Reply to: Anyone for naming and shaming

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.....

[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.

[d000hg]

HMRC Posts Names Of Tax Cheats For First Time

No criminal convictions? How can this be right?

It's all about transparency, obviously.

[Scrag Meister]

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

[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

[Wanderer]

HMRC Posts Names Of Tax Cheats For First Time

Great! So they've netted themselves a publican, a hairdresser, an off-licence, a grocer, a plumber and a builder plus some other small fry. Now they scrawl the names on the toilet wall in order to "name and shame" them. Definitely a big win for HMRC.

Here's a few others they could also go after when they have finished toasting their success:

• Amazon's billion-dollar tax shield
• Barclays secret tax avoidance factory that made £1bn a year profit
• RBS avoided £500m of tax in global deals
• Google boss: I'm very proud of our tax avoidance scheme
• Starbucks avoids UK taxes

[Boo]

Orwell and Ayn Rand were worryingly accurate in their portrayals

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

Boo2

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Well, it's not at all right, is it? We all know this, but we also know that as this country slip-slides further into an Orwellian future where the organs of state change the rules to meet their myopic objectives, we are relatively powerless to defend ourselves, the low-hanging fruit that we are.

HMRC are too spineless to to really challenge the large multinational organisations with their clever transfer pricing arrangements. It is also too dim-witted to get to grips with the other large-scale tax avoidance tricks employed by these organisations. And besides, why challenge the hand that feeds you? Exclusive: Ex-HMRC Head Joins HSBC Crime Fight - Yahoo! News UK

But hey, there's plenty of us little fish...

If I was that bar owner/hairdresser/coach operator on HMRC's sin-list, I would just ignore it and get on with life. It wouldn't stop me generating new business, and I think most clients would understand that HMRC is taking a cheap shot by sliming someone's reputation.

HMRC's tactic reminds me of that line in V for Vendetta:

“Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission."

The future has arrived.

Agreed - how have we reached a position where no-one has to think for themselves and virtually everything is State regulated?? Orwell and Ayn Rand were worryingly accurate in their portrayals

[Swamp Thing]

HMRC Posts Names Of Tax Cheats For First Time

No criminal convictions? How can this be right?

Well, it's not at all right, is it? We all know this, but we also know that as this country slip-slides further into an Orwellian future where the organs of state change the rules to meet their myopic objectives, we are relatively powerless to defend ourselves, the low-hanging fruit that we are.

HMRC are too spineless to to really challenge the large multinational organisations with their clever transfer pricing arrangements. It is also too dim-witted to get to grips with the other large-scale tax avoidance tricks employed by these organisations. And besides, why challenge the hand that feeds you? Exclusive: Ex-HMRC Head Joins HSBC Crime Fight - Yahoo! News UK

But hey, there's plenty of us little fish...

If I was that bar owner/hairdresser/coach operator on HMRC's sin-list, I would just ignore it and get on with life. It wouldn't stop me generating new business, and I think most clients would understand that HMRC is taking a cheap shot by sliming someone's reputation.

HMRC's tactic reminds me of that line in V for Vendetta:

“Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission."

The future has arrived.

[Zippy]

And how can the number of people be so small? HMRC doing a sterling job as ever

After careful consideration of cash flow (and ability to fund a decent legal team), HMRC is discriminating against all those other multi-million £ cos by not publishing ther details.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So much for taxpayer confidentiality, which they cite whenever it suits them (eg. doing deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs)

Double Taxation: 26 Nov 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

"I am unable to give a more precise figure as it would breach HMRC's duty of confidentiality."

They're an effing law unto themselves.

[The Spartan]

Hahaha no well known names on there, as they know full well if they did they'd be dealing with legal proceedings