The decision to consult Ofcom on whether Rupert Murdoch would be a “fit and proper” person to own BSkyB poses more questions than merely those of media plurality.
Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s decision to consult broadcasting regulator Ofcom for advice on whether Rupert Murdoch would be a “fit and proper” person to own 100 per cent of BSkyB poses more questions than merely those of media plurality.
Since the mid-1990s, countries including Britain have allowed the media mogul to pay little corporation tax. As far back as 1995, the Independent reported that in the previous ten years, Murdoch’s News International had paid “virtually no tax”.
While corporation tax was set at 33 per cent, NI paid £11.74m of its £979.4m profit – just 1.2 per cent.
As recently as 2009, News Corporation’s proprietor was being pursued by his homeland’s government after failing to pay the correct rate of corporation tax, both in Australia and the United States.
Earlier this year, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) treasury officials won a legal battle, which awarded them A$77m for avoided taxes and duties. The Guardian reported in 2005 that Murdoch’s family company was moved to Bermuda; the tax bill of A$1.2 billion had the potential to be avoided.
Trevor Bransdon, from financial consultants Godfrey Pembrokem, said:
“Their (ACT’s) claim is that they were owed stamp duty on the transfer of the company from ACT to wherever it’s finished up, I think that’s Bermuda and after about four years investigation and two years of pursuing they’ve managed to get an estimated 77 million out of Rupert in a mix of duties and penalties.”
Having been accused of tax avoidance in a series of legal “flip and spin” moves to tax havens, one government issued a new tax that News Corporation couldn’t avoid. Three years ago, Murdoch’s most powerful competitor in Italy, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, hit back at his rival by doubling the rate of VAT on pay-to-watch television subscriptions to 20 per cent.
As the Financial Times reported in 2008:
“The 10 per cent rate was set by the first Berlusconi government in 1995, when Mr Murdoch was entering the Italian market and the media moguls were on friendlier terms.”
Murdoch’s empire is not the first or only media company to avoid paying the necessary amount of tax; Conrad Black, convicted in America of fraud and once owner of the third largest group of newspapers in the world, including the Daily Telegraph, wrote in an editorial in 2000:
“People have a legal and moral duty not to evade tax, but they also have a legal and moral right to work out how to pay as little tax as possible, a right which it is in the interest of all citizens to uphold.”
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
108 Responses to “Hypocrite Murdoch tells us how to vote yet avoids billions in tax”
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – So you are saying that Cameron had bad judgement in employing Andy Coulson is as bad as lying to the country about WMD where thousands of innocent people died?
Or that Ed Miliband employing Tom Baldwin, also ex News International was any different?
The nasty party took away the 10p tax rate and short of an outright Lib Dem government I just see this coalition as being better.
As brave as I’ve said elsewhere that Miliband is taking on Murdoch, all he has done is convinced Labour to stick with him which will result in them losing the next election worse than if they ditched him and put his brother in.
Sally Bercow has tweeted about Labour’s record with Murdoch and she may be right…
Anon E Mouse
Dave Citizen – Is it OK for the BBC which has to be paid for under threat of imprisonment to have its bias?
It’s far more powerful than Murdoch – it’s just that you don’t like the fact he smashed the print union dinosaurs…
Dave Citizen
Anon – so you can say what you don’t want, but what about what you do want? What do you think is a healthy amount of media influence for a private individual or family to accumulate in a democracy? And what do you think should be done about such families when their organisations break a democracy’s laws so flagrantly?
This story is about the manipulation of our politics by narrow private interests, not about government controlling what we can watch – just go on the internet and you’ll find pretty much anything you want. But rest assured, the fringe voices out there are very effectively kept at the fringe by elite interests of which the Murdochs are a leading light.
If you really want to watch what you like then you’ll join the cause for getting shot of the elite interests that control what is put before our eyes on a daily basis from cradle to grave.
Scott
Leon,
you can’t afford a tv license but you have a computer! And you talk about the nasty party! Is that the nasty party that abolshed the 10p tax band and made the poor poorer…huh
Kevin Richards
"Do as I say not as I do" RT @leftfootfwd: Hypocrite #Murdoch tells us how to vote yet avoids billions in tax http://t.co/sIAsrcO