Let’s have a nation or narks and sneaks

This is precisely why I have always said that tax whistleblowers should be paid. I think the minimum should be ten percent of the sum recovered. The option to pay up to thirty percent if the risk from making disclosure is high shoukd be available.

Joy, eh?

24 thoughts on “Let’s have a nation or narks and sneaks”

  1. Excellent idea, can I claim 10-30% of the value of the council tax on his old annexe I got Ritchie to pay?

  2. Just to be controversial – I say sure, why not? As long as the whistleblower has to cough up all the costs if nothing is recovered because it’s actually all legal.

  3. Ooh, please sir please!

    Can I report the naughty man using a Friendly Society as a vehicle for his Fair Tax Mark?

  4. I am reminded of the philosophy of one of the most famous commentators on TRUK, Lavrenti Beria:

    ‘You find me the man, I’ll find the crime’

    You’ve got it spot on Tim – that is exactly what Murphy envisages – a nation of informants along the lines of East Germany…

  5. A man so stupid that he went to Dachau and thought that he could have been an inmate, when everyone knows he is, by instinct and inclination, one of the guards.

  6. Could we have the same for benefit cheats?

    @Noel Scoper
    August 19, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Excellent idea, can I claim 10-30% of the value of the council tax on his old annexe I got Ritchie to pay?

    Please tell more.

  7. Noel, I’d forgotten that. You played him beautifully – like Viv Richards toying with Paul Allott.

    Re the family-sized cunt himself, I don’t think mere Kommandant of a kamp would be enough. Given half a sniff, he’d be the Pol Pot of East Anglia.

  8. Any such measure should be contingent on a successful prosecution for tax evasion and nothing less.

    The slippery slope of this kind of suggestion is entirely down to HMRC muddying the waters over what is tax avoidance by not attempting to prosecute in cases that read much more like tax evasion.

    Cases going to court, rather than tribunal, would dissuade tax evasion, help clarify existing law and provide a transparent feedback to lawmakers as to what needs revising. Instead what we have is HMRC handwaving over what is and isn’t legal, leading to uncertainty for taxpayers, tax advisers and lawmakers.

  9. You would have thought that a noted tax expert would be aware that HMRC already DO make payments to informants and paid out around £600,000 in 2014-15 – the last year I have seen a figure for.

  10. “… entirely down to HMRC muddying the waters over what is tax avoidance by not attempting to prosecute in cases that read much more like tax evasion.”

    I think you’ll find that policy down to politicians and nothing to do with HMRC. It has been a political policy since at least the 1950s and repeatedly reinforced by successive parties.

    Suggest you google “tax Hansard extract”

  11. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    I had a pal who was a tax inspector ( haven’t seen him in years ) and he reckoned that 90% of his investigations were from tip-offs.

    Whenever something like this comes up, I am reminded of Paul Boateng, the oh-so-not hypocritical MP for Brent who accidentally turned Blairite and became Chief Sec to the Treasury and was such a success as our ambassador to South Africa. He decried the Neighbourhood Watch scheme in the ’80s as “Shop thy neighbour.”

  12. Bloke no longer in Austria

    Boateng was a reprehensible piece of crap certainly – a really odious individual…..

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Cases going to court, rather than tribunal, would dissuade tax evasion, help clarify existing law and provide a transparent feedback to lawmakers as to what needs revising. Instead what we have is HMRC handwaving over what is and isn’t legal, leading to uncertainty for taxpayers, tax advisers and lawmakers.”

    The definition of aggressive tax avoidance appears to be doing something that what intended to by Parliament. In that case they need to go back to Parliament and ask them to clarify the gibberish they spout.

    Which reminds me of this quote:

    “Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law.”

    -P.J. Painter.

  14. @Gareth “Cases going to court, rather than tribunal, would dissuade tax evasion, help clarify existing law and provide a transparent feedback to lawmakers as to what needs revising.”

    Not sure you really understand the Tax Tribunal set up.

    They are linked to the courts. Appeals against decisions in the Tribunals can go to the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    Lawmakers are perfectly well advised as to what needs amending by this process.

    If you mean that criminal prosecutions should be undertaken rather than civil proceedings then you only have to look at cases like Harry Rednapp to see why HMRC might want to take tax and penalties in a settlement rather than try a case which even if successful, is going to result in nothing more than the tax being due plus a fine plus, exceptionally, the cost of putting someone up in prison for a while.

    If you really want the courts clogged with tax cases for years to come because you don’t give the option to settle then that, I suppose, is a point of view.

  15. The US has such a system. The payments are sometimes referred to as “qui tam”

    Qui tam lawsuits are a type of civil lawsuit whistleblowers bring under the False Claims Act, a law that rewards whistleblowers if their qui tam cases recover funds for the government.

    http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/Qui-Tam-Whistleblowers/What-is-a-qui-tam-case.shtml

    btw, qui tam, is short for a Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro si ipso in hac parte sequitur.” In English, this means “he who brings an action for the king as well as for himself.”

  16. This would all be solved by all income being paid directly to the government. Who then would return some as ‘fair’ (or equal or diverse or something).
    Things are progressing to this end.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It’s an excellent idea. You could call it the Stopping Tax Avoidance Surveillance Initiative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *