They shouldn't, except of course to HMRC etc.

No ones personal information should be available except with a) their consent b) public necessity.

Of course it'll be interesting in the light of these Panama leaks whether the declarations of earnings to HMRC in a given year, from various sources, listed those held in obfuscated accounts.

And this is I think the key issue, not appearances, but actual 'wrong doing'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

See there's a thing about all this totally legal ergo not immoral stuff. Just because you canlegallydo something doesn't mean it is morally right. Tax planning is finding loopholes to be used to pay less tax than you might have to right? If you are intended to have to pay X amount of tax and instead pay Y is that not morally dubious? Especially, when generally screaming from the rooftops about so called benefits cheats.

Part of Holmesdale Radio: The Next Generation
@KingvagabondHOL

Quote cornwalls palace at 24 Oct 2012 9.37am

He was right!!!...and we killed him!!... poor Orpinton Eagles........

Well said that man....... Dave has done nothing wrong or illegal.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

I do get that, it's just that you can't really define what you're 'intended' to pay. For instance, ISAs are, presumably, considered legitimate tax efficient mechanisms, intended to be taken advantage of, but as you get deeper into the ins and outs of tax law, the rules get more complex and difficult to compartmentalise into "legit" and "taking liberties". For instance, I have no idea why the 'gift' rules (exempt from inheritance tax) are in place - it makes no sense to me. What is the difference between someone giving me 10 grand as a gift, and someone bequeathing me 10 grand in their will for me to receive once they know they won't be needing it any more - why is one subject to tax and the other isn't?

I don't know all the rules, and I'd wager nobody on here (unless we have a few accountants) does. I claimed CGT back on a failed business venture against a CGT profit on a house sale purely because my accountant told me I could. That's what he's paid for, and it saved me a good few quid. There was no hiding funds, or avoiding tax going on. I suspect one way we could alleviate the p*ss-taking is to somehow make the facilitating of schemes designed to hide funds from the tax man illegal so that someone is ultimately held responsible, which again comes down to chucking money at HMRC to plug the holes in some way.

Set a thief to catch a thief - chuck the top accountants at HMRC with a remit to plug the holes and come up with a solution

I believe that only gifts given a certain number of years before the person's death will be exempt from inheritance tax.

Morality is the weakest stance to make an argument anyway...after everything that Camerons been accused of they've been deflected one by one...and now this is all they have.

Yes its important to change the tax legislation...but for everyone. Its the system that needs to be addressed not the individuals whatever their background...or seemingly more importantly class

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World