Kinnock's son faces fresh tax allegations

Lord Kinnock’s son faces a possible police inquiry after fresh evidence emerged that he may have avoided paying thousands of pounds in tax.

Police in Denmark are considering a complaint about the financial affairs of Stephen Kinnock, the 40-year-old son of the former Labour leader.

Mr Kinnock, who is married to the Danish Opposition leader, has been accused of avoiding tax by understating the amount of time he spent in the country.

He is already under investigation by the Danish authorities in relation to his earnings last year. However, the investigation could now be widened to cover the past five years.

The scandal threatens to derail the career of Mr Kinnock’s wife, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the leader of the Left-wing Social Democrats, who has called for higher taxes. Miss Thorning-Schmidt, who was poised to become prime minister, has returned early from holiday to fight the claims.

Mr Kinnock, a director of the World Economic Forum in Geneva, pays income tax on his £110,000 salary in Switzerland, where the rate is considerably lower than in Denmark. He told the Danish authorities that he spent no more than 33 weekends, from Friday to Monday, in Denmark each year.

Residents are liable for income tax if they spend 180 days in the country, including arrival and departure days.

Mr Kinnock’s status allowed Miss Thorning-Schmidt to deduct about £40,000 in tax against mortgage repayments on their £500,000 Copenhagen town house. However, when she applied to make Mr Kinnock co-owner of the house, she said he was there “every weekend of the year”.

Amid Denmark’s biggest political row in recent years, Miss Thorning-Schmidt has apologised for her “error”.

Mr Kinnock insisted that his original declaration was correct but promptly paid an estimated £29,000 Danish tax bill for 2009, to avoid any “grey areas”.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that, as far back as 2007, Miss Thorning-Schmidt stated in a biography that Mr Kinnock “comes home every week, either Thursday afternoon or Friday” and returns to work on “Monday morning after the children are sent to school”.

She repeated the comments in subsequent interviews. Mr Kinnock said in July last year that supermarket trips with his youngest daughter “every weekend” were renowned for their regularity.
Søren Aagaard, a Danish tax lawyer, said: “I know the tax authority will be looking closely at these statements.”

Frode Holm, an accountant for the couple, said they denied any wrongdoing.
“There is no problem here,” he said. “Stephen was liable for tax in Switzerland. He did not break the Danish 180-day limit.”

The Daily Telegraph can also disclose that the couple receive rental income from a flat they own in central London. It is thought that Miss Thorning-Schmidt pays Danish tax on her half of the income. But Mr Kinnock is assumed to have paid tax on his half in Britain, where tax was lower. Mr Aagaard said his income from the London flat could also be called into question. From 2004 to 2008, Mr Kinnock worked for the British Council in Russia. Its overseas employees have their salaries reduced by the amount they would have been taxed in Britain, under the assumption that they are based here. But it is thought the Danish tax authority will examine whether Mr Kinnock’s domestic arrangements meant he was in fact liable for tax in Denmark. “If he was taxable and resident in Denmark from 2004 to 2008, he should have paid tax on it here and not in Britain,” Mr Aagaard said.

Mr Holm responded: “Stephen should not have been taxed in Denmark because he was in service with the British Council abroad.” A police spokesman said: “We received a complaint and are considering what action, if any, will be taken.”

A spokesman for Miss Thorning-Schmidt did not respond to questions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7945386/Kinnocks-son-faces-fresh-tax-allegations.html

but I can't help wondering why the Torygraph are making a possible case of tax avoidance in Denmark such a big story over here. Could it be (a) a desire to throw ANY mud that they can against the Labour Party - including possible misdeeds by a *relative* of an almost-forgotten party leader; (b) a desire to discredit anything in any way linked to Scandinavian socialism>

WOULD they ....?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The Skin

the foreign shenanigans of dopey Mark Thatcher would never find there way onto the pages of The Guardian would they?

I'm not defending or endorsing either side, but that's just the way it is.

As it happens, I rather fancy that Kinnock Junior has, in fact done nothing wrong, legally at least. If, as is reported he's allowed 180 days in Denmark without being liable to pay income tax there then even if he did spend every weekend there, he'd be well short of the mark.

Whether or not he has erred morally of course is quite another thing.

His family live in Denmark and no doubt benefit from that countries public services, education, healthcare, etc (as does he in the time that he does spend there), so it would seem right and proper that he should make the appropriate contribution in that country.

Whereas Thatcher's "Foreign shenanigans," were, I recollect, prominent not only in the Guardian but in every media oulet in the land, and in many beyond, the Stephen Kinnock story, by contrast, seems to have only caught the attention of the Wail and the Torygraph.

The Skin

some publications are prepared to print stories about anyone while others are selective, one way or the other.

Not me though.

I think LB has it about right below.

The Skin

One is whether it's fair to bring up the exploits of politicians' family members; and the other is what is the agenda of the Torygraph.

I do think there's a difference between Mark Thatcher and Stephen Kinnock here. First of all, Mark in some of his antics explicitly traded on his mother's influence; secondly, his actions were far more serious (even if one believes the worst about Kinnock) and would have made the news to some degree, though not the same extent, even if he'd not been a Thatcher. And the reports were certainly not confined to the Guardian.

But if you think that it's unfair to bring up *any* relatives of politicians, then that's a valid point of view.

However, I am really concerned about the Torygraph's agenda, quite generally speaking. They seem desperate to smear and destroy any opposition to RW Toryism; and this is increasingly invading and influencing their news reports. Until about three years ago, they seemed quite reliable on news, even if their editorials and commentary posts were always vicious. But now the news sections are also getting more and more biased toward the Right.