Decision of the Complaints Committee 02595-19 Portman v
The Times
Summary of complaint
1. Viscount Christopher Portman complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause
1(Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice in two articles headlined:
2. The first article reported that an investigation by the
publication had found that a third of British billionaires had moved to tax
havens after an exodus over the past decade. The article also reported that
"many have been given honours or hold titles, with at least one viscount,
one baron, six knights and one dame among the billionaires". The article
reported that they were among 6,800 Britons controlling 12,000 UK companies
from low-tax jurisdictions and that the exchequer is denied billions a year,
but that “many still reap the benefits of British assets".
3. The second article continued a “rich list of the 28 tax
haven billionaires" started in the first article and included the
complainant at number 15 in the list. The article introduced its continuation
of the list by reporting that "Those who are also non-UK resident for tax
purposes can legally avoid huge amounts of UK tax while maintaining control of
British business empires and influencing politics". The article explained
that the previous day the newspaper had "profiled the very wealthiest
British citizens who have declared that they are 'usually resident' in low-tax
jurisdictions in company documents or are known to live in or be moving to
them". It explained, further, that "Declaring residence in company
filings is not the same as officially being non-resident in the UK for tax
purposes, which is not disclosed in public documents”. Under the complainant's
entry, the article reported the complainant's wealth to be £2.3 billion
(according to the 2018 Sunday Times rich list) and featured a description of
the complainant's UK property portfolio. It reported that the complainant had
left Britain and now lives in a property by Lake Geneva and that his family's
properties in Britain are managed by a management company and trustees, one of
whom is a member of the House of Lords. The article reported that the
complainant did not respond to requests for comment.
4. The second article appeared in much the same format
online under the headline "Tax haven rich list part 2: Billionaires with a
grip on Britain from abroad" published on 7 March 2019.
5. The complainant said that the first article's claim that
"many [of the billionaires featured in the coverage] have been given
honours or hold titles, with at least one viscount" was a direct reference
to him. He said that the article made several specific references to those
named in the coverage as having avoided paying UK tax because of being a non-UK
tax resident, and that his inclusion in the published list was misleading as he
was not non-UK resident for tax purposes and did not avoid paying UK tax. The
complainant said that any reader would inevitably, and inaccurately in his
case, conclude that all those individuals identified in the article were
resident in tax havens to deny HMRC millions of pounds.
6. The complainant said that the second article also
breached Clause 1. He said that it inaccurately suggested that he earns a
substantial income from a UK property portfolio but that, on account of being
resident in Switzerland, he avoided paying tax on this portfolio to the
detriment of the exchequer. He said that he is legally required to pay tax on
the income generated by this portfolio under the Income Tax (Trading and Other
Income) Act 2005; the article had failed to explain this. He said that he had
been included in a "rogues gallery" of tax avoiding billionaires who
lived abroad and who were accused of denying HMRC of billions of pounds, in
circumstances where he paid tax in full on his UK income and resided in
Switzerland for personal reasons.
7. The complainant also raised concerns that other articles
featured in the coverage of the investigation, which were not formally under
complaint, made references to tax avoidance which furthered the misleading
impression that he was resident abroad to avoid paying UK tax.
8. The publication denied that the articles were inaccurate
or misleading. It said that the articles did not comment on the tax status of
the individuals included in the list where it was not known; the articles did
not make any specific reference to the complainant's tax status. It said that
at no point did the articles under complaint, or the wider coverage, suggest
that the individuals paid no UK tax, only that they may legally be able to
avoid paying large sums of UK tax, which was not inaccurate. The publication
emphasised that, in the course of making his complaint, the complainant had
referenced "tax exiles", "tax avoiders" and that he
featured in a "rogues gallery", but that none of these phrases
featured anywhere in the coverage.
9. The publication accepted that the "Viscount"
referenced in the first article did refer to the complainant, but said that
given that he was not named in the article, readers would not be aware it was a
reference to him without having also read the second article. Further, the
reference to the complainant being one of "the many" who had been
given honours or hold titles was a reference to the complainant being one of
the many billionaires who had moved to tax havens and not to many who avoid
tax. The publication argued that even if readers had read both articles, and had
identified the complainant as being the Viscount referenced in the first
article, the first article did not give rise to a misleading impression that
the complainant avoided paying UK tax. The publication highlighted that the
coverage explained that "Non-residents for tax purposes can also receive
foreign income without paying any UK income tax, although UK salaries and
rental income remain taxable"; the publication said that this indicated
that the complainant would pay tax on income from property in Britain.
10. The publication suggested that the complainant had
misunderstood the meaning of the second article. The list was not a list of
billionaires who did not pay UK tax and nor would readers draw this conclusion.
It said that the individuals featured in the list were identified as
billionaires who had moved to tax havens yet still held considerable sway over
British life by being donors to UK political parties, holding large amounts of
UK land, holding UK titles or owning UK companies. The publication said that the
article simply reported that those who are non-UK tax resident could
potentially avoid paying large amounts of UK tax, which was accurate; the
articles did not specify where the complainant was tax resident.
11. The publication said that it had put the points under
complaint to the complainant for comment prior to publication, but it did not
receive a response. It had also offered to amend the online version of the
article the day it was published to reflect that the complainant is resident
abroad for personal reasons yet pays UK tax at 45% but the offer was declined.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must
take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or
images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
13. The Committee noted that the first article began by
explaining "A third of British billionaires had moved to tax havens after
an exodus over the past decade” and that it made clear that it was publishing
"the list of British billionaires who live offshore while controlling UK
businesses, wielding political influence and owning swathes of land". The
article made clear that the publication had "assessed where British
business owners live based on their company filings, which disclose where they
are "usually resident"” and that “It is not possible from public
documents to know whether they are also resident abroad for tax
purposes…”. The article explained,
further, that those who become non-UK resident for tax purposes can legally
avoid paying UK income tax. The Committee noted that the article also reported
that some of the billionaires had said that they lived abroad for reasons
including healthy lifestyles, better weather, low crime and closeness to their
foreign businesses. The Committee considered the article, as a whole, and found
that the reference, in the first article, to the complainant being one of the
"many" who had been given honours or hold titles was a reference to
him being one of the British billionaires who had moved to a tax haven The Committee acknowledged that the article
had stated that the exchequer was “denied billions”, but this was said in
a paragraph which referenced 6800 Britons
who control 12,000 UK companies from low tax jurisdictions; the billionaires
who were included in the published list were not explicitly referenced. The
article reported on billionaires who had moved to tax havens and the
complainant accepted that he resided in Switzerland. The Committee did not find
that the article, taken as a whole, would have been understood to mean that the
complainant avoids paying UK tax on account of being resident in Switzerland.
The article was not inaccurate or misleading in breach Clause 1.
14. The second article, in which the complainant was named,
began by repeating the explanation of the coverage which had appeared in the
first article: "After an exodus of business owners over the past decade,
almost a third of British billionaires have moved to tax havens”. The second
article reported that those on the list who were also non-UK resident for tax
purposes can legally avoid paying UK tax.
The profile of the complainant explained that he had left Britain and
now lives in a property by Lake Geneva, but did not identify him as being
non-UK resident for tax purposes. The Committee considered that it was
sufficiently clear that the article was part of an investigation of British
billionaires who had left the UK to live abroad, while still wielding influence
over certain aspects life in the UK, and that the basis for the complainant's
inclusion in the article was also clear: the complainant had an extensive UK
property portfolio which was managed, in part, by a member of the House of
Lords. The articles did not make any specific comment or reference to the complainant's
tax status, and the Committee did not consider that, by including him in the
published list, the article gave rise to a misleading impression that the
complainant avoided paying UK tax. In circumstances where the article did not
make any specific reference to the complainant's tax status, the article was
not significantly misleading by having omitted to make reference to the
complainant's obligations to pay tax on income from properties in Britain under
the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The publication had
approached the complainant for comment as to his reasons for moving to a tax
haven and as to his tax status, but the complainant's representatives had
chosen not to comment. The publication had taken care over the accuracy of the
information which had been published in the articles which, for the reasons
explained above, were not inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial action required
N/A
Date complaint received: 18/03/2019
Date complaint concluded: 27/09/2019