Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Ummm... just checked.

The first reference to a Limited Liability Levy I can find was thanks to Colman's provocation which gave rise to this debate back in January 2007

Iraqi oil etc

complete with the obligatory fisticuffs with HiD.

More recently in the

Risk Risk

thread on 5th April this year I posted this


Well what happened is that partners did (and still do, in the large number of professional partnerships still left unconverted to LLP's)insure themselves against these risks using Professional Indemnity Insurance.

These premiums started to rise rapidly, and led to the demand for limitation of liability. The government refused until they were essentially blackmailed into doing so when PriceWaterhouse and Ernst & Young paid City lawyers Simmons & Simmons around £1m in respect of the legislation that went through in Jersey in 1997 for a Jersey LLP.

Prem Sikka tells the story.

Essentially the UK government is handing out free insurance - as they do to every shareholder in a limited company.

ie the LLP does not quite "do way with that" it socialises what were private risks.

In my view, there should be a "Limited Liability Levy" or tax applied to gross revenues of any entity which has limited liability.

Jersey actually got one thing right in the end. They insisted on a bloody great bond being lodged by LLP's (either £5m or £10m) and this somewhat limits their appeal as a vehicle.....

Plus a good few more references by me in the last couple of weeks....

So, more power to MfM's elbow in developing the argument so much better than I could, but I think I can claim precedence on the concept...

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 at 09:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series