No more cuts needed - IF we tax fairly

[breadandbutterfly]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue-sweetheart-tax-deals

HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say

HMRC accused of lacking fairness and transparency over corporate tax settlements 'kept from scrutiny'

"Hodge told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "At a time when it's hugely important that we maximise the revenue that comes in, when it's absolutely imperative that everybody is treated equally in front of the law, whoever they are, however big or small they are, I think it's very, very important that the public are satisfied that there's equity here, and that HMRC are working on our behalf to maximise revenue that ought to come in to the Treasury."

The MPs found that owing to a "mistake", admitted by HMRC, Goldman paid up to £20m less tax than had been due on its bonus payments. Vodafone settled a long dispute by paying £1.25bn, but the committee heard allegations that the tax bill should have been £6bn or more.

The committee hearings found that two undisclosed firms had struck similar deals, and suspect that there may be other questionable deals among £25bn of outstanding unresolved tax bills. "

MrsMicawber - you must report this officially, not least as you are making yourself just as guilty (in a moral/ethical sense, if not legal).

If people see wrongdoing, and do not tackle it; then it will thrive. Inaction in the face of such knowledge is not something I would want on my conscience. I know it must be hard for you, but it is the only way to stop being a supporter of a wrongdoer - for you actions are having more of an impact than any words here could.

Please, please do the right thing.

I'm shocked at that. It's absolutely forbidden, and puts you in an invidious position. I can only say again that your experience was highly irregular. My best guess is that your company was selected for either a PAYE or VAT audit. If I'm right, the HMRC Inspector would have been relatively junior. If s/he found some irregularities, the boss may have thought Wimbledon tickets would encourage the Inspector to look the other way.

On the wider issue of the Audit Committee report - I'd make the observation that none of the MPs are tax experts...

Just because something has been reported in Private Eye doesn't make it true. And in this case it isn't.

No statute of limitations as such, I think. But proof is a bigger issue. After 6 years I don't think there's much you can do. Even if you could show that the individual in question accepted hospitality from your company, it would be very hard to show that doing so influenced the outcome of his/her investigations. It sucks.

If anyone ever comes across something similar then definitely report it.

You don't need proof - do the right and honourable thing and report it for investigation.

The one specific exchange might not be susceptible to conclusive proof, but it might be important in wider investigations, especially if the individual you accuse of corruption is still in situ.

You make yourself something like an accessory if you do nothing. Is that really what you want to be - someone who could act but chooses to turn a blind eye?

MrsMicawber my link shows all the hospitality enjoyed by civil servants - some did go to Wimbledon, but the reporting has been along the lines of:
civil servants get posh invites inc wimbledon, Dave Harnett has had the most.
This implies he had this hospitality, but if you look at the link, then he has not - only soggy sandwiches.
All this shows however, is that he was not influenced by this hospitality - not to general competence or other unknown.

But juries are provided with curly edged sandwiches to allow them to continue their deliberations uninterrupted...

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19654