Talk:James Dyson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Dyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150326022104/https://www.dyson360eye.com/ to https://www.dyson360eye.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201080026/http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/Prize.aspx to http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/Prize.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Dyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603160954/http://www.current.com.au/2007/12/11/article/UUFGGOHYWY to http://www.current.com.au/2007/12/11/article/UUFGGOHYWY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Tax avoidance

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Respectfully seeking your guidance on an edit to the James Dyson tax avoidance section, which at present is somewhat misleading and partial. New title and suggested edit with more detail, facts checked and sources cited below.

UK tax contribution and allegation of tax avoidance

In the 2022 Tax List published by The Sunday Times in January 2022, Sir James Dyson and family were listed 11th of the UK's 50 biggest taxpayers with a total of £101 million contributed for the last full year on record. The IPPR think tank noted that only two of those listed in the 2021 Sunday Times Rich List - Dyson and the Weston family - were listed in this year's Tax List. In the previous three years, Dyson had featured at 6th, 4th and 3rd in the Sunday Times Tax List, reportedly contributing a total of £345.8 million to the UK exchequer.

Dyson publicly stated in 2008, “I think it’s wrong to direct your business for tax reasons. Your business should be where you can do it best.” However, his company Dyson Ltd, for a limited period in the late 2000s, set up multiple complex structures using a new parent company in Malta and group financing companies in Luxembourg and the Isle of Man. It has been alleged the structures were used to generate tax deductions in the UK via intragroup financing and relied on deals with the Luxembourg tax authorities revealed in the Lux Leaks. Dyson denied the non-UK structures used created any tax benefit in the UK, telling the Guardian in 2014: "At no time did the [group's former] non-UK structure deliver any significant tax advantage and, of the entities in question all have been dissolved or are in a liquidation process."

Olddeerpark (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Olddeerpark,

Thanks for your amendments and discussion. I think your adjustments add interesting information but actually make the section more misleading and impartial.

Estimations vs Allegations

The Sunday Times list estimates tax contributed, yet you've presented it as a neutral fact. The specific Lux Leak documents provide primary evidence of the creation of tax deductible interest payments in the UK, but you've described this as an 'allegation'. Why is the estimate of a tax contribution presented as a neutral fact and the factual demonstration of the creation of UK tax-deductible interest payments presented as an 'allegation'? Perhaps we could distinguish between the fact that Dyson create additional UK tax deductions using £300m of internal loans via Malta, Isle of Man and Luxembourg, and the allegation that this constitutes 'tax avoidance'? That might be a more neutral compromise?

Adding the primary evidence rather than just The Guardian article might help focus on facts over commentary: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1345462-dyson-2009-tax-ruling.html

Time frames

Where is your source for the Malta structure being used 'for a limited period in the late 2000s' from? Apologies if I've missed something in the sources that clarifies this. I can see the Matlese entity was incorporated 19 Nov 2009 but not when exactly it was struck off. Dyson say the structure incorporating the Maltese entity, Isle of Man and Luxembourg entities was only wound down in 2013. Is there a reason you've minimised the time-frame that the tax reducing structure was in place?

Your word 'limited', even if the time frame were 2009-2010, is impartial. If I eat a steak for lunch today, it's a value judgement to say I spent a 'limited' time eating meat today.

I think we will need to find a more balanced way of showing the estimation of contribution and avoidance.

Thank you

BampyTortoise BampyTortoise (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added a clarifying statement to the section that refers to The Sunday Times Tax List. The tax list does not list people according to how much tax they pay. It includes all of the corporate taxes paid by companies owned by the person concerned. Those taxes are not paid by the person concerned, they are paid by the entities concerned. And in company law the entity is a separate legal personality from the person who owns it. It also includes VAT and as any accountant will tell you VAT is not PAID by the business that adds VAT, it is collected by the entity on behalf of HMRC and simply passed to HMRC. In no way does the Tax List list how much tax is paid by the individual themselves on their personal income and wealth. Marlarkey (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Adding official title for James Dyson

James Dyson loves working in an office so much this should be represented on this page correctly 140.228.52.249 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What does this even mean? MurrayGreshler (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

How has this shill piece not been flagged?

You bet it sounds like a PR piece. Are Dyson’s handlers reversing a bunch of edits? No controversy section? Anyone reading this would think that this man walks on water—I think his mere name in the first sentence is the longest list of titles and qualifiers of eminence I’ve ever seen. This is a depressing example of Wikipedia being exploited for personal gain and the sanitation of a powerful man’s reputation. What’s the point of having it flagged as “reading like a PR piece” if no one locks out the PR agency from editing it? Alanrobts (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)