BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BolshieBastard]

You're tax return is under investigation by HMRC but nothing else. Can't see that this is something you would need to disclose.

The legal action is between Huitson and HMRC, you are not involved. The outcome of the case will only affect you insomuch as HMRC may either enforce collection of the disputed tax or drop their demand, depending on the result.

So, are you suggesting I make clear its my return and not me under investigation?

[ASB]

Slightly off topic but I hope people dont mind this question.

I've an interview lined up with an organisation that requires full disclosure which I intend to make. One of the questions is 'Have you been arrested \ investigated by a statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC' etc, etc.

Now, as someone involved with BN66 I think this qualifies as an 'investigation' even if we havent been arrested. Would people agree?

If so, I want to add a sentence or two to explain this isnt subject to prosecution and is going through the civil courts to test HMRC's position. Anyone suggest a non technical explanation?

TIA

BB,

The question you are being asked is out of date. HMRC ceased to be a prosecuting authority in 2005. HM Revenue & Customs: HMRC Prosecution Policy statement

The prosecuting authority is in fact the CPS (it incorporates RCPO).

Is the organisation a Police Force? They are always a bit behind the times and their disclosure rules are a bit weird.

If they are not requesting disclosure of any civil disputes then there is no disclosure requirement. If they are requesting disclosure of civil disputes then it is simply a notification that HMRC do not yet accept your tax return for y/e whatever due to an ongoing case between them and an unrelated 3rd party in which they are trying to establish clarity of their interpretation.

[BolshieBastard]

BB,

The question you are being asked is out of date. HMRC ceased to be a prosecuting authority in 2005. HM Revenue & Customs: HMRC Prosecution Policy statement

The prosecuting authority is in fact the CPS (it incorporates RCPO).

Is the organisation a Police Force? They are always a bit behind the times and their disclosure rules are a bit weird.

If they are not requesting disclosure of any civil disputes then there is no disclosure requirement. If they are requesting disclosure of civil disputes then it is simply a notification that HMRC do not yet accept your tax return for y/e whatever due to an ongoing case between them and an unrelated 3rd party in which they are trying to establish clarity of their interpretation.

Hi, yes it is a police force.

They dont state disclosure as civil or non civil. Thy just state "You must declare any convictions including those which are spent, cautions, summons or fixed penalties. You must also declare if you have been arrested \ investigated by Police, Military and or other statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC, Immigration) including any ongoing \ pending investigations"

[centurian]

Hi, yes it is a police force.

They dont state disclosure as civil or non civil. Thy just state "You must declare any convictions including those which are spent, cautions, summons or fixed penalties. You must also declare if you have been arrested \ investigated by Police, Military and or other statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC, Immigration) including any ongoing \ pending investigations"

If its plod, then I'd treat this like SC/DV clearance and just declare everything. They are making it pretty clear that they want to know everything. The fact that they have specifically listed HMRC as a type of investigating authority (even if they are not statutory anymore) seems pretty cut and dry.

If you obtain money (getting a contract) while failing to disclose relevant information, this is a criminal offence - used to be called Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception. Prosecutions are almost unheard of, but if any employer would push for it, it would be the police.

The question is how you can spin it - to avoid raising red flags. Did I recall that you have bought a CTD. If so, you can spin it so that you have paid all the tax demanded, but you are still in dispute as you believe you have effectively overpaid, so are awaiting the outcome of proceedings before any settlement is reached.

That will allay some of their concerns - that you could be open to bribery due to needing to meet a large settlement should you lose at the SC.

[swede]

So, are you suggesting I make clear its my return and not me under investigation?

Along a similar line, you may also want to try when caught for speeding... "It was my car, not me".

I'd declare it.

[ASB]

Hi, yes it is a police force.

They dont state disclosure as civil or non civil. Thy just state "You must declare any convictions including those which are spent, cautions, summons or fixed penalties. You must also declare if you have been arrested \ investigated by Police, Military and or other statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC, Immigration) including any ongoing \ pending investigations"

In terms of the statement they make there is not a pending investigation by a statutory prosecuting authority since HMRC are not one. Any potential prosecution is via the CPS; however that is not really the point. Even though their question is (arguably) badly put if they do ascertain that this issue exists and it is not declared and they think it should have been then it's instant rejection. The police authority is of course the ultimate arbiter of what is relevant. If it comes to light later it is instant dismissal. At least that is the general principle.

I agree entirely with centurian, they want to know that you are whiter than white and there is no potential skeleton in the cupboard. It is probably important to ensure they are aware that you are awaiting the outcome of a third party case which will govern whether any settlement is due.

[Morlock]

Hi, yes it is a police force.

They dont state disclosure as civil or non civil. Thy just state "You must declare any convictions including those which are spent, cautions, summons or fixed penalties. You must also declare if you have been arrested \ investigated by Police, Military and or other statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC, Immigration) including any ongoing \ pending investigations"

Best be open and transparent, and tell them all the relevant details.
Then be prepared for them to come back in 7 years time and say that in retrospect they weren't happy and that you need to give back all your contract fees...

[IH8GordonB]

Hi, yes it is a police force.

They dont state disclosure as civil or non civil. Thy just state "You must declare any convictions including those which are spent, cautions, summons or fixed penalties. You must also declare if you have been arrested \ investigated by Police, Military and or other statutory prosecuting authority eg HMRC, Immigration) including any ongoing \ pending investigations"

As Centurian mentioned, if you have the disputed liability covered by a CTD then this should also be made very clear, this shows that should collection be enforced that you would not be left with a serious debt which may well preclude you from working for a police force.

[centurian]

Another thorny aspect you've got is that police civilian staff (who will review your disclosure) are having their jobs cut, their pay frozen and their pension benefits slashed.

And as far as they are concerned, it is entirely the fault of bankers and tax dodgers/avoiders, so word any disclosure very carefully.

[silver_lining]

If its plod, then I'd treat this like SC/DV clearance and just declare everything. They are making it pretty clear that they want to know everything. The fact that they have specifically listed HMRC as a type of investigating authority (even if they are not statutory anymore) seems pretty cut and dry.

If you obtain money (getting a contract) while failing to disclose relevant information, this is a criminal offence - used to be called Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception. Prosecutions are almost unheard of, but if any employer would push for it, it would be the police.

The question is how you can spin it - to avoid raising red flags. Did I recall that you have bought a CTD. If so, you can spin it so that you have paid all the tax demanded, but you are still in dispute as you believe you have effectively overpaid, so are awaiting the outcome of proceedings before any settlement is reached.

That will allay some of their concerns - that you could be open to bribery due to needing to meet a large settlement should you lose at the SC.

This is nonsense. HMRC are no longer prosecuting authority; there is nothing to disclose. People read into SC/DV and disclosure too much.... its not as intense as people would have you believe.

If its for DV and you want to spin your level of honestly, go for it... but I think you are just opening a can of ugly irrelevant worms.

Honesty can be the best policy, but where bureaucracy is involved, it can be right pain in the arse and result in disaster.

If its a job a taxman, then may honesty is the best policy