Anyone for naming and shaming

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Now there's two names you don't often find in the same sentence

Boo2

Indeed Boo but 1984 and Atlas Shrugged both predicted the collapse of the structure of society and the collapse of the basic economy as a result of the rise of Socialism. Or in our case 13 years of a Labour Government and Clegg

[Scrag Meister]

What no Starbucks, Amazon,Google, etc...?

[d000hg]

HMRC Posts Names Of Tax Cheats For First Time

No criminal convictions? How can this be right?

It's all about transparency, obviously.

[northernladuk]

What no Starbucks, Amazon,Google, etc...?

I would guess they are different cases. They are using loopholes, this exercise is looking at 'deliberate tax defaulters' so they are looking at different reasons for not paying tax.

[northernladuk]

Am sorry, I am with people having a rant at HMRC for not getting their act together and doing things properly but having sympathy for people being named and shamed for being deliberate tax defaulters? Hell no, tough tulip to them. Lets see some more.....

[Swamp Thing]

Am sorry, I am with people having a rant at HMRC for not getting their act together and doing things properly but having sympathy for people being named and shamed for being deliberate tax defaulters? Hell no, tough tulip to them. Lets see some more.....

My issue is not whether or not we show sympathy with the little fish who have apparently defaulted. It's that we are required to take on trust that these people have indeed done so, that HMRC have done their due diligence correctly before going to print, and that they procured the sufficient exemptions from their confidentiality obligations in order to do so. Why is it that the big fish aren't in the same list? Why is it that naming and shaming has become the last resort for HMRC? Could it be that maybe HMRC can't quite prove the case on some of these people and so have gone for public flogging instead - with the aim of settling up quick. Who's validating the rigour and governance?

So many questions...and because we don't ask enough of them we end up with stuff like this.

[northernladuk]

My issue is not whether or not we show sympathy with the little fish who have apparently defaulted. It's that we are required to take on trust that these people have indeed done so, that HMRC have done their due diligence correctly before going to print, and that they procured the sufficient exemptions from their confidentiality obligations in order to do so. Why is it that the big fish aren't in the same list? Why is it that naming and shaming has become the last resort for HMRC? Could it be that maybe HMRC can't quite prove the case on some of these people and so have gone for public flogging instead - with the aim of settling up quick. Who's validating the rigour and governance?

So many questions...and because we don't ask enough of them we end up with stuff like this.

We know why the big fish are not on there. This exercise is different. Not sure it is last resort, appears to be, however questionable, another tool to use. I don't actually think it will make anyone pay that wasn't going to pay anyway but still, I like to see the result. Could be a PR exercise rather than scare tactic.

[moggy]

We know why the big fish are not on there. This exercise is different. Not sure it is last resort, appears to be, however questionable, another tool to use. I don't actually think it will make anyone pay that wasn't going to pay anyway but still, I like to see the result. Could be a PR exercise rather than scare tactic.

Certainly a PR exercise here, I am doubtful that being named in a paper for not giving a tulip about tax is hardly going to scare any lone individual, a major corporation or celeb who needs customers / the nation to buy their products would be a different matter as we saw with starbucks and jimmy carr.