Further humiliation for Osborne and HMRC over tax avoidance

0sborne has every reason to be red-raced with embarrassment over his pitiful record regarding tax avoidance. Parliament's public accounts committee has done all the hard work for him and he still can't put it into practice!

0sborne has every reason to be red-raced with embarrassment over his pitiful record regarding tax avoidance. Parliament’s public accounts committee has done all the hard work for him and he still can’t put it into practice!

Revenue and Customs bosses, reeling from the broadside they took for claiming the UK’s tax-dodging public enemy number one was a hairdresser from Liverpool, can take no solace from the attitude of Parliament’s own public accounts committee.

Three days before HMRC published its silly little list, the committee called on it to “publically name and shame” all organisations and individuals who sell or use tax avoidance schemes, in order to discourage such activity.

The fact that the organisation has not taken the opportunity to do so serious undermines its position.

Let’s have a look at what the UK Parliament’s website – www.parliament.uk – has to say about the government’s stance, because the criticism is so heavy it’s almost funny:

Tax avoidance—using tax law to gain a tax advantage not intended by Parliament—reduces the money available to fund public services and is completely unfair to the majority who pay the tax due. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimates that in 2010-11 the tax gap due to avoidance was £5 billion. HMRC further estimates that the present total tax at risk from avoidance over time is £10.2 billion.

In Australia, promoters have to get clearance for schemes before they introduce them. An advance ruling system of this type could deter contrived avoidance schemes and increase certainty in the tax system. Australia has also introduced powers to fine those who promote schemes that could not reasonably be expected to work or comply with the advance ruling system.

“Promoters of ‘boutique’ tax avoidance schemes like the one brought to our attention by the case of Jimmy Carr, are running rings around HMRC,” said Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee.

“They create schemes which exploit loopholes in legislation or abuse available tax reliefs, such as those intended to encourage investment in British films, and then sign up as many clients as possible, knowing that it will take time for HMRC to change the law and shut the scheme down.

“Their clients can then take advantage of this window of opportunity to make a lot of money at the expense of the taxpayer, while the promoter simply moves on to a new scheme and repeats the process. It is a game of cat and mouse and HMRC is losing.

It has allowed a system to evolve where the die are loaded in favour of the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The complexity of tax law creates opportunities for avoidance, there are no penalties to stop people promoting these schemes, and HMRC is ineffective in challenging promoters who are deliberately obstructive or deliberately sell schemes they know do not work. Promoters pocket their fees whether their schemes work or not.

“There is also a lack of transparency that makes it very hard to find out who is involved in marketing or using these schemes. HMRC publicises details of schemes that do not work but does not name the promoters or the clients. We have seen how public anger and consumer pressure can influence large companies, such as Starbucks, to behave more responsibly.

HMRC should publically name and shame those who sell or use tax avoidance schemes in order to discourage such activity. With at least £5 billion lost to tax avoidance each year, HMRC has got to get much more robust in its approach.

“The requirement that promoters give early notification to HMRC of new schemes has resulted in the swift closure of some. But the Department does not know how many promoters simply choose to ignore the requirement. We are also alarmed to hear that promoters are getting off paying fines for not disclosing their schemes by pleading that, in the opinion of a QC, they have a ‘reasonable excuse’ for non-disclosure. HMRC is right to explore how to make it more difficult for this tactic to work.

“The number of cases HMRC takes to court is tiny compared to the overall caseload. It must make use of the additional resources it has been given to act much more urgently to investigate and close down new schemes and to bring more cases to court.

“Since our hearing, the Government has announced that it is consulting on draft rules designed to allow departments to ban tax-avoiding businesses from being awarded government contracts. This is a welcome move but we will want to monitor closely how any such rules are applied in practice.”

I wonder if the rules on banning tax-avoiding businesses from taking up government contracts will ever see the light of day?

15 thoughts on “Further humiliation for Osborne and HMRC over tax avoidance

  1. Jack Johnson

    While the Conservative party is funded by businesses you will never get them
    to be serious about meaningful legislation. It needs Labour to get elected and
    end the cheating once and for all.They must put this in their manifesto.

      1. Joan

        Well, it was “New Labour”, who have very little to do with the Labour party as rank and file would like to see it. I remember when I was first a union membership secretary, we had pamphlets handed to new members to promote the political levy. These pointed out that the levy was necessary to allow the unions to support the Labour Party since the Tories were so well-funded by big business. How things changed with Blair. “New Labour” probably got more money from business than they did from the unions, whose levies had been sabotaged by Thatcher.

  2. Martin Kroupa

    It’s easier for HMRC to target small companies by investigations for a couple of hundreds £ they may have missed on tax and individuals with alleged over-payments of tax credits instead of focusing on the real tax dodgers. Such HMRC activities could be described as corruption or even inside terrorism in other words.

    1. Jack Johnson

      Having worked in security for HMRC I do think that one of the reasons that they go
      for easy targets is that the government have made vast cuts in tax inspectors and
      agents,ask the PCS. Tax avoidance must be made illegal and off shore tax havens
      abolished. Perhaps we can then start reducing the estimated £120bn in tax fiddles.

  3. Michael Stimpson

    God help us Jack! Another round of labour is only slightly better than the con-dems. I did not notice that we had a utopia after nearly 15 years of labour rule, why did they not close the tax loop-holes when they had the chance? They were too busy riding on the crest of the wave of extreme real estate bubble engineered by brown in collusion with the banks which has caused rents and real estate prices to double since 2000. Effectively Brown pushed back the depression making it deeper and longer than it would have been had they let it happen a decade ago.

    1. Chad Valentine

      Whats your point Michael? Labour didnt close them but neither have the con dems. most of the public have only found out about this issue in the last few years and gotten angry about it. Notice how the condems dont gaf ? bet labour would if it would get them elected again.

  4. Jack Johnson

    I agree with you Michael New Labour was neo Conservative. I am hoping
    that the two Ed’s will bury the Blairites and get back to real Labour values.

  5. Tojo1373

    And there you have it HMRC going after easy targets. Heres a thought HMRC grow a pair and go after some real criminals like the large multi nationals that owe this country Millions. Sorry arent we all this in it together, unfortunately some of us more than others.

  6. Martin Kroupa

    I agree with you Jack and I share your hopes. My above comment is a bit satiric. Perhaps HMRC are not that incompetent or corrupt. The Conservative led government could make the vast cuts in tax inspectors and agents to suit purpose of theirs and of their affiliates (associates) – to make real money by dodging the real taxes. By purpose (fish stinks from the head) or from their incompetence or maybe just because of thoughtlessness and naivety of those in power?

    1. Jack Johnson

      It’s nice to think that those in power are just incompetent, thoughtless and naive
      but for myself I think the bastards in power are just plain evil..

Comments are closed.