FT.com / Tax - Revenue extends offshore tax amnesty deadline .
The FT notes:
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is extending the deadline for its tax amnesty for offshore savers in a last-minute push by the tax authority to draw attention to its ”last chance” amnesty for evaders.
In a statement put out on Friday the Revenue said that individuals now have until 4 January 2010 to tell it about any undeclared offshore accounts before its new disclosure opportunity (NDO) ends.
The Revenue is expected to make good use of the next five weeks by writing to more individuals holding offshore accounts. To date it has only written directly to around 35,000 offshore account holders.
“Most of the banks that HMRC has approached for account holder details have yet to supply them - there could be another 150,000 individuals for HMRC to contact,” said John Cassidy, tax investigations and dispute resolution partner at PKF Accountants and business advisers.
Interesting, because this says just one thing - and that is that the banks are not playing ball.
How that will help their customers is hard to tell.
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:
It apears that there’s not only a bleak Christmas in the offing for most citizens, but that accountants and lawyers will hopefully be spending a little more time at the office atoning for their advice sins by helping their clients to comply.
One lives in hope.
The banks are not co-operating like the tax authorities had hoped they would. What did the tax guys expect?
The court order only requires banks to disclose information that is kept within their operations in the UK. It is vrey narrow.
If a UK resident has an account with the Swiss private banking subsidiary of a, say French bank, and has not made or received payments in Sterling, there will be no trace of these accounts in the UK.
What good it will do the banks’ customers? protect their right to privacy, just as they did against the Nazis in the 30’s and 40’s.
Edouard
There is a difference
The Nazis were a fascist government that set out to kill whole groups in society
I make no claim that we have a perfect government in the UK (we don’t) but it is a democracy that seeks to support the well being of all in the UK, even if delivery is imperfect
One was an illegitimate authority
The UK has a decidely legitimate one
But your attitude, clearly reflected in that of the banks is that you wish to undermine that legitimate authority
As I say time and again, that is anti-democratic. Worse, I think it the road to fascism
Is that what you seek?
Richard
Richard, aren’t you agreeing with Edouard that Swiss banking secrecy has its origins with protecting the jews against the Nazis?
Carol
I could never agree that with that: it is a typical Swiss abuse of the truth
Richard
I was expecting to you to put him right when he said “protect their right to privacy, just as they did against the Nazis in the 30’s and 40’s”. I know you shouldn’t have to correct this error repeatedly – but it looks like you must – I’m sure you can reference something!
Carol,
I notice that Richard has not referenced anything on this topic. I am equally keen to find out about his sources for denying Switzerland’s role in protecting Jewish and other communities’ interests during world War II.
Richard, when can we expect something?
eg
http://www.swissbanking.org/en/vogler-definitiv-deutsch.pdf
Yes, the Swiss protected Jewish assets in WW2
They protected Nazi assets too
The situation was amoral
And emphatically it was not introduced to protect the Jews