Despite the cutbacks at HMRC it is gratifying toe read that Dave Hartnett, permanent secretary for tax at HMRC, (the self proclaimed scourge of tax avoiders) wins the title of Whitehall's most wined and dined civil servant.
The Telegraph reports that Hartnett has treated to corporate hospitality on 107 occasions over the past three years, mostly at breakfasts, lunches and dinners, by some of the UK's biggest banks, law firms and accountancy firms.
It should of course not escape your notice that these firms are paid by people and companies to help them (perfectly legitimately) avoid tax.
The good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
Tax does have to be taxing.
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations
What is TAXWISE?
TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.
To find out more, please use this link Taxwise
Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.
Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies
HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
It should of course not escape your notice that these firms are paid by people and companies to help them (perfectly legitimately) avoid tax.
ReplyDeleteI think they call that hypocrisy and I thought that is what HMRC run on.
This is a disgrace - full stop. The excuse used by HMRC that "a jockey has to go to the racecourse" is frankly nonsense and totally misleading. A jockey works at the racecourse, Hartnett works at Portcullis House, or is it still Somerset House, either way their will be many meeting rooms available for him to do his job. At the racecourse the Jockey only associates with those he is working with. What Hartnett is doing is more akin to the jockey going out to dinner with the bookies, for which he, rightly, would be villified.
ReplyDeleteThe civil service is now a completely discredited organisation, at senior level. I feel so sorry for HMRC staff who are lions led by vultures.
The fact is that Hartnett is beyond reproach - I wonder why?
Amongst Dave's remit in the department's austerity review is to look at ways of cutting down on T&S expenditure.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that he has found an ingenious way to achieve this - get some other poor sucker to pay for you.
The great irony of course is that if any of Dave's staff indulged in this type of behaviour we would be subjected to instant disciplinary proceedings.
Can anyone tell me if the new government plan to hold these overpaid buffoons to account?
ReplyDeleteLunch with Goldman Sachs. Says it all really.
ReplyDeleteActually I feel sorry for Hartnett, he has fucked us all more than Strathie but I did not see him getting a gong at bucky house.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
ReplyDeleteTaken to it's logical conclusion, this 'indirectly' argument could be applied to every transaction between any human being and any profit-making venture in the entire world as the XXX-nationalities public has paid for YYY somewhere to enjoy ZZZ which will me taken from 123 somewhere at some point.
The good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
ReplyDeleteTaken to its logical conclusion, couldn't this scenario apply to every transaction between a customer and a profit-making venture in the entire world? As 'Indirectly' a cost arises somewhere in any company that is detrimental to the profits of said company and therefore have to be counterbalanced elsewhere.
I'm not defending him - as gifts of hospitality which could be seen to influence someone are explicitly forbidden by the civil service code and HMRC's own disciplinary procedures - it's just an extremely weak argument to suggest that because bankers clients are indirectly paying for him through added costs as this ultimately applies to any business.
The good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
ReplyDeleteTaken to its logical conclusion, couldn't this scenario apply to every transaction between a customer and a profit-making venture in the entire world? As 'Indirectly' a cost arises somewhere in any company that is detrimental to the profits of said company and therefore have to be counterbalanced elsewhere.
I'm not defending him - as gifts of hospitality which could be seen to influence someone are explicitly forbidden by the civil service code and HMRC's own disciplinary procedures - it's just an extremely weak argument to suggest that because bankers clients are indirectly paying for him through added costs as this ultimately applies to any business.
The good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
ReplyDeleteTaken to its logical conclusion, couldn't this scenario apply to every transaction between a customer and a profit-making venture in the entire world? As 'Indirectly' a cost arises somewhere in any company that is detrimental to the profits of said company and therefore have to be counterbalanced elsewhere.
I'm not defending him - as gifts of hospitality which could be seen to influence someone are explicitly forbidden by the civil service code and HMRC's own disciplinary procedures - it's just an extremely weak argument to suggest that because bankers clients are indirectly paying for him through added costs as this ultimately applies to any business.
The good news is of course that HMRC, I assume, hasn't directly paid for these meals. Indirectly, I dare say, the firms who shelled out for them have charged the costs to their clients (so in the end the British public have ended up paying for this dining fest).
ReplyDeleteTaken to its logical conclusion, couldn't this scenario apply to every transaction between a customer and a profit-making venture in the entire world? As 'Indirectly' a cost arises somewhere in any company that is detrimental to the profits of said company and therefore have to be counterbalanced elsewhere.
I'm not defending him - as gifts of hospitality which could be seen to influence someone are explicitly forbidden by the civil service code and HMRC's own disciplinary procedures - it's just an extremely weak argument to suggest that because bankers clients are indirectly paying for him through added costs as this ultimately applies to any business.
Totally unrelated to the topic, but in an intranet story today - apparently HMRC wants to change which public holidays are given to staff in Northern Ireland.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realise they had that much power?
HMRC Excom also believes it has the power to alter national holidays.
ReplyDeleteIt has now put out a memo and probably a 'consultation document' to its Northern Ireland workers to suggest that the time given for public holidays over Easter is moved from the Tuesday after to the Friday before.
HMRC Excom also believes it has the power to alter national holidays.
ReplyDeleteIt has now put out a memo and probably a 'consultation document' to its Northern Ireland workers to suggest that the time given for public holidays over Easter is moved from the Tuesday after to the Friday before.