Can Inland Revenue look in my bank accounts?

Stavros_3

Blah99 wrote: »

Yes, the police could *potentially* engage a wiretap or surveillance on you without proper legal authorisation,

WRONG - This is used very sparingly for very, VERY serious cases, moreover it requires by law a warrant signed by the Home Secretary. Stop putting garbage on forums that are clearly misleading and highly innacurate.

trenchwars

Stavros wrote: »

WRONG - This is used very sparingly for very, VERY serious cases, moreover it requires by law a warrant signed by the Home Secretary. Stop putting garbage on forums that are clearly misleading and highly innacurate.

How do you know how often interception takes place? If you really knew you wouldn't be talking about it on an internet forum

LesU

Blah99 wrote: »

You're confusing issues. Disregard the Damian Green thing, because that's irrelevant.

Yes, the police could *potentially* engage a wiretap or surveillance on you without proper legal authorisation, but when the case went to court and discovery was initiated your legal defence would be a failure to follow the law. Remember that the police cannot lie or be generous with the facts to obtain a warrant and they must have reasonable cause for suspicion, which includes evidence to back it up. Fishing isn't allowed.

But the original question was:- Can the IR/Government look in your accounts? This is quite possible using anti-terrorist or drugs related suspicions.
We are not necessarily talking about bringing a case to court.
But, for example:
"Let's take a look because this guy knows that guy, who knows this guy that we think is involved in terrorist related activities".
"Ok, we've had a look and can't see anything so this guy's clean. Hang on a minute, how much does this guy say he earns? Where is all of this money coming from then? Better take another look."
"This guy looks a little dodgy, not our scene but pass it on to IR"
"If they take it to court and the judge asks us why we were delving into this account, just pull the 'state security, can't divulge this info' routine."

trenchwars

What about the Serious Crime Act passed last year.

It includes provisions for sharing data with anti-fraud organisations - could this be used to sneak a peek at your bank records?

meatandtwoveg

Of course they can. Otherwise why would anyone earning say close to or over the 20% tax limit on PAYE, who has other investments such as say savings interest or share dividends; why would they come clean and say yes i owe Mr HRMC some tax on my savings interest or share dividends because my PAYE wages combined with this extra income took me over the 20% threshold so i want to pay what i owe etc?


It is not worth trying to hide from HRMC, they may not get you, but if you have something to hide and they do, well they will completely f)00))k you, so best to pay up what you owe and sleep well!!!!

Trollfever

OP has not posted for 36 hours.

Currently being held for questioning in the UK version of Guantanamo Bay.

Stavros_3

trenchwars wrote: »

How do you know how often interception takes place? If you really knew you wouldn't be talking about it on an internet forum

Did I say how many times it takes place. I was putting the original comment into context the maker of which has been watching too much t.v

Mikeyorks

meatandtwoveg wrote: »

Of course they can. Otherwise why would anyone earning say close to or over the 20% tax limit on PAYE, who has other investments such as say savings interest or share dividends; why would they come clean and say yes i owe Mr HRMC some tax on my savings interest or share dividends because my PAYE wages combined with this extra income took me over the 20% threshold so i want to pay what i owe etc?

Because deposit takers are obliged to make an annual return to HMRC identifying people to whom they've paid interest - the value and whether net / gross.

Which is very different to HMRC having general powers to look at individual transactions whenever the whim takes. Which they cannot do.

phatbear

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

HMRC can command the police and local army unit in recovery of any revenue it suspects due and may break into houses without a formal search warrant if circumstances demand it

And if anyone is interested the legislation is section 11 of CEMA 1979, which empowers to customs officers to demand the assistance of police/armed forces and the coast guard, and there is a permanenet warrant in place called the writ of assistance, however the normal route is to get a search warrant from a judge.

Blah99

Stavros wrote: »

WRONG - This is used very sparingly for very, VERY serious cases, moreover it requires by law a warrant signed by the Home Secretary. Stop putting garbage on forums that are clearly misleading and highly innacurate.

Excuse me? I said they could potentially do this, which is absolutely accurate. Not the first time you've objected to one of my posts on spurious grounds. You love being a pedant, don't you!

That may work in the USA where judges are more likely to throw out evidence obtained unlawfully (although less so in recent years), but not so in the UK.

It absolutely does apply to the UK. For a flippant example, consider the well-known solicitor who gets people off speeding tickets. He does it on technicalities exactly like this - incorrectly issued documents etc etc.