Slight HMRC rant

jaydeeuk1

Yes, I know they have a job to do ensuring that they collect all taxes (unless you're a large multinational) but I do believe in some cases the punishment far exceeds the crime.

This came up on MSN so had a quick look to make sure I wasn't on there.

http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/hmrcs-most-wanted-tax-evaders#image=2

Not condoning what she had done... but bearing in mind Rolf Harris received 4 years, and if you're a large company potentially facing billions in tax that can be written off over a meal it seems somewhat excessive, and politicians, bankers costing the Govt far more get away with it.

Suppose the moral of the story is, if you aspire to be a criminal, don't steal from the Govt, or if you do, treat your HMRC inspector to a Nando's.

davehughes182

Meh,

The punishment fits the crime. She probably benefited from that 1/4 million directly. Multinational Companies are on a different scale. What can you do? Jail the whole of Starbucks payroll for them not paying tax?
If she had turned up to the trial, she might have gotten less time or arranged to repay them but she didnt.

InsideInsurance

The other key difference is here you have a list of people that have had trials and been found guilty of an offence.

The companies that you refer to have not been taken to court and thus you cannot say that they have committed any offences. They may well be using loopholes/ going against the "spirit" of the law but that doesnt make it illegal.

HMRC has to weigh up the cost of litigation, which against a multi-national corporate entity will be much more, and negotiating a settlement outside of the courts

The real solution is to change the law to remove the loopholes and get out clauses the corporates are using but the issues are that we seem to want a complex tax system and secondly that corporates can afford to pay tax experts to find the loopholes after the laws written so the government is always going to be on the back foot.

paddyrg

Tax is impossible to get right, exacerbated by layers of laws so for instance Amazon don't do business in the UK, so pay negligible tax here. Simplifying things eg flat rate tax penalises low earners disproportionately, so the rules just get more complex which creates more loopholes.

You can't send everyone from Starbucks to prison, as much as it would improve the average coffee quality on the high street, but you can send key directors. If that was a real threat for a few key finance 'c'-level roles, there would be a lot more playing within the rules and spirit and a lot less trying to game taxes without risk of consequence.

keyser666

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Yes, I know they have a job to do ensuring that they collect all taxes (unless you're a large multinational) but I do believe in some cases the punishment far exceeds the crime.

This came up on MSN so had a quick look to make sure I wasn't on there.

http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/hmrcs-most-wanted-tax-evaders#image=2

Not condoning what she had done... but bearing in mind Rolf Harris received 4 years, and if you're a large company potentially facing billions in tax that can be written off over a meal it seems somewhat excessive, and politicians, bankers costing the Govt far more get away with it.

Suppose the moral of the story is, if you aspire to be a criminal, don't steal from the Govt, or if you do, treat your HMRC inspector to a Nando's.

There is no comparison here with the Rolf harris sentence and it is absurd to compare. He was sentenced unde the sexual offences act 1956, if he had been sentenced under the sexual offences act 2006 he would have got far more than those in your link