As some will have noticed, I have been critical of George Osborne's plans for new tax penalties over the weekend. There have been three reasons for doing so.
First, I am wary if his explanation for this move. I am not convinced this is a real change in policy and is much more a PR exercise.
Second, without staff at HMRC to bring cases any such move is irrelevant and HMRC is scheduled to lose many thousands of staff over the next year or two.
Third, I have problems believing the legal interpretation given to justify the move that it is hard to prove intent in tax evasion cases. I do not agree. What I do think is that some very poor cases - such as the Redknapp case where the defence was there was no taxable income - have been chosen for prosecution and this has seriously undermined HMRC's position.
Some have, however, interpreted this as me being soft on those who are tax evading. Far from it: I want many more prosecutions, but if we are to have them then let's get rid of the ambiguities so that cases can be more readily dealt with. There are, of course, ways to do this, but I fear HMRC will not take them.
Let me offer an obvious solution. I would require that a tax return should demand that a tax payer disclosed all their bank accounts. This is, if course, just about the first information always demanded in a tax investigation so it is important. Most of us don't have many. And it's not hard to list them all. Then it becomes a relatively simple matter to prosecute someone for failing to disclose a bank account if that is appropriate. No intent need be proven: it's error that could trigger the penalty. Of course some guide lines would be needed: failing to disclose an account that has not been used for years and has less than, say, £500 in it which has not accessed during a year should not be a crime, but above that a penalty could be imposed - and a criminal one if need be.
And there could be personal penalties for failing to disclose that the individual was a signatory to a corporate bank account. I know for a tiny number of people this will require considerable disclosure. So what? Good governance requires that people know this sort if thing.
And penalties should, of course, relate to domestic as well as offshore abuse. Both are important.
Make this one simple change and motive disappears from the question of culpability: fact determines the issue. Penalties could be geared (I suggest very heavily) to the sums involved. That is tax justice.
What we would then have is a new disclosure mechanism with penalties attached for three issues: offshore tax evasion, tackling the self-employed shadow economy and for using companies for tax evasion purposes. We could get all this in one go, and all with criminal penalties attached. And for most people the cost of compliance would be tiny.
I am not expecting such a neat solution from HMRC this morning when they issue their consultation on this issue. But if I were in the Treasury this is what I would do. And it would work.
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:
I agree it would be sensible for individuals to have to list all their bank accounts rather than just the interest they’ve received. Apart from anything it means that the individual is less likely to inadvertently overlook an account in the following year. Whether an omission should automatically be a criminal offence is one for debate. Perhaps some sort of “three strikes” (or suitable number) rule should be considered. E.g. Financial civil penalty for the first transgression, larger penalty for the second and criminal action for the third. Of course there should always be discretion to go straight to criminal prosecution if the transgression is so egregious or to choose a further financial penalty if the third transgression is trivial (like your own example of the long forgotten semi dormant account).
I agree: but there is always discretion on when to prosecute
The French tax form has a box to tick if you have “opened, closed or used” any bank accounts or life insurance contracts abroad during the year (they already know about accounts in France, notified directly by the banks). In which case you are required to attach a list with details. It informs you that you are obliged to declare such accounts ‘sous peine d’amendes’ – ie you can be fined. I imagine that in serious cases you can also be prosecuted.
The difficulty of course remains for them to discover the important undeclared accounts. Last year, when I was handing in my tax declaration in person at our local tax office (yes, we still have those!) – having gone there to query another point – the tax man was handing me back the piece of paper on which I’d listed (as I always do) my little UK/IOM accounts, not realising it was for him. When I explained what it was, he replied with a wry smile something like ‘ah yes, but it’s the Swiss ones we need, and we don’t get those!’
Surely it would just be like the US F-BAR annual reporting requirement?
I would look at it another way and make it a criminal offence for an EC Bank not to report an account to HMRC. HMRC already should (has previously been patchy) report Interest payments directly to HMRC. So why not “pre populate” Income Tax Returns
with Interest figures over a minimum amount rather than people entering the sums themselves? With experience of recent HMRC correspondence I think we are on the way to that anyway.
By the way the Interest figure should give an indication of capital amounts held- which is probably a more important factor in tax evasion than Interest Income.
Correction -Banks should report Interest to HMRC!
Richard, I wonder if you have seen the report about Barclays helping wealthy clients to set up accounts in Mauritius?
I learned of it through a ‘sumofus’ petition this morning.
I have
I think I covered it here some time ago…