Nothing particularly startling here. Rather wrong to describe his £12m as 'income' because most people would relate that to a salary which clearly is not the case. Out of that there are clearly valid business expenses, including staff salaries. What we do not know, of course, is whether all those expenses are wholly legitimate and 'for the purposes of trade' - as accounts are published and professional accountants prepare them we must assume that this is the case.
The tax bill is only calculated on the businesses Corporation tax and therefore may not reflect the total amount of tax paid. What did Blair himself draw from his business? How he drew that personal money, dividends or salary, perhaps as director loan repayments would all impact of his personal tax bill.
Clearly he has complex business arrangements but that does not necessarily mean they are not legitimate.
Now why on earth am I defending Blair, a man I frankly detest and who allowed Brown to wreck our economy? That is the big question here.
