• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    CONTINUED



    The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists this week laid bare thousands of secret HSBC files, showing how the bank's Swiss operation helped the rich and powerful hide billions in assets

    Indeed, some 27 times he dined at the tables — and at the expense of — the 'big four' accounting firms, the very ones which supposedly do battle with HMRC over the tax affairs of the corporate behemoths they represent.

    What is particularly interesting is that in 2013 it emerged that Hartnett, after leaving the Revenue, had been appointed to a lucrative new position with Deloitte — the auditors for Vodafone — who had negotiated massively discounted tax settlements with none other than David Hartnett.

    He also accepted hospitality from Vodafone's financial advisers — yes, Deloitte — only weeks before he personally agreed the deal that allowed the firm to avoid billions in tax liabilities.

    To add to the intrigue, Vodafone's agreement came after negotiations between Hartnett and John Connors, the phone company's head of tax. Until 2007, Mr Connors was a senior official at HMRC . . . where he worked closely with Hartnett.

    The public would know nothing about these scandalous sweetheart deals were it not for the courage of Osita Mba, a barrister in Hartnett's department, who paid a terrible price for alerting MPs to the secret deals being struck by his boss.

    Mr Mba, with a master's degree from Oxford University, worked in the personal tax litigation team that dealt with Goldman Sachs, the U.S. investment bank, which was being pursued by HMRC for tax owed over more than five years. Furious about his department's pursuit of minor offenders, with demands for immediate payment of small sums owed on pain of penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, Mr Mba was aghast to discover multi-billion-pound business giants were allowed to avoid fortunes in unpaid tax.

    Using the Public Interest Disclosure Act, he wrote to the National Audit Office (NAO) and two parliamentary committees in confidence in 2011, saying that Hartnett had spared Goldman Sachs from paying at least £10 million in interest on tax arrears.

    He revealed that the bank's settlement had been agreed with a handshake by Hartnett, the permanent secretary for tax at HMRC. Mr Mba believed the deal could be illegal, and vowed to reveal all to MPs under legislation designed to protect whistleblowers.

    Retribution was swift and brutal. Astonishingly, the tax office used anti-terror legislation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (known as RIPA) against Mr Mba. These laws give the authorities sweeping powers that allow them to access phone and email records. Mr Mba was suspended. His locker and desk were searched. His internet searches, emails and telephone calls were all checked. His wife's phone was also monitored.

    In 2011, one 'internal criminal investigator' emailed colleagues saying the Revenue had begun 'a review of the suspect's [Mba's] H drive [the hard drive used within HMRC] and email traffic and internet usage', but inquiries had revealed nothing.

    He then proposed a 'further interrogation of computer material' and an 'itemised billing check', and wrote that 'consultations with the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] can proceed'.

    MPs were shocked to learn that officials at HMRC sanctioned the use of the RIPA anti-terrorism powers. And there is no doubt Mr Mba paid a terrible price for his actions, which were so clearly in the public interest.

    He was hounded out of his job, and his marriage collapsed under the strain.

    Margaret Hodge, chair of the powerful Public Accounts Committee, had strong words for the current chief executive of HMRC, Lin Homer, when she questioned her over the matter.

    'It just shocked me to my bones, really, to see these very extreme powers being used to try to hound this poor man. There is no other word for it: you hounded him, to the extent that you have broken him.'

    Mrs Hodge went so far as to say: 'The Department [HMRC] has broken him and it is awful. I feel personally responsible, because I think we exposed him to a lot of this in using the evidence that he provided to us.'

    Now trying to rebuild his life, having finally reached an out-of-court settlement with HMRC to leave the civil service, Mr Mba was not surprised this week to see David Hartnett at the centre of the scandal over HSBC's Swiss bank.

    'Hopefully, a thorough investigation of what went on in HMRC under Mr Hartnett's watch will finally take place,' he told me.

    Hartnett, meanwhile, has prospered. He stepped down as permanent secretary for tax in 2012, leaving with a year's salary of £165,000 (plus £48,000 for unclaimed holidays), and a pension pot worth £1.7 million, providing an annual income of £80,000.

    As well as his jobs with HSBC and Deloitte, he has also worked for the Washington-based International Monetary Fund as a consultant, providing tax advice to the Thai, Russian, Kenyan and Greek governments.

    Richard Murphy, an economist and accountant who runs Tax Research UK and studies tax avoidance by multi-nationals, says: 'Dave Hartnett was at one time the taxman's taxman — really tough on tax avoiders. I got to know him quite well, and dined with him at The Cinnamon Club. He could be charismatic and at the same time arrogant. He was very much the main man and the boss.

    'But he became far too cosy with the big accounting firms from 2008 onwards. He could see they were all making more money than him.

    'He became too friendly with the business community. It was inappropriate. He spent far too much time in The Cinnamon Club — that seemed to change his attitude to business. It was probably quite convenient for him when he had to retire from HMRC and could go into business for himself.'

    Convenient, at the time, perhaps. But with the gathering storm surrounding HSBC, the sybaritic Mr Hartnett would seem to have many disturbing questions to answer over the bank scandal — not least why he did so little to act on allegations against HSBC, and was then allowed to work for it.
    I hope they throw the book at the c**t! Karma

    Comment


      There's so many stories showing politicians up to be the hypocrites that they are that I am starting to wonder if someone / some people are pulling strings. We always knew there'd come a point where people with a long reach and very deep pockets would start to be affected. I hope so, because it could get very bloody for Labour, Tories and HMRC.

      Comment


        And this is all to do with NTRT is it? Or has this thread turned into a general 'let's chew the fat over PR and HMRC'?

        Is it actually worth moderating this thread any more or shall I leave you all to it?
        "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
        - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

        Comment


          Originally posted by cojak View Post
          And this is all to do with NTRT is it? Or has this thread turned into a general 'let's chew the fat over PR and HMRC'?

          Is it actually worth moderating this thread any more or shall I leave you all to it?
          I've deleted my post Cojak. Let's keep this thread on topic and moderated.
          'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
          Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

          Comment


            Originally posted by mossman View Post
            a video that has no relevance to NTRT
            I'm going to leave that video lest you think the CUK is a foot soldier of The Great Conspiracy.

            But I will dump any further non-related posts in a 'We hate HMRC' bucket thread here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...scussions.html
            "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
            - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

            Comment


              Originally posted by cojak View Post
              I'm going to leave that video lest you think the CUK is a foot soldier of The Great Conspiracy.

              But I will dump any further non-related posts in a 'We hate HMRC' bucket thread.
              ...it's not a Great Conspiracy, it's just all a bit rubbish.
              I guess the point is that whilst the S58 guys are, in a lot of cases, fighting for their lives there is a level of HMRC and HMG hypocrisy which reinforces the view that the Law is not applied consistently, fairly or honestly.

              Comment


                Light Relief

                Whilst trawling through some old e-mail archive files, I stumbled upon this little gem, dating from May 2010 - just before the last general election. It was a response from the Libdem prospective parliamentary candidate for my constituency, and answers a letter I had sent him, asking for clarification on the Libdems' position regarding Section 58;



                Dear Mr *****,

                Thank you for getting in touch and my apologies for not replying sooner.

                I understand that Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act aims to tighten up an
                aspect of the double tax relief anti-avoidance rules. Our principal
                diagreement with Section 58 is its retrospective element. Liberal
                Democrats have set out a framework of principles to which all Liberal
                Democrat tax policies will conform. One of these principles is certainty
                -tax policies should not be retrospective and should provide the taxpayer
                with certainty over the correct treatment. Therefore we would not seek to
                amend the tax code retrospectively in the way that Section 58 does.

                We are, however, committed to tackling tax avoidance and ensuring that
                everyone pays their fair share. This will include a general anti
                avoidance principle. The aim of this principle would be to ensure that if
                a transaction for which a taxpayer is liable has been constructed in such
                a way that one of the main purposes is to reduce or eliminate tax
                liability, then that transaction will not be taken into account in
                assessing the liability of the taxpayer. The Liberal Democrats
                understand the need for tax certainty and therefore central to any anti
                avoidance principle will be a pre clearance procedure under which
                companies and individuals who have complex tax affairs and wish to have
                certainty in their tax treatment may obtain pre-clearance from HMRC.
                I hope you will agree that our approach to tax avoidance is much fairer
                than retrospective measures like Section 58.

                John Sleigh
                Westminster Candidate for Aberdeen South


                Oh how naïve I was 5 years ago...............

                Comment


                  Originally posted by cojak View Post
                  And this is all to do with NTRT is it? Or has this thread turned into a general 'let's chew the fat over PR and HMRC'?

                  Is it actually worth moderating this thread any more or shall I leave you all to it?
                  Please don't! I don't think this thread is worthwhile(all arguments will now be fought at a legal level and nothing we can do). But plenty of others appreciate this thread very much.

                  And I apprexciate your efforts.

                  Comment


                    What happens next?

                    Have I grasped this correctly.

                    The next step is that HMRC will write to us all individually warning that APNs are coming. Then they send out the APNs.Then we've got 90 days to pay?

                    What happens after the 90 days if you can't pay?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Donnie Darko View Post
                      Have I grasped this correctly.

                      The next step is that HMRC will write to us all individually warning that APNs are coming. Then they send out the APNs.Then we've got 90 days to pay?

                      What happens after the 90 days if you can't pay?
                      you get a penalty if not paid within the 90 days, from memory its 5%. There is then another staged penalty if it isnt paid within another time period, between 5 and 11 months, again another 5%. HMRC apparently will take instalments etc and accept hardship arrangements. All this is obviously to be tested in reality!

                      Interestingly, my financial adviser said it will cost me more to sell some of my property assets (due to mortgage penalties mainly) and pay the APN immediately, than if I sit and let the penalties build and pay at a later date. Something to consider if you are in a similar position to me, i.e. with some property assets you would need to sell to pay the APN.

                      He also suggested I would be better off paying in instalments anyway to remove the need to sell an asset thereby not only mitigating a bill for capital gains tax, but also preserving the asset for capital growth. I do wonder if CGT would be payable in a case like this, Ive heard people say HMRC couldnt waive it, in which case it would probably be easier to just remortgage it upto the hilt and let them take it. I obviously said cant see HMRC accepting payment plan if I have assets to hand, but he is of the view this is all so convoluted they will probably bend quite a bit to accept payment plans.
                      Last edited by smalldog; 16 February 2015, 10:18.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X