So the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to listen to criticism from any individual who he sees as a tax evader.

Recently, Mr Miliband refused to accept criticism from a captain of industry on the grounds that the individual in question had previously taken up domicile in Switzerland despite being the CEO of a UK company. Mr Miliband discounted this individual’s opinion (which was coincidentally critical of his leadership position) on the grounds that this blatant and deliberate attempt to avoid legitimate UK tax rendered the opinion of that individual irrelevant.  Mr Miliband went on to further attack the individual on the grounds that tax minimisation by its very nature is a behaviour that he finds abhorrent.

So how does Mr Miliband set the rules on what represents acceptable behaviour in relation to one’s tax position?

Well it clearly is not based on legal principles. In the case in point the individual is legally entitled to domicile themselves anywhere providing that they qualify under the HMRC’s residency rules.

In a related case, people who availed themselves of mechanisms to utilise tax efficient funding for the UK film industry came under similar criticism. Again, they were utilising legitimate vehicles and, although perhaps more borderline, had done nothing legally wrong.

I can only assume that it is a different rule that Mr Miliband applies to make his judgement, and it is not based on the law.

Mr Miliband focuses instead on the taxpayer’s “intent” to reduce their tax liability and not the means employed. Anyone who knowingly and deliberately takes steps to minimise their tax position is both a poor citizen and a person of low moral fibre. It doesn’t matter if the individual is acting on professional advice or within the bounds of the HMRC rules or the law.

This gives rise to an interesting question. Why exactly did Mr Miliband enter into a deed of variation in relation to his own father’s will?

The official line is that the family wished both brothers to directly inherit 20% of his father’s house, which had been bequeathed 100% to his mother under the will. The family sought legal and financial advice and duly signed a deed to alter the will after the death of his father. The effect of the deed was to cede part of the estate directly to the Miliband brothers and not through their mother’s inheritance. As a result, the tax payable on the estate was reduced.

Mr Miliband is keen to point out that after the sale of the property he paid capital gains tax on the gain and therefore paid “full tax”. This is a little misleading, in fact. Whilst tax was paid on disbursements by Mr Miliband, the original deed which he knowingly and willingly entered into did have the effect of reducing death tax collectable by the Revenue.

Notwithstanding the first question – why did the family decide to go against the written and legally binding decision of the deceased? – the more interesting question for me is, why did he alter the will at all? If Miliband senior and his family had wished to place part of the property into the hands of his sons, their mother could have gifted them this as direct beneficiary. This would have had exactly the same ultimate effect, but – crucially –  the tax treatment would not have been as advantageous.

So there are several possible reasons for Mr Miliband doing as he did:

–          Mr Miliband did not know that the deed was designed to minimise the family tax burden. This is possible but, if true, not a good credential for someone who could end up running the country! Also, it is frankly unlikely, as he has not used this defence.

–          Mr Miliband is a person of double standards, that is, he operates to the principle of “don’t do what I do , do what I say” – not a fine quality in someone holding senior public office

–          Mr Miliband knew exactly what he was doing but did it at a time when he could not have predicted that such an action would come back and bite him when he held senior office. This demonstrates poor judgement and lack of foresight by him – not to mention inferior leadership skills.

Whatever your view, and I Ieave it to you to decide, it is hard to see how the party spin machine can reconcile the “holier than thou” approach with the actions taken by its most senior member.

In my court of moral standards, I am afraid that Mr Miliband fails. I am not convinced that the actions taken by him and his family were taken with any intention other than to reduce the family tax liability.