As the Guardian has reported overnight:
The minister in charge of tax expressed support for a strategy to undermine evidence from a whistleblower who uncovered the notorious Goldman Sachs "sweetheart" deal, according to emails seen by the Guardian.
David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, approved of a plan to brief a journalist with information to help discredit testimony from Osita Mba, a solicitor with HM Revenue and Customs.
Now the evidence that's been published is not unambiguous, I admit. Certainly Gauke did, in the end, leave Hartnett to make his own comment but yet again I think Margaret Hodge (who has, I suspect seem the whole correspondence) seems to have got this right, saying:
"The government claims it is committed to ensuring that big business and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax, she said. "But this raises serious questions about whether, behind the scenes, it is simply a case of business as usual.
"The minister responsible appears to have gone along with HMRC's efforts to dismiss out of hand our criticisms, and public concerns, around these 'sweetheart' deals, efforts which involved attempting to discredit the evidence of a whistleblower who had come forward. Clearly, he [the minister] and HMRC have questions to answer."
And that this is the case is supported by a no doubt well sourced comment in the Guardian that says:
A Treasury spokesperson said Gauke was "entirely supportive" of HMRC's large-business strategy, and agreed that inaccurate statements about it should be corrected by HMRC.
There's much to make any reasonable and informed observer think that all that the government says on tax is simply PR guff. Whilst saying it will be tough on tax avoidance it has entered into aggressive tax competition on rates whilst massively increasing the opportunity for big business to move profit out of the UK in a series of moves over the last three years. Now it's clear that they did not support a whistleblower who was entitled to legal protection when reporting that HMRC had acted incorrectly at the highest level (something now admitted). What next, I wonder? A UKIP inspired tax haven UK?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yet another example of the ugly face of the corporate (or corporatised) public sphere, Richard.
Just come across this film trailer dealing with the ‘corporatised public sphere’ costs $5 to download: http://www.fourhorsemenfilm.com/
No surprises there. David Gauke’s biggest “achievement” is this sell-out of British tax policy and administration to large business. Remember that Taxation magazine awarded him the Tax Personality of the Year before Mr Mba’s whistleblowing exposed the underbelly of the flawed large business strategy. No wonder HM Treasury and HMRC are furious with him. On a personal level, I wonder where he will find employment after this given how incestous the tax profession is. When HMRC and HMT have declared war on you even the academia with their links to large business and the big 4 will not touch you with a barge pole.
And Gauke is supposed to be Osborne’s “safe pair of hands”?
I have no doubt in my mind that the higher echelons of HMRC and in particular, Dave Hartnett, have acted incorrectly.
Osita Mba was quite right to draw attention to the sweetheart deals, because this is most certainly in the public interest, oh that is if we live in a democratic rather than corporate run society.
Is there some way of raising this in the public domain such as putting together a petition in support Of Osita MBA on 38 degrees? Would the unions lend support given the public interest dimension?
Gauke has not accounted for his role in these sweetheart deals. Treasury spokesman says he is entitled to support HMRC but why didn’t he do it before the PAC or in the media rather than by authorising secret briefings to pro-business journalsts. There is something deeply disturbing about this.
The less tax this government collects the more it has to cut spending on the lower orders.
It’s a win-win for them.
It is an open secret that Whitehall does not condone whistleblowing even when it is manifestly in the public interest. Lip service is paid to the Public Interest Disclosure Act but in reality you speak out at your peril. Incidentally, I listened to Hoon and Gilligan slugging it out on Sun in R4’s The Reunion on who was culpable for the death of Dr David Kelly over the Iraq dodgy dossier. This is man that spoke out but ended up paying with his life and ultimately his genuine concerns were swept aside by the establishment and the conniving media and we went to war on a lie. It goes to show why whistleblowers must be listened to and supported and not smeared and blacklisted. Kudos for highlighting this, Richard. I doubt many in the tax profession will be similarly inclined!
In other news …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/07/hmrc-help-ethiopia-tanzania-taxes
‘HMRC to help Ethiopia and Tanzania collect taxes’
Gauke said: “This government is committed to building capacity within the governments of developing countries so that they can make changes that will have long-term benefits.
“One crucial part of this is providing expertise in tax collection. Through these projects we will work with the Tanzanian and Ethiopian governments to put in place more effective tax administration and collect the tax which they are owed.”
I have nothing against this
I just wish they’d do it better here