that is not the BBC's position. Not one bit. The BBC has nothing whatsoever to do with the free market. Nor – I'd wager – do most of those 148 BBC stars channeling their earnings through private companies to avoid tax. With the possible exceptions of Jeremy Clarkson (and frankly even he's a bit politically suspect what with his rampant brown-nosing of the Cameron set) and Andrew Neil, small-government, free-market, low-tax types just don't get a look-in at the Beeb.

"Why isn't the government doing more to solve this problem?" On any given subject, this is the BBC's default position. Indeed, one of the reasons our state sector is now so bloated (and ruinously expensive) is because for decades our national broadcaster, with its compulsory licence fee and quasi-monopolistic stranglehold over television and radio, has been propagandising on its behalf.

Of all the organisations that have contributed to Britain's economic and political decline, there is probably none that has done quite so much insidious and long-term damage as the BBC.

If – as its stars' tax arrangements suggest – the BBC is now tentatively embracing the free market then I applaud its good sense. Perhaps we can now do our bit to helping it in this direction by scrapping the licence fee.

[Teddy Bear]

Till now it was believed that the BBC merely 'went along' with those in its employ who set up private companies to avoid paying a higher rate of tax. It now appears that the BBC itself FORCED these employees to set up these companies.

This highlights first the lack of social responsibility that entails the BBC mindset, so no wonder their reporting reflects similar traits. Secondly it shows the outright dishonesty the BBC employs whenever they are challenged on what really goes on within its doors.

And people are willing to trust this insidious corporation for the view of the world it wants to present?

BBC tells stars to dodge tax: Workers face the ultimatum, go off the books or face the sack

Corporation admits it has been trying to cut its national insurance bill by telling employees to set up personal service companies

By Jason Groves

The BBC has told thousands of workers to go ‘off the books’ to cut its tax bill.

Following revelations from whistle-blowers, the corporation last night admitted that workers were routinely told to set up personal service companies or face the sack.

The arrangements – condemned as deplorable and unacceptable by MPs – reduce the tax and national insurance liabilities of the BBC and some of its leading stars.

Ministers have banned personal service companies in the public sector and are now under pressure to do the same with the public broadcaster.
Jeremy Paxman, television presenter at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham.

Those using the companies pay the lower corporation tax rate of 21 percent instead of the 40 per cent income tax facing higher earners. Not having to pay national insurance saves the BBC millions of pounds.

Last week it emerged that 148 BBC presenters are ‘off the books’, along with 3,000 other workers. Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce are thought to be involved.

Insiders say the deals benefit only the best-paid stars and most workers gain nothing.

Zarin Patel, the BBC’s finance chief, said service companies were standard ‘custom and practice’ in the broadcasting industry. She said no one had been forced to use one.

But the BBC changed its tune last night when whistle-blowers came forward to say they had been told they would not be employed unless they went off the books.

Paul Carrington said he had been given no option when he joined the corporation in 2007.

The former Radio Leeds presenter said he had not faced a similar demand in the commercial sector, where he has spent most of his 30-year career.

‘Presenters hired by the BBC are not given any choice but to form their own personal service limited company,’ he said.

‘I was told that this is the only way the BBC hires on-air personnel. To be honest, the rigmarole of setting it up was a pain.

‘I have mostly been a freelance presenter on a fixed term contracts engaged on a self-employed basis. This is the industry standard and not what Zarin Patel insists.’

Mr Carrington said he had been unable to see any tax advantage for himself from the arrangement, which he ceased immediately on leaving the BBC in 2010.

Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said it was ‘shocking’ that the BBC was forcing people to set up limited companies in order to keep their jobs.

He has been contacted by a senior BBC employee who was ‘threatened’ with termination of his contract unless he started operating as a company. ‘I find that behaviour staggering and highly deplorable,’ he added.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, has said the arrangements are ‘unacceptable’.

A top celebrity agent said the BBC used the practice to avoid paying national insurance, pension contributions and other benefits due to regular staff.

The agent said many presenters ended up paying more tax than if they were on staff contracts.

Miss Patel told MPs last week that personal service companies were not used to avoid tax or national insurance.

In a statement, the BBC said: ‘The BBC always advises individuals to take their own independent tax advice as part of any discussions they may have on the subject. HM Revenue and Customs are fully aware of the BBC’s contracting processes.’

A BBC source yesterday acknowledged that some workers were effectively being forced to go ‘off the books’ if they wanted to work for the corporation.
off the books

[Teddy Bear]

This article spells out the immorality of the BBC in doing what they do

The BBC'S tax dodge and a test of morality

The line between clearly criminal ‘tax evasion’ and ostensibly legal but highly dubious forms of ‘tax avoidance’ can often be extremely thin.

In his last Budget speech, Chancellor George Osborne was equally contemptuous of both, describing them as ‘morally repugnant’ and saying they cheated the country out of billions every year.

So what will he make of the BBC’s policy – revealed in the Mail today – of forcing thousands of its employees to come off the official payroll and set up personal service companies through which to receive their salaries?

It is a ruse that deprives the exchequer in two ways. Firstly the BBC avoids paying millions in National Insurance and other payroll taxes, and secondly the employees – some of whom are extremely well paid – are liable only to corporation tax of 21 per cent, instead of income tax of up to 50 per cent.

The BBC initially denied that any employee was forced to be paid through a service company but had to hastily change its tune when several whistleblowers came forward to say they had been told they would be sacked if they didn’t agree to the arrangement.

So the distinct impression is that executives weren’t just encouraging staff to join this tax avoidance scheme, they were insisting on it.

It is for HM Revenue and Customs to decide whether the scheme falls within the law, but in any case, doesn’t it represent a serious breach of trust by a publicly-funded body?

Every pound of tax avoided by the BBC and its employees has to be made up by ordinary taxpayers to fund public services such as schools, hospitals, and the transport system.

So whether or not they are eventually deemed to be illegal, aren’t these deals fundamentally immoral?

How refreshing to be able to honour an authentic British sporting hero.

Bradley Wiggins’ Tour de France win, the first by a Briton in the 109-year history of the race, is a truly awesome feat of strength, endurance and – most importantly – character.

A man from humble roots who has earned everything he’s achieved by his own sweat and toil, Wiggins is also blessed with endearing modesty. He feels privileged to be a role model to young cyclists but has no interest in joining the tawdry cult of celebrity.

What a contrast to so many of our overpaid, underachieving footballers whose disgracefully boorish behaviour was laid bare yet again during the John Terry racism trial.

Thankfully, Wiggins’ triumph proves such hollow men do not represent the whole of British sport, and we can still produce genuine world-beaters to inspire the next generation of young athletes.

With the Olympics only days away, the whole country is eagerly hoping there will soon be many more to add to the list.
Still unfit for purpose

In 2006, then Home Secretary John Reid famously said the immigration service was ‘not fit for purpose’, after its officials lost track of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers living in Britain.

Today, the same hapless organisation admits it has failed to deal with 276,000 migrants, including foreign criminals, visa overstayers, and failed asylum seekers, who should have been deported but remain on our streets.

The immigration service has changed its name in the last six years – to the slightly trendier Border Agency. Depressingly, its woeful quality of service appears to have stayed the same.

[Teddy Bear]

How sanctimonious the BBC come across when they can report on transgressions committed by whomever they consider their 'enemies', like Conservative politicians, News International, Israelis, Bankers, etc. But when they themselves are found to be wanting, they have no problem in presenting their own case as if they were doing everyone a favour.

It appears those BBC employees who were urged under threat by the corporation to join a tax avoidance scheme have become more vocal in their denunciation of it, naturally claiming 'we were acting under orders', which sounds perfectly credible.

But they seemed content to carry on business as usual until things began to unravel - why am I not surprised?

The BBC article on the subject is as if butter wouldn't melt in its mouth, though they have no problem speaking about an MP telling how bad it is to pay tradesman cash in hand because of what it costs the economy in lost tax revenue.

The Daily Mail has a different take.

BBC stars in revolt as row over 'tax avoidance' grows: Paxman admits bosses told him to join scheme or lose Newsnight role

By Paul Revoir

Some of the BBC’s biggest stars are at war with the corporation, accusing it of allowing them to be ‘hung out to dry’ and portrayed as potential tax avoiders.

One presenter described the atmosphere as ‘near-riot’ yesterday as those instructed to set up personal service companies to be paid protested they were being made to look as if they did it to save money.

It has emerged that Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman was told he would have to be paid in this way if he wanted to continue to present the programme.

In addition, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has insisted it did not give the green light for the controversial deals even though Mr Paxman suggested he had been told this by the BBC.

While the BBC has not implied that any of the stars are using the deals – which may reduce presenters’ tax bills – to avoid paying tax, MPs and the media have raised questions about the practice.

In a letter to The Times in March, Mr Paxman wrote that the BBC ‘required me to form a company if I wanted to continue to present Newsnight. It claimed it had been told to do so by the HMRC’.

Last night HMRC flatly denied it would ever do this.

A spokesman said: ‘HMRC does not advise employers on how they are to secure anyone’s services and employers should not suggest to those providing their services to them that HMRC requires the use of a personal service company as we most definitely would not.’

Sources close to Mr Paxman have claimed he pays as much, if not more tax, since he was paid through his own company than he did when he was paid as a freelance.

There are also questions about the consistency of the pay practices at the BBC.

Andrew Marr revealed yesterday that he was on a ‘rolling staff contract’ and had never been pressured to set up a service company.

The BBC said it would not comment on individuals’ tax returns.

But Labour leader Ed Miliband said it was time for details of the BBC’s relationship with HMRC to be made public.

Presenters speaking on condition of anonymity admitted there was a lot of anger about the way the issue had been handled by the BBC, saying they had been forced off their staff contracts and on to the personal service companies.

One household name said: ‘We were told we had to change, there are no two ways about it. Presenters are in near-riot about it because the BBC has presented it as our choice.’

He said presenters felt ‘we are being completely hung out to dry by the BBC’ and the situation was ‘going to be very ugly’.

The row started last week after MPs on the Public Accounts Committee raised concerns about the way the BBC was paying its stars through these companies.

Whistleblowers then came forward to say they had been told they had no option but to be paid in this way.

One broadcaster told the Daily Mail they had been offered the choice of either setting up a service company or they would have to go on a rolling two-week contract.

People said they feared they would lose their job if they did not agree to the pay arrangements.

On Monday night, the BBC’s chief financial officer Zarin Patel sent an email to all staff saying the BBC will review its tax arrangements to reassure licence fee payers over how it pays its stars.

But the email appeared to inflame the row. It said: ‘The facts are simply that freelance contractors who earn more than £10,000 a year are told that we prefer them to set up a service company and, in many cases, this will be their only option.’

On-air performers objected to the use of the phrase ‘prefer’ as many had been told they had to go on these deals, with one saying this remark had ‘driven people absolutely nuts’. But the BBC pointed out that Miss Patel had added in her statement that for some this would be ‘their only option’.

The corporation said last night: ‘As we have repeatedly stated, there should be no suggestion that someone using a service company is not paying the appropriate amount of tax.

‘We have repeatedly stated that whilst it is the “preferred choice” for the BBC as a whole to contract with freelancers in this way, in many cases it will be the only choice available to them.’

[Teddy Bear]

It appears the BBC 'cheating the system' is more prevalent than they first admitted. What a surprise!

BBC 'complicit' in tax avoidance for thousands of employees including household names, say MPs
The BBC is today accused by MPs of helping thousands of employees - including some of its biggest household names - avoid paying tax.

In a scathing report, the Public Accounts Committee claims the national broadcaster could be “complicit” in tax avoidance because it allows workers to be paid as if they were companies rather than individual staff.

The BBC has admitted for the first time paying 1,500 of its best known television and radio stars this way. The figure is far higher than the 300 the corporation had previously disclosed.

Declaring themselves shocked by their findings, the MPs today say this “staggeringly inappropriate” way of paying its staff - which means both the BBC and the employees can pay substantially less tax - must come to an end.

Its findings raise the prospect of the broadcaster having to renegotiate their contracts with many of their highest paid presenters or making their tax affairs public.

As part of its investigations the committee found that the BBC - which receives £3.6 billion a year from licence fee payers - had issued 25,000 contracts to freelance contributors, and had no idea if they were paying their taxes properly.

In fresh figures last night, the corporation admitted that 4,500 contributors were paid through personal service companies, including 1,500 ‘on-screen’ presenters, contributors, actors, musicians and commentators.

The figure is nearly twice as many as civil servants who were discovered to be paid this way in central Government after an urgent review earlier this year.

Being paid through a personal service company, rather than PAYE, allows the recipient to pay corporation tax of 21 per cent on their firm’s earnings, rather than income tax of up to 50 per cent, saving thousands of pounds a year.

The BBC also avoids paying National Insurance contributions when paying employees this way.

Reports have suggested that newsreaders Fiona Bruce, Joanne Gosling, Emily Maitlis, Gavin Esler, Sophie Raworth as well as radio broadcaster Chris Evans and Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman are paid in this fashion.

Mr Paxman has claimed that he had been told by the BBC to set up a company for his earnings or stop presenting Newsnight.

Last night Margaret Hodge MP, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, described the practice as “staggeringly inappropriate” and said that the BBC had to stop paying its long-standing stars this way.

She said that paying regulator contributors this way gave rise to “suspicions of complicity in tax avoidance”.

She told The Daily Telegraph: “I want the BBC to stop and call a halt to what is completely unacceptable use of tax avoidance schemes.

“The BBC’s revenues are from hard earned taxes from ordinary families and they have a duty to lead by example – they have a double duty to be cleaner than clean.”

The committee said it was “shocking” to discover how many off-payroll contracts, under which individuals must make their own tax and national insurance payments, were provided by the BBC.

The BBC had told the committee that its ‘off-payroll staff’ were “freelance workers” and that the arrangements were “a pretty standardmodel” in the media industry and “important to the economics of the BBC”.

But the MPs found that the BBC could not provide “any assurance” that those employed on such contracts were paying the appropriate amount of tax.

“Although the BBC told us it provides information on its off-payroll arrangements to HM Revenue & Customs, it has no means of ensuring that its freelancers are paying the right amount of tax,” the report says.

The MPs also found that many of its contractors were on deals that “can often share the characteristics of typical PAYE contracts”, raising major questions about why the arrangement was set up in the first place.

The crackdown on public sector workers being paid through private firms was started in February, when it emerged that ministers had signed off on a tax efficient deal to allow Ed Lester, the head of the Student Loans’ Company, to be paid through a personal service company, rather than the PAYE system.

Emails disclosed under Freedom of Information Laws to Exaro News, an investigative website, showed that civil servants in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, had admitted the arrangement was more “tax efficient” for Mr Lester.

An urgent review by Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, found that there were 2,400 officials were paid more than £58,000 a year this way in Whitehall.

Mr Alexander said that unless they could prove they were paying the right amount of tax within six months they would have their contracts terminated.

All senior public sector staff now must be on the payroll unless there are exceptional temporary circumstances, he said.

The BBC said last night: “We note the conclusions of the PAC report and will respond to the points raised as part of our detailed review of tax arrangements.”

[charmbrights]

On last night's "any questions" this topic was discussed.

Nobody was allowed to ask about the Dimblebys' arangements which, it is alleged, include the two brothers being paid via service companies.

Attempts to raise this on "Any Answers" were also ignored completely.

[Teddy Bear]

Back in March, on Question Time, one of the audience confronted mealy-mouthed Dimbleby on it. He tried to be evasive, even lying, as I covered here.

[Teddy Bear]

So far, out of all the scandals and dubious behaviour that have emerged about the BBC, and were confronted last week by the Commons Select Committee, this is the only one that action has yet to be seen to be taken.

Let's hope it's only the beginning.

BBC staff in revolt as freelance deals are axed in tax row: Corporation to phase out contracts which allow workers to be taxed as companies and not individuals

• BBC pledges to end paying of stars through 'personal service companies'
  
• But it is said to be struggling to unravel the ways in which stars are paid
  
• Former Today programme editor Rod Liddle, said staff were in ‘open revolt’

By James Chapman and Sam Greenhill

The BBC is on a collision course with some of its highly-paid presenters over the freelance contracts that can enable tax bills to be reduced.

It told the Government that it would move within weeks to phase out the contracts, which allow workers to register themselves as ‘personal service companies’ and be taxed as companies and not individuals.

But more than 6,000 freelancers are involved and the corporation is said to be struggling as it seeks to unravel the complex ways in which stars are paid.

The corporation has pledged to end the paying of stars – reported to include Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman and newsreaders Fiona Bruce, Joanna Gosling, Emily Maitlis, Gavin Esler and Sophie Raworth – through ‘personal service companies’.

It is thought that forcing them on to the staff pay roll might mean an effective pay cut of between 10 and 20 per cent.

There is no suggestion that any of the individuals named have acted improperly but MPs accused the BBC of having ‘staggeringly inappropriate’ arrangements in place for many employees and said it could be ‘complicit’ in tax avoidance.

This is because the rate of corporation tax – which companies pay on profits – is lower than the income tax that high-earning individuals face.

Rod Liddle, the former editor of Radio 4’s Today programme, said staff were in 'open revolt'

‘The BBC is in deep trouble,’ he added.

‘Right now its top presenters are all out of contract because of the concerns that some of them used private companies to squirrel away their dosh.’

To buy more time, the corporation is reported to be busy ‘extending’ and ‘continuing’ contracts.

‘Every presenter is different,’ said a source. ‘Many of them do different kinds of work. It is not about people refusing.

'The BBC have announced something that has turned out to be very difficult.’

The corporation identified 124 top names earning £150,000 a year or more via companies.

But some, including Paxman, said they were ordered to do so by BBC managers.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘The BBC has developed a new employment test ... that uses several criteria to determine whether an individual can be hired as self-employed or considered as an employee.

'We will soon be in a position to begin applying this test.’

[charmbrights]

Mar 23, 2012 17:13:05 GMT Teddy Bear said:

... I wonder what justification for it they will use, other than the obvious wishing to avoid paying. No doubt they will try to moralise their position, which frankly is reprehensible.

I assume that you mean what you say, that you think AVOIDING paying more tax than the law requires is reprehensible.

I assume therefore, that you believe that it is "reprehensible" to fill in any of the sections on one's tax returns covering Business Expenses, Gift Aid, Payment Into Pension Funds, Allowances, etc. thereby maximising the tax charged.

I beg to disagree. Parliament sets the rules and I believe that all I am morally required to do is obey them.

EVADING tax is wholly different, and if full-time employees of a single 'client' organisation are masquerading as free-lancers then IR35 says they must pay tax and National Insurance as though they were employees. See www.hmrc.gov.uk/ir35/ for the facts. It is the responsibility of HMRC to collect this tax, and if necessary to go back six years to enforce the law.

[Teddy Bear]

Bear in mind that I'm writing here about BBC staff. Those who have no problem castigating all and sundry in the private sector as and when it suits them. That these hypocrites sucking at the teat of the public purse then do their best to avoid contributions back to the public is sickening and REPREHENSIBLE - and I don't give a shit what the law says.

[charmbrights]

Oct 27, 2013 20:46:00 GMT Teddy Bear said:

... - and I don't give a shit what the law says.

Really? And which other laws do you feel free to disregard? Or to encourage others to ignore?

[thehighlandrebel]

It's not disregarding the law Char but manipulating legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. Something they vehemently attack businesses and Tory politicians for doing but deem it perfectly acceptable for themselves, Labour politicians and Trades Unions to do.

That's what Teddy is referring to as hypocrites.

[Teddy Bear]

Thanks THR - perfect.

As for I beg to disagree. Parliament sets the rules and I believe that all I am morally required to do is obey them.

Am I to assume Charm that if you were living in Germany in the 30's and 40's you would have thought it moral to go along with whatever the government ruled?

I think if you can avoid paying the BBC their licence fee then to do so is the moral thing to do - regardless of what any government says.
That's what MY CONSCIENCE, and therefore my sense of morality says.

[Teddy Bear]

Oh the poor BBC
They want to end the contracts where so many of their 'stars' and 'celebrities' are paid through personal service companies, thus avoiding tax, and put them on the books properly. But it appears that some of these 'stars' are threatening to leave the corporation if that happens.

Frankly their isn't one of these stars or so called 'celebs' that would be missed, and I think our society might benefit from seeing the back of most of them. But meanwhile the BBC can claim that they were trying to do the right thing but the pressure made it impossible.

BBC faces revolt from top stars over plan to cut their earnings by 20% by ending lucrative tax-saving freelance contracts

• BBC said it would stop paying staff through 'personal service companies'
• But it could have to back down in face of anger among best-known stars
• Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis understood to use PSCs

By Alasdair Glennie

The BBC is facing an organised revolt by its most highly-paid presenters over plans to scrap tax-saving freelance contracts.

Despite promising the Government it would stop paying staff through ‘personal service companies’ - which attract a lower rate of tax – the corporation could now be forced to back down in the face of mounting anger among its best-known stars.

Among those employed in this way are Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis.

Those whose freelance contracts are reaching expiry have been asked to end their off-payroll arrangements to avoid suspicion of tax avoidance.

But by signing onto the staff books – and qualifying for a BBC pension and other benefits - they would have to accept pre-tax pay cuts of up to 25 per cent.

Instead of caving in to the demands, many have refused to sign new staff contracts, meaning the BBC must either fire some of its biggest names or accept a humiliating defeat.

An insider to the negotiations described the situation as ‘total chaos’, adding: ‘The BBC is in an impossible position. Its own staff have it over a barrel.

‘It has promised to change the way it pays its people, but is powerless to do anything because they would rather leave than give in and they are all acting as one. The bottom line is the BBC can’t afford to lose its top people.’

Last night, Tory MP Stewart Jackson, who sits on the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said the failure of the BBC to resolve its pay arrangements was ‘extremely disappointing’, adding: ‘It shows the weakness of the senior management of the BBC that undertakings of openness and transparency have come to nothing.’

More than 6,000 BBC freelancers are paid through personal service companies, allowing them to be taxed as companies rather than individuals.

Mr Paxman, who hosts flagship BBC2 show Newsnight, channels his earnings through a company called Out In The Dark Ltd. Its most recent accounts showed it had £218,000 in the bank.

ESTIMATED CURRENT SALARIES OF BBC'S TOP-PAID BROADCASTERS

Graham Norton: £2.61million
Gary Lineker: £1.5million
Jeremy Clarkson: £1million
Jeremy Paxman: £1million
Fiona Bruce: £500,000
Michael McIntyre: £500,000
Sarah Montague: £165,000

His freelance contract has not yet come up for renewal, meaning he has not yet been forced to consider whether he will sign a staff contract.

Sarah Montague, a presenter on Radio 4’s Today programme, disclosed she paid herself £165,000 through her personal service company in the past financial year. The sums may include fees from outside engagements such as speaking events as well as BBC pay.

There is no suggestion any of the individuals names have acted improperly or deliberately sought to avoid tax.

Indeed, Mr Paxman claimed in 2012 that the BBC had ordered him to form a company if he wanted to continue to present Newsnight, adding: ‘It claimed it had been told to do so by HMRC’.

But the arrangements have been branded ‘staggeringly inappropriate’ by the Public Accounts Committee, which suggested the BBC could be ‘complicit’ in tax avoidance.

This is because the rate of corporation tax – which companies pay on profits – is up to 20 per cent lower than the income tax that high-earning individuals face.

The criticism prompted the BBC to promise it would review the contracts of many of its highest-profile freelancers.

From November last year it assessed each freelance contract as it expired to see whether they should be reclassified as employees, based on the amount of editorial control it has over their activities.

However, negotiations with the agents of some of its highest-paid staff have now broken down after many refused to agree terms.

One of the few presenters to sign a staff contract is Today presenter John Humphrys, who agreed to come onto the books at the end of last year.

Sue Ayton, a leading talent agent whose BBC clients include Michael Buerk, Samira Ahmed and Moira Stewart, said it ‘defies belief’ that the corporation has been unable to agree terms with his colleagues.

She said: ‘In my opinion the BBC - with its huge internal resources - has got into a real mess on this one and after spending a great deal of time and money trying to resolve has only created more confusion and frustration. As it stands I can see no happy outcome.’

Another agent said the situation was now ‘coming to a head’, adding: ‘People are getting fed up. The BBC could start losing some of its best talent to its commercial rivals if it is not careful. I always prefer it if my clients get work with ITV or Channel 4 because they are so much easier to deal with.’

A BBC spokesman said: ‘From November last year the BBC has been applying a new employment test to all on-air television presenters on or for new engagements. If the result of that test shows employment, talent have been offered on-air talent employment contracts.’

She added: 'There is no truth in claims that television presenters are refusing to move to staff roles.'

[Teddy Bear]

This story shows the complete insidious hypocrisy by the BBC, especially in light of what's been revealed in this thread.
Bear in mind that the BBC not only enabled their 'stars' and 'celebrities' to avoid paying tax by forming service companies, but in some cases insisted on it. So now that more and more people are legally avoiding paying the licence fee by watching TV online, the BBC are now wanting the government to force people to pay even for that.

Yet they still try to present themselves as caring and concerned to mask their real foul immoral greedy character.

'Make iPlayer viewers PAY a licence fee': BBC calls for reforms to deal with 500,000 homes that only watch programmes online

• Up to 2% of households exploit loophole that allows them to watch for free
• Many avoid detection because BBC is unable to monitor internet viewers
• Critics say the figures prove licence fee is now 'out of date'

By Alasdair Glennie

Nearly half a million TV viewers avoid paying the licence fee every year by only watching BBC content online, it has emerged.

The corporation has admitted that up to two per cent of all households exploit a legal loophole that permits them to catch up on their favourite shows on BBC iPlayer for free.

And although households are technically required to buy a £145.50 licence if they watch live broadcasts on tablets or computers, it is thought many avoid detection because the BBC is unable to monitor who is watching on the internet.

Critics said the figures prove the licence fee is now ‘out of date’, and even the BBC admitted its current funding model creates ‘perverse incentives’ that encourage viewers to use its catch-up service instead of watching live.

As director general Tony Hall pushes ahead with an ambitious £100million a year plan to put even more of the BBC’s content online, some suggested the Government will have to rethink the entire licence fee arrangement when it renews the BBC charter in 2016.

Jonathan Isaby, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The model for the licence fee is long out of date thanks to technological advances. It’s time to reform this out of date tax so as to ease the burden it places on households while ensuring the BBC has a fair and sustainable source of funding.’

Writing to the Commons culture, media and sport committee – which is conducting an inquiry into the corporation’s future – the BBC this week admitted its licence fee arrangements may need to be modernised to keep up with new technology.

It said: ‘The licence fee definition remains robust, with only 1-2 per cent of households consuming exclusively on-demand content and so not requiring a licence fee.

‘However, the definition could start to create perverse incentives, with a fee payable for some ways of consuming BBC TV but not others.

‘We would welcome discussing this issue with the committee to consider whether and when the licence fee should be modernised again.’

Given there are 26.4million households in the UK, the BBC’s admission means that as many as 528,000 could be evading the licence fee by using the catch-up loophole.

Last year, 428,359 signed official declarations saying they did not need a TV licence. Viewers are only required to buy a licence if they watch live broadcasts, regardless of whether they own a television set or not.

However, the BBC has no access to data from internet providers that would enable it to identify the names and addresses of those who watch its programmes live online, meaning it is virtually impossible to track down those who do so without paying.

A BBC spokesman insisted ‘we can and do prosecute people watching TV on equipment other than TV sets’.

However, in reply to a request by the Daily Mail, the corporation said it was unable to provide any statistics on the number or frequency of such prosecutions.

BBC iPlayer is increasingly popular with viewers, receiving more than 242million hits a month, with 25 per cent coming from tablet computers.

The corporation has also experimented with showing some programmes – including all BBC3 scripted comedy – on iPlayer before airing them on terrestrial TV.

A TV Licensing spokesperson said: ‘Our enforcement approach enables us to catch and prosecute people watching live TV online. Well under 2 per cent of households watch only catch up TV so don’t need a licence.

‘Households declaring they do not need a TV Licence have remained stable for the past three years.

‘Reasons a licence may not be required include if the address is unoccupied, if no TV receiving equipment is being used, if a TV is used only to watch DVDs, or if only catch up services are used.’

[steevo]

That's right, prosecute people with "perverse incentives"

[Teddy Bear]

I must admit I'm very near to closing this forum, leaving it only as an archive. I think if society is so ignorant and stupid to put up with further abuses by the BBC, that have been so evident until now, and show no sign of abating, then they deserve it, and I won't waste any more of my time on it.

This has really been formulating ever since the recent report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who have really shown themselves to be doing nothing about the real problems that can be seen within the BBC, and offer a smoke and mirrors 'solution' that in effect will change nothing, and possibly make it even worse. This makes them as much a part of this corruption as the BBC themselves, and if the public are willing to just go along with it, then so be it, they can reap the results that will surely follow.

The following story just about sums up the insidious nature of the BBC.

We have a self proclaimed elite taking money from a public that is forced under penalty of a criminal record to fund it. From this they award themselves a huge salary, far in excess of anything they are worth in the real world.
They masquerade in their propaganda that they are caring and concerned about the poor, the helpless, the young, the ethnic minorities, the immigrants, etc., yet while their hypocrisy is readily evident in so many ways, that those amongst them who after taking this public money and put it in to schemes to avoid paying a fair amount of taxation, that would otherwise go to support those people who are forced to fund them, and they pretend to care about, makes them so slimy and vile....

If morons are still willing to put up with this then so be it. What more does one need to see? What else has to happen for the public to wake up that hasn't been recorded already here for the last 10 years, and do something about it?

REAP WHAT YOU SOW!

BBC star Jeremy Vine made his ten-year-old daughter a company shareholder to help lower his tax bill by channelling funds through private firm

• BBC's Jeremy Vine appears to have used daughter to avoid tax payments
• Daughter Martha, aged 10, is shareholder in Jelly Vine Productions
• The presenter has been funnelling cash through the limited company
• Controversial move highlights BBC practice of paying some presenters off the books using money from millions in earns in licence fee money

By Katherine Rushton For The Daily Mail

In a tongue-in-cheek guide to ‘tax accounting for the rich’, Jeremy Vine once advised the wealthy to find a ‘tax magician with the power to bend the rules, befuddle the tax inspector and make money invisible’.

Now it seems that the BBC Radio 2 star has taken his own advice to heart.

Mr Vine appears to have been using his ten-year-old daughter Martha to avoid tax payments.

The presenter of the Jeremy Vine Show and the TV quiz Eggheads, has been funnelling cash through a limited company, Jelly Vine Productions, of which she is a shareholder.

The controversial move will highlight the BBC’s practice of paying some presenters off its books using money from the millions of pounds it earns in licence fee-payers’ money.

In 2012, it emerged that more than 140 BBC stars were funnelling cash through private firms to avoid paying millions in tax. During the resulting furore, Mr Vine ran a spoof, ‘Jeremy’s six-step guide to tax avoidance for the rich’, on his radio show.

Jelly Vine Productions had almost £810,000 in cash on its books in 2013 – the last accounts available, and £1million in 2012.

If the funds had been paid to Mr Vine through the Pay As You Earn scheme used by most firms, it would have been taxed at 40 or 45 per cent.

But by channelling them through a private firm, he can declare them as company profits, subject to corporation tax of 23 or 24 per cent.

It is not clear whether these were earnings for Mr Vine’s BBC work or included other fees such as payments for speeches or book royalties.

But by arranging his finances in this way, he ensured Jelly Vine Productions could pay dividends to its shareholders.

The firm is controlled by Mr Vine, who has 51 per cent of the shares. His wife, Rachel, has 30 per cent and the remaining 19 per cent is owned by Martha, one of their two daughters.

Richard Murphy, an accountant at Tax Research, said: ‘He is obviously using the company to reduce his tax bill. It is perfectly legal, and perfectly allowed.

'What is a little unusual is his daughter. Let’s be honest, she is unlikely to have said, “Daddy, I want to spend my pocket money on shares in the company”.’

Jelly Vine Productions’ accounts do not disclose how much it has paid out or whether it has paid dividends to all three family members, or just Mr Vine himself.

Mr Murphy said Mr Vine could have named his daughter as a shareholder for ‘long-term tax-planning’ purposes, reducing the tax she would pay if she inherits part of the business.

Alternatively, Mr Vine may have made his wife and daughter shareholders to split the dividend payouts, keeping them just small enough to ensure they are taxed at a lower rate, rather than at 40 or 45 per cent.

A spokesman for the presenter said the reason for making his daughter a shareholder was ‘private’ but ‘perfectly legal’, adding: ‘I don’t think it is cynical. What Jeremy is doing is very common. If the Government makes laws that allow people to do things that are advantageous, it is up to the Government to change the laws.’

BBC contracts stipulate that presenters must pay the taxes they owe, and tells HMRC who it has paid each year.

A spokesman said it would not comment on Mr Vine’s arrangements, adding: ‘It is the responsibility of self-employed individuals to ensure they are paying the correct amount of tax.’