Carr crash television

 

The "Down's Roger Federer", entertaining the Invisible Man, recently.

It seems that the television comedian, Mr. Jimmy Carr, has found himself in a little difficulty, courtesy of The Times newspaper. The paper reported that Mr. Carr has been paying his earnings into a Jersey-based entity, which then paid him the money back in the form of loans, thus considerably reducing his liability to income tax. Once the "story" entered the public domain, the Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and forgetful parent Mr. David Call-Me-Dave smelt a little populist opportunism and publicly poured opprobrium upon Mr. Carr's head.  

 

I have to say, I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for the omnipresent "funnyman". Whether or not you feel that he pays enough of his income to HM Treasury is a moot point; to be singled out for criticism over one's moral fibre by Mr. Call-Me-Dave makes him the victim of rank hypocrisy.

Oddly, when Mr. Call-Me-Dave was asked about similar schemes utilised by the likes of the recently-ennobled Mr. Gary Barlow (also reported by The Times), and whether the tax affairs of an individual should be a consideration in the bestowing of honours, Mr. Call-Me-Dave stated that he would "not comment on individuals in terms of what's happening in a newspaper report" (unless, of course, that individual was Mr. Jimmy Carr).

In my line of employment, as a freelance consultant specialising in matters of Information Technology, such schemes are commonplace among the denizens of the industry, although I do not employ them myself. I should not morally censure somebody for attempting to maximise their income and reduce their liability for taxation; but then again I am not employed by The Times, and I am not desperately attempting to prove to Lord Justice Leveson that my organization was capable of serious, "responsible" journalism.

Mr. Carr says that his involvement in this financial scheme was "a mistake", and states that he has withdrawn from it. Rather strange, given that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs deem the arrangement to be legal. I cannot imagine that Mr. Barlow shall follow suit, but then again Mr. Barlow's might so do if his audience consisted of drunken, heckling boors rather than moist-gusseted menopausal mothers in the midst of a mid-life crisis who should use his shit for toothpaste, given the opportunity. I'm slightly disappointed that Mr. Carr did not take the opportunity to tell Mr. Call-Me-Dave to go and fuck himself, but I suppose that I can understand his reasoning.

However, in seeking to personalise such matters, Mr. Call-Me-Dave may he treading on rather precarious ground. Those in glass houses should not seek to cast stones, after all, for doing so shall inevitably result in a high-profile "witchhunt" by sections of the popular press eager to reinstate their battered reputations; with a large amount of people in his orbit also employing such apparent "chicanery", he could find himself being asked to comment on a frequent basis on the affairs of those nearest and dearest to him.

As for The  Times, who highlighted Mr.Carr's financial strategy for the purposes of stoking up public condemnation; I do hope that they find time and space to cover the manoeuvring of the multinational corporations whose avoidance of tax on their profits make the likes of Mr. Carr and Mr. Barlow seem like mere pissants by comparison; entities such as (ooh, let us pick one at random) News Corporation, who funnel their UK profits through subsidiary companies in the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and the Virgin Islands, and pay just 7% tax on said profits as a result.

Do others wonder which members of Her Majesty's government would wish that this whole matter goes away quickly?