HMRC Is Shite

HMRC Is Shite
Dedicated to the taxpayers of Britain, and the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who have to endure the monumental shambles that is HMRC.

Sunday, 2 December 2012

Power Corrupts

As per today's Telegraph:
"Judge Lewison was astonished when one HMRC employee admitted that he had no evidence that Abbey had been involved in fraud, but maintained that he had no proof that it was not involved in criminal activity -- which, as the judge pointed out, is not grounds in law for liquidating the company."

Tax does have to be taxing.

Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations

Insurance to protect you against the cost of enquiry or dispute with HMRC is available from several sources including Solar Tax Investigation Insurance.

Ken Frost has negotiated a 10% discount on any polices that may suit your needs.

However, neither Ken Frost nor HMRCISSHITE either endorses or recommends their services.

What is Solar Tax Investigation Insurance?

Solar Tax Investigation Insurance 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 Solar Tax Investigation Insurance



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"

3 comments:

  1. Ken,

    This is very disturbing and has a familiar ring to it, I am surprised the Telegraph has not noticed the similarities to the LCB(London City Bond)case?!

    Quote from the article:-
    "Backed by the state, HMRC had infinite funds. They knew that their opponents had very limited resources."
    This summarises things well, HMRC broke the law for years then and continue to do so now.
    The system won't go anywhere near them for some reason and I very much doubt the IPCC has the stomach for it.

    Be interesting to see what the backlash is to the truth behind the Rangers case though, maybe that will finally blow the lid off the cesspit that is HMRC.

    Wake the MP's up, it's is their constituents money being wasted.

    And malfaesance should be aimed at HMRC management and the twit of a woman from the private sector who so obviously feels she can do what she wants - pedastal off knocked better the sooner?!!(courtesy - Yoda)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having now read the telegraph article I agree with 12:24's posting.
    Anyone with a grain of commonsense will have now realised that HMRC are acting with disregard for the law and ethics of this land.
    If the report is correct and the "liquidator" knew ahead of the malfaesance case as reported that an allegation was false is that not a failing somewhere in the system to deal legally with disclosure of potential value to the defense?
    Is there something else waiting to have the light of day shed upon it?

    "When a judge was able to test HMRC's evidence properly he found it was all rubbush..." WTF is going on?!

    This is evidence of how they treat their external customers, how on earth are they treating their internal customers (staff)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. About time for a real truthseeking challenge methinks Ken!

    Pull together all the potentially really interested parties e.g.
    HMRCISSHITE
    Private Eye
    38 Degrees
    Tax Justice
    Accountancy Profession (should have a few contacts?)
    OAP Groups
    The Law Association
    Barristers (those with conviction and ethics)
    TaxPayers Alliance
    Members of the public with an interest (majority of honest taxpayers)

    Don't bother with the likes of
    Treasury Select Comm.
    The PCS (lacks the will)
    NAO (useless)

    Start with a petition, should be easy to exceed the 100k level...
    and take it from there
    Judicial Review?

    ReplyDelete