The Guardian sates that Goldman Sachs have not opposed the hearing or rebutted the claims directly.
However, HMRC
are not happy to be in the dock and have stated that the National Audit Office should investigate the claims.
All very well, maybe, if the NAO has any power to quash the deal and force HMRC to reclaim the money in full. UK Uncut claim that it doesn't have that power.
All very well, maybe, if the NAO has any power to quash the deal and force HMRC to reclaim the money in full. UK Uncut claim that it doesn't have that power.
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"
"However, HMRC are not happy to be in the dock and have stated that the National Audit Office should investigate the claims."
ReplyDeleteFunny that; didn't the HMRC whistleblower report this deal to the NAO in March 2011 and the NAO covered it up? It was only when the whistleblower reported it to the PAC that Margaret Hodge forced the NAO to start all over leading to the appointment of Judge Andrew Park to look into it. Clearly HMRC loves NAO and trusts nobody but the NAO.
Not sure about NAO covering it up, but HMRC certainly went after Mr Mba for whistleblowing:
Deletehttp://hmrcisshite.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/dangers-of-dissent-hmrc-harassment.html
this how the NAO reported the Goldman Sachs deal (without naming the taxpayer and giving the impression that the 'error' was corrected:
Delete"A case was settled before the Department recognised that it should have ¬¬been referred to the Programme Board. The Board identified a financial error, demonstrating its value as a check on settlement proposals."
see para 2.37 of this report http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/hmrc_accounts_2010-11.aspx
and then this:
Deletehttp://www.nao.org.uk/publications/work_in_progress/larger_tax_settlements.aspx
"In July, we reviewed HMRC's governance procedures for resolving large tax disputes (HM Revenue & Customs 2010-11 report and accounts, 8 July 2011).
At the 17 October 2011 Public Accounts Committee hearing on our report, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) committed to doing additional work to examine the reasonableness of some of the larger settlements, with the benefit of tax advice.
Sir Andrew Park has agreed to provide this tax expertise to assist the C&AG with our review. Sir Andrew is a retired High Court judge who, as a barrister and later as a judge, participated in many tax cases at all levels up to the House of Lords.
The review will examine the reasonableness of five of the largest tax settlements. For each, it will look at whether:
•the settlement value was reasonable given the circumstances of the case;
•it was consistent with HMRC's Litigation and Settlement Strategy;
•appropriate legal advice was sought and acted upon; and
•HMRC followed its own procedures.
NAO's modus operandi is "mistakes were made; we recommend the following lessons for the future". So UK Uncut are right to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
ReplyDeleteUK uncut have an appeal for legal funds the donate a £1 can be found at http://ukuncutlegalaction.org.uk/
Deletewould be nice to see Jack enjoying his retirement in the dock defending his dodgy deals. how are the mighty fallen?
ReplyDelete