  |
|
|
|
On June 8, 1998, the Rolling Stones announced that they were canceling the UK leg of their "Bridges To Babylon" world tour. A threatened $20 million tax bill was to blame. If the British shows went ahead, the European tour would run at a loss. As Mick learned at the London School of Economics all those years ago - running at a loss is bad business.
The old tax system allowed British residents to earn money tax-free if they worked outside of the UK for more than a year, on the condition that they do not spend more than 62 days at home. The Treasury expects to save £250 million a year by closing the loophole. The government claims that the majority of residents working abroad have incomes of over £50,000 a year. The government's comments make the Stones look like wealthy tax dodgers - again. Controversy grew when the Irish Times printed an article titled "Stones Tactics Strike Sour Note." The piece acknowledged the fact that Mick had made a statement saying the Stones were tempted to "bite the bullet." In the same paragraph the paper tried to show dissension among the band by saying that Ron Wood (who lives in Ireland) and Charlie Watts didn't want to pay the tax and encouraged the others to cancel the tour. For a moment let's suppose this story were true. There might be some reasons for Mr. Wood and Mr. Watts to have tax concerns. The other two members have regularly appeared on Britain's Top 10 Wealthiest Musicians list. This year is no exception: Mick Jagger is at #5 with £140 million and Keith Richards is at #9 with £105 million. Charlie doesn't share in all the song royalties produced by Stones songs written by Jagger/Richards. Ron Wood was a "hired hand" until a few years ago when Bill Wyman left the band. In his recent autobiography, Wyman complained about not getting any of the song royalties, leaving him and Charlie far behind the other two financially. It is quite possible that Mick and Keith could have absorbed a $20-million tax bill much easier than their band mates. IF Ron and Charlie were concerned about the taxes, they may have had a right to be. We really don't have any evidence that this rift over taxes happened other than one Irish Times story. It seems likely that the whole thing was a bit of vindictiveness on the papers part, using innuendo to make the boys look bad - again. All this fuss must seem awfully
The copyright of the article The Taxman - Part Two: The Present in The Rolling Stones is owned by FactoryGirl. Permission to republish The Taxman - Part Two: The Present in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
