Answering a question for Ritchie

His questions for HMRC at the PAC this afternoon. If any HMRC bods do read this blog please do feel free to lift these answers:

1. Your board is now dominated by people from the private sector, big business and big accountancy. Doesn’t that impair your objectivity, freedom for manoeuvre, credibility and independence and if so isn’t it time for a total re-think of the governance structures of HMRC?

This is rather the point of a Board. To have a majority of people from outside the organisation. For, you see, the job of the board is to hold the executives, and thus the organisation itself, to account. And this gets done rather better when you’ve people from outside the organisational culture doing it.

3. Why is that almost no one who has been trained within HMRC is promoted t its board? What is wrong with the training and the leadership of HMRC that it cannot apparently train its own leaders when that is the moral pattern in most organisations in the UK?

Because the arrogant little fucks who belong to your paymasters, the PCS union, tend to have nastily fascist ideas about liberty, freedom and the role of the law in defining what tax is payable and what is not.

4. Why don’t you recognise the tax avoidance of companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks in the tax gap reporting that you undertake? Doesn’t you denial of an obvious truth undermine the credibility of everything you have to say on this issue?

Because, as has endlessly been pointed out, none of those three companies are engaging in tax avoidance. We’ve even released a document where we point this out. Given that their tax arrangements do not constitute tax avoidance we do not include anything from them in our estimates of tax avoidance.

That a retired accountant from Wandsworth has decided to reclassify certain things is not the way that the law of this land is decided.

22. The G8 has called on the OECD to introduce country-by-country reporting. Why isn’t HMRC out in the business community demanding this information from multinational corporations now, and why can’t it be made a specific UK requirement that all companies supply country-by-country reports on all their activities to HMRC before any international consensus is reached?

HMRC is responsible for the administration of the law not the creation of it. Might we suggest that the PAC direct this question to its colleagues in the House of Commons?

23. Does arm’s length pricing work for transfer pricing purposes? If not – as seems clear to use – why aren’t you promoting unitary taxation?

See above. We do not make the law.

24. Why isn’t HMRC calling for reform of international rules on tax permanent establishment so that Amazon, Google and others can be taxed on what they do in the UK? Isn’t it your job to be vocal on this issue?

No, see above.

26. Why has the Swiss tax deal failed to collect the tax you claimed it would deliver?

Because there was massively less tax evasion in those Swiss accounts than the drivellings of a retired accountant from Wandsworth led us to expect there would be.

6 comments on “Answering a question for Ritchie

  1. Doug Casey – an American Investment Guru, stated that in all organisations, with time, the psychopaths get to the top.

    Reading the dross posted by your dear friend and esteemed colleague Ritchie, we are made aware of the close shave we’ve had with him being promoted at HMRC. What a nasty piece of work he would have been.

    But his ramblings also give you an insight into the puffed-up self-importance of the functionaries at HMRC.

  2. More toxic neo-liberal nonsense from Tim, as ever. The bankster-loving, baby-eating facist.

    This is rather the point of a Board. To have a majority of people from outside the organisation. For, you see, the job of the board is to hold the executives, and thus the organisation itself, to account.

    Sighs. The purpose of a board is to provide a comfortable, non-taxing sinecure for the more elderly of the metropolitan elite. Private companies for evil heartless milk-snatching Tory bastards, therefore, by definition public bodies are the natural home for those kindly and angelic never-wrong socialists.

  3. The senior civil service still rule the roost at HMRC. There are various fascistic “businesspeople”(ie business people whose real business is exploring the states arsehole) who are on the board in that they are picking up very hefty wages for part-time publicity-type bullshit with no real power to direct events. There is no way the senior civil service would lose control of a major satrapy like HMRC.

    Richiebollocks as usual.

  4. I can answer a couple of the questions suggested by the PCS, sorry by Richard Murphy:

    3. There was just an individual of the type ypu suggest Richard. His name was Dave Hartnett. He is an honest man but, you may recall, you called for him to be investigated by the SFO. So maybe we are where we are because somebody listened to a libellous little shit from Norfolk.

    4. Because if we did that Ms Oppenheimer, I would right now need to be describing your family’s arrangement as tax avoidance. The World would be very different then wouldn’t it.

    22. Er, is that entirely compatible with 23? (see below)

    23. Would there be any need for transfer pricing calculations under Unitary Taxation? Have you really thought this through?

    !ut yes Lady Hodge, there is a certain Swiss-based group with a petro-chemical operation in Scotland that would agree with you wholeheartedly just at the moment. However, a certain tit who styles himself variously as Tax Accountnat, Tax Expert, Analyst, Political Economist, would violently disagree, depending on who’s paying the bills.

    26. Er no, I didn’t think it was my job, or my place. But if Parliament wants to cede its sovereignty to HMRC officials… well, show me the Royal Seal.

  5. Richie should be assuring his cohorts in the PCS that they should be in the business of interpreting (I use the word loosely) the law according to his beliefs. The tax take would double, we would not have to put up with all the cheating, lying dago investors in this country, there would be far more personnel for union membership, no one could possibly be fired for doing their job properly. There must be many benefits I have missed, such as reducing Parliament’s time in having to draft legislation, and HMQ’s time signing said legislation into law. It’s a win/win answer.

  6. Check out Twitter: Ritchie trying tpo blag himself a gig. Yes Richard, I would call Richard Brookes a tax professional. And you know what the hell I call you!

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.