The Treasury select committee sees HM Revenue & Customs barely able to function, as a result of real-terms cuts to its budget every year since its formation.
I trust you will forgive me for saying "I told you so", many times over. Start here.
Working with the TUC and PCS I have warned this would happen. As I wrote in March 2010, for example, referring to a then new report on this issue:
I've written a new report under the above title on behalf of PCS — the union that represents more than 80% of HM Revenue & Customs' staff. As the executive summary says:
The UK has been in recession, and may well be in recession again soon. Through no fault of its own, the income of our government has collapsed whilst its obligations have increased. A gap between government income and expenditure of up to £175 billion a year has emerged as a result. This though is not a spending crisis: this is an income crisis.
This report argues that the scale of that income crisis is being increased as a result of policies being pursued by HMRC. Those policies were created before the onset of recession. They have two aims. The first is to cut over time the number of staff engaged by HMRC by 25,000 — 17,000 have already left. The second policy is to close many of the local tax offices from which HMRC used to undertake its work in local communities. Over 200 offices have either closed already, are about to close, or are under threat of closure. It is fair to say that all offices are under scrutiny. When the programme is complete some people in the UK will live more than 50 miles from their nearest tax office, making it impossible for many of them to turn to this natural source of help and advice when seeking to fulfil their obligation to pay tax. In addition, HMRC are about to press ahead with the closure or severe reduction of its drop-in enquiry centre facility, which has previously provided a local and immediate tax advice service for both members of the public and tax professionals.
As this report also notes, too many people do not pay the tax due by them in the UK. HMRC have estimated the ‘tax gap' in the UK — the difference between the tax they think is owed and the tax they actually assess — to be about £40 billion a year. We argue that this dramatically underestimates the total tax gap, particularly with regard to tax evasion.
To data previously published by the TUC which estimated total UK tax avoidance at £25 billion we now add an estimate of £70 billion for tax evaded within the UK. We can provide detailed and precise workings for this sum and also outline why the estimates of this sum produced by HMRC and the National Fraud Authority inevitably understate this figure.
When the total outstanding debts now owing to HMRC are added to these two sums, which when last estimated was £28 billion, we suggest the total tax gap in the UK is now likely to exceed £120 billion.
It is very obvious that the UK cannot afford this tax gap. It is equally obvious that if investment were made in additional resources for HMRC then this tax gap could and would be substantially reduced.
In arguing this we make the following points:
Recommendation 1: The basis for estimating tax avoidance should be revised to use a definition widely recognised in society and which correctly reflects areas of continuing policy concern as well as those abuses making use solely of artificial arrangements.
Recommendation 2: HM Revenue & Customs should be required to prepare estimates of evasion of direct taxes on a “top down” basis, as they do for indirect taxes.
Recommendation 3: H M Revenue & Customs should recognise that their existing bottom up methodology for calculating the tax gap for direct taxes will inevitably seriously under-estimate the size of that estimate.
Recommendation 4: HM Revenue & Customs should recommence publication of the many statistics on taxation produced by the former Inland Revenue which have ceased to be available since its demise, the lack of which make objective appraisal of the performance of the tax system hard to achieve.
Recommendation 5: HM Revenue & Customs should engage more staff to tackle tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Recommendation 6: HM Revenue & Customs must on occasion select cases for investigation without consideration of potential tax yield, and make clear that this happens to protect revenues from those on lower levels of earnings.
Recommendation 7: More staff should be engaged to scrutinise tax repayments before they take place.
Recommendation 8: More staff should be engaged to recover tax debt owing, and limits on sums to be pursued for collection should be lowered considerably.
Recommendation 9: The local office closure programme being pursued by HM Revenue & Customs should not just be stopped, it should be reversed. Tax must be seen to be collected in the community.
It is our firm believe that adopting these policies would highlight the true extent of the UK Tax Gap, provide the data needed to appraise progress in tackling it, and be cost effective methods of achieving that goal for al the reasons this report outlines.
I'll be featuring more of what I say in this report over the next day or so.
The key issue is a simple one though: why, at a time when we need every penny of tax revenue we can get are HM Revenue & Customs doing everything possible to increase inefficiency in the tax system.
That seems now to be true, but still the cuts at HMRC go on, still the warnings are ignored, and no doubt at all, the tax gap keeps increasing.
Why doesn't this government want to collect tax?
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:
Buy me a coffee!
“Why doesn’t this government want to collect tax?”
As you say this large tax gap hasn’t suddenly arisen in the last 12 months, so why is it that the previous government did nothing significant to reduce a £100bn plus tax gap ?
It might (just about) make sense that the “nasty” Tories want to help their fat cat City friends from paying tax, but surely Brown and Darling wouldn’t have done this.
The only common sense conclusion must be that your figures are wrong. No government voluntarily gives up tens of billions of tax revenue. That buys a lot of schools and hospitals for Labour governments and lots of Trident missiles and aircraft carriers for the Tories.
Perhaps the actual tax gap figure is actually £40bn. Largely made up of lots of non-payment of income tax by millions of ordinary folk working cash-in-hand. Too many millions to be able to be dealt with by an additional 15,000 HMRC inspectors.
a) Labour did not have this data for that long – so little time to act on it
b) Tories have had time to act
c) If my data has wrong it has in any event forced this issue onto the agenda
d) My figures are low by international comparable standards – but HMRC’s ludicrously so – their data is utterly implausible as I’ve shown time and again
e) The cash is collectable – start with limited companies – as I’ve shown – and tax havens
Sorry – it’s your logic that does not stack
And if it did – why is chasing £1bn on benefit evasion worthwhile but £42bn of tax is not. Explain, precisely or you’re apologising for crime
I think I agree with nick. No government in thIs sort of environment is going to pass up the opportunity to collect 95bn or even part of that. They clearly don’t agree with your calculations. You keep saying you can provide detailed back up for the calculation -is it available on your website anywhere (apologies if I have missed it)?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap.pdf
Try this too
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/500000Final.pdf
“e) The cash is collectable — start with limited companies — as I’ve shown — and tax havens”
How do you collect the cash from so-called tax havens. Are you planning to turn up in Singapore, Panama or Nassau and say ‘please hand me my cash’. If it was so easy, don’t you think someone would have done it?
An obvious method is to challenge the relocation of assets to these places, the reality of so called residence in them and to withhold tax at source on income paid to them
Confused at that approach, perhaps you could explain.
(i) Challenge relocation of assets to these places – (a) This would seem to suggest putting restrictions in place for the free movement of capital whether or not between EU member states (a right protected by the EU) So this would seem to fail at the first hurdle. (b) Even if it succeeded, South Africa tried a similar approach in the 90’s thinking it would stop an exodus of capital from the countries white citizens after the fall of the apartheid regime. In fact it had quite the opposite effect. Money was simply smuggled out of the country, and the effect of the regulation was to crush the FDI market almost completely due to the restrictions and the uncertainty. Not something the UK (as a key provider of financial services) would want to do.
(ii) Reality of residence – This is a possibility from a UK perspective. The govt. should keep more detailed records on the entry and exit from the country, agreed. However, that is where the extent of such a control would stop. It would not be possible to force foreign governments to effect change in line with UK policies. If the UK asked the BVI for names of individuals holding companies, it is completely correct for them to exercise their sovereign right of refusing to divulge such information should they choose. The other issue that arises is proving residence for many individuals who move a great deal (need not be wealthy, airline pilots for instance, oil rig workers, etc.). The issue is that residence as you suggest has little baring on the imposition of tax, rather domicile has played a far greater role when it comes to litigation.
(iii) Withholding tax at the source – That will just make companies pay their staff from foreign domiciled companies or subsidiaries. It also subjects companies to the slow moving process of HMRC, not a suitable timescale for many companies.
Well the EU is built on a fundamentally flawed principle – I agree
As for the other two – nonsense – easily traceable and tracked
Not least by country-by-country reporting!
Well flawed or otherwise it is the regulation governing member states and therefore the argument still fails.
My comment in relation to points two and three, I think can be taken as one as they are relating to jurisdiction. I was hoping to gain an explanation, rather than a point blank statement of opinion. Again, you are working on the premise that foreign countries should be forced to enact a British policy of country-by-country reporting into their own legislation. If I understand the statement correctly it suggests that all countries should report to Britain where the British travel. Is this what is being suggested? The problem I see is that again you are imposing British regulation on foreign states. How do you propose this is done?
Yet at again – absolute nonsense
I am asking that country-by-country reporting be in International Financial Reporting Standard or European Union legislation
Why don’t you get your facts right?
If you’re going to comment at least bother to read something first
But who is to enforce an International Financial Reporting Standard? Its sounds very much like a financial version of NATO, and we all know how ineffectual and selective NATO is. It still struggles to define what and who manages an international enforcement.
As for the EU, it already exists. Council Directive 77/799/EC for direct taxation, Council directive 79/1071/EEC for VAT, Council Directive 92/12/EEC for Excise, and a heap of other bilateral regulations enacted over the past 20 years for the exchange and assistance in tax matters.
The difficulty faced is not going to be overcome from further regulation.
Heard of auditing?
Heard of listing agreements?
Heard of the fact IFRS are part of company law throughout EU?
No?
Then please don’t waste my time with stupid comments
Ricahard, you have consistently tried to belittle any comments I have made and the last comment of yours falls foul of even your own rules. Not only this, it was my attempt to extract from you an explanation, the mechanics of how you substantiate and put into practice your suggestions. No such explanation is forth coming.
I do not expect that you will accept and post this comment because it appears that the minute your utopian and quite frankly imperialistic British view is challenged you refuse to post comments or shut the comment section down all together. You seem more worried about protecting your Ivory tower than actually contributing to the discussion.
At no point have I insulted or even breached your rules on what can be posted on this blog, the same can not be said of your responses.
In relation to your last post. I have heard of auditing, listing agreements, the IFRS and EU law. Whilst your comments revolve around an attack on me rather than the principles I suggest you have failed to understand that I have more than adequate experience to comment on these issues. I am a barrister specialising in Trade, jurisdictional disputes and taxation. I have seen and understand first hand, from both sides of the court the principles of international enforcement in far greater breadth and depth than most and certainly understand the gapping holes in what you are suggesting.
What are these gapping holes? The concept of auditing and listing agreements are national principles, meaning that any change to the regulations by Britain will apply to Britain and no one else. When a British citizen leaves the jurisdiction and travels to say, the BVI, they are under the jurisdiction of the BVI. This does not enable the British govt. or courts to exercise jurisdiction over the exercise of the laws and policies governing the BVI. Should there be a bi-lateral agreement between the two then it is up to both countries to establish and agree to what those terms are. The BVI or any other country for that matter does not HAVE to accept the terms put to them.
The issue that I am trying to establish from your side is how any such regulation would operate. The mechanics of it, and if we may this time keep insults aside.
I implore you to post this comment so that you may provide an answer that may add to the discussion rather than comments of “nonsense” and “stupid comments”. I can assure you that you are not conversing with someone who is ignorantly throwing opposing arguments out for the sake of irritation.
For a “barrister specialising in Trade, jurisdictional disputes and taxation” you seem remarkably ill informed – despite your high opinion of yourself
IFRS applies to group audits and have to be enforced – if not by law of the place of parent company incorporation, also by listing agreements
The targets of country-by-country reporting are listed companies. IFRS apply in most markets now and are extending to the USA
Is it really that hard to see how country-by-country reporting could be enforced?
And it is utterly irrelevant whether they apply to the BVI, or not. It’s group accounts that matter – and even the likes of Glencore listed in jersey have to comply – their listings mean they must do so
Sorry if I appear rude – but I am baffled by your incomprehension – and your claim in that case to hold the qualification that you represent to have
I do not hold a high opinion of myself, it is just that you appeared to hold no opinion at all.
The extent of power of the IFRS though is limited. It does not apply to non-signatories and some of the non-signatories are “tax havens”. Therefore, where there is a demand for a low taxation jurisdiction there will be a supply when the governments realise there is money to be made, particularly for small, low population countries. So indeed, countries that sign up to country-by-country reporting could choose to ‘tow the line’ and enforce the principles (although not adequately developed at this time). However, the issue is still about non-signatories. How do you enforce country-by-country reporting on non-signatories?
Even if a country is a signatory and they choose to interpret the regulations in their own way, who enforces a breach? and what is the punishment? boot them from the scheme?, that will just defeat the purpose of the scheme itself.
On a more simplistic level however, the expansion of an IFRS type model is fraught with the very difficulties the EU is, the same objective standard across some very different countries who rely on very different sources of income. It would certainly work if all countries were like the UK.
Oh for heavens above – you prove just how inane lawyers are
Have you never heard of group accounts?
It mattes not a toss whether the BVI approves IFRS or not. If a quoted company is to prepare its accounts in accordance with IFRS – as all quoted in the EU and about 80 other countries must – then every subsidiary must use IFRS – whatever local regulation says – and the country-by-country reporting disclosure will take place in the group accounts regardless of what local regualtion again requires.
No doubt this is why the Big 4 oppose it
It’s also why the EU is embracing it now
So all you show is your incomprehension, yet again
It would certainly work for listed companies, but are the majority of companies not private, and are not the majority of tax evasive/avoidance schemes private. The original comment made was that we would start with limited companies and tax havens. I assumed this is what was being discussed. Tax avoidance schemes are far less effective when set up through public companies. It is the very reason why we know companies like microsoft and GSK make such large savings. So the mechanism for Public companies appears to be working. What further changes to the system do you suggest for better regulation?
Actually – we think the issue is very much one in pubic companies
Perhaps you should have worked harder in mastering your brief before commenting
Not least you’d have then realised transfer pricing abuse is usually tax avoidance by deferral
Engaging with you when you’re so out of your depth makes no further sense
Then why did you comment that the issue was one of Limited Companies and tax havens and not specify you really meant PLC’s.?
The transfer pricing guidelines as produced by the OECD are voluntary however. I still am at a miss as to how you propose enforcement of foreign Ltd’s and tax havens. That is of course the question to which I responded. Namely, “e) The cash is collectable — start with limited companies — as I’ve shown — and tax havens”
Shall we try the very CFC legislation that Osborne is working so hard toi undermine now – along with his abandonment of residence based taxation?
I can not comment on the actions of Osborne. That is a decision I have no control over apart from my vote. Certainly the CFC legislation is a possibility, and we are finally moving the discussion into the realm of private ltd’s and tax havens as originally envisaged.
The CFC leg. appears in reality to have been reasonably effective. My experience of it is that most companies wishing to avoid tax are simply ensuring that their operations are ‘controlled’ from outside the country. The principles deployed by the court in establishing what those controlling features are, are at the moment uncertain. This is not so much the courts mistake as the fluctuation of HMRC as well as the govt. I fully agree however that companies truly based here in the UK, simply funneling funds offshore to avoid tax is not conducive to a strong economy, and disagree with the practice. I am not arguing for allowing tax avoidance in its entirety, but the govt. and commentators have to be realistic as to the extent they can effect change.
The CFC leg. for instance will not help where property, companies or other assets are bought by truly foreign companies. With the invention of easy transport, teleconferencing tools and modern communication, control bases no longer need to be in the UK, and if they were they should be subject to UK tax. This does not however stop the ownership of houses by wealthy foreigners through the use of foreign companies. It does not stop foreign companies such as Glencore purchasing British companies and avoiding a degree of tax on the basis that they are not based in the UK.
This ultimately comes back to the original proposition which how do you enforce British tax regulation on foreign states. Not Pseudo-foreign tax avoiders and evaders, but actual foreign companies. The answer simply is that you can’t. There are too many tools deployed for companies and individuals to use to avoid taxes legally and above board. Enforcing British tax rule across the continent and the world is impractical/impossible.
This issue again has to be brought into perspective, and the govt./commentators have to be realistic as to what tax they may effectively pursue. If you find that the methods available are not sufficient then a different method must be considered. We must ask why tax is being avoided. Is it because it is too high?, are people greedy?, are their other pressures forcing the avoidance of tax (ie, margins to keep shareholders happy).
The vast majority of tax avoiders I have met do not wish to avoid all tax. Their argument seems to be the same each time which is that the tax rate is too high. What about reducing the tax avoidance by a reduction in the tax rate to a slightly more competitive rate (not cut it, just so that it makes Britain attractive) to entice not only British businesses now abroad back to the UK, but also bring foreign businesses in. Try and reduce that unemployment rate that is costing the government a great deal and pull in the large companies that you can apply a competitive rate of corporation tax to. If it is in fact competitive there will be less wish to avoid it. Certainly, with fine tuning an excellent balance can be struck as there is little doubt that the UK is a desirable place to be based and work from.
As for the legitimate basing of ones self in a tax haven on a personal taxation level, there is little any govt. can do about that.
Oh you do talk crap
” The vast majority of tax avoiders I have met do not wish to avoid all tax. Their argument seems to be the same each time which is that the tax rate is too high.”
You mean any tax is too much, in other words – hence your endorsement of tax havens
And as for your promotion of tax competition – states do not compete, down that path lies failure and Somalia
Your entire logic is neoliberal – and fundamentally anti-democratic
No I don’t mean any tax is too much, I mean what I say. Jurisdictions do compete for business, It is why places like Panama, Switzerland and the BVI attract business from other parts of the work. Favourable conditions for business attract businesses. If we are to take a country like Switzerland who has structured their tax system so that it is favorable, you land up with a situation where unemployment drops (the canton of Zug has shown this), the local area benefits from injections of capital and business thrive. How does Somalia lay in wait for Switzerland, Panama and other such zones.
I did not endorse the use of tax havens. I in no way condone the exploitation of such areas. What is the solution from a UK perspective however in the taxation of a UK born citizen who now spends the majority of his year in Monaco and has severed ties with the UK?
Could you explain how it is anti-democratic, I do not follow.
You have changed your meaning
Buit you’re also talking out of your proverbial – do you honestly think 30,000 people in Zug (where nothing really happens – please note) are in any way comparable with the UK? That’s just absurd
All Zug is is a secrecy jurisdiction. Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so. That’s why they’re anti- democratic.
And the reality is – nothing happens there. They don’t compete for business at all – they compete to abuse other states by recording transactions there – as usual for a lawyer you have no understanding of the difference between substance and form
I don’t know why this is but you seem incapable of having a discussion without insults. Some of which on this site are nearing Libel.
You need not take only Zug, but the whole of Switzerland. A similar effect has been felt across Switzerland. You say that the regulations are there to “benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain”. A great deal of Swiss business use Zug as a base well though, almost all financial companies in Switzerland hold their registration in Zug, unless they have been able to negotiate a deal with their local canton. It is only in the last 10 years that the rest of the world has cottoned onto this arrangement. Further, Zug is not only a ‘secrecy’ jurisdiction but a low tax jurisdiction. The secrecy you refer to is in fact present across Switzerland.
Libel?
Oh come on – how can I libel you when I have no idea who you are
And you yet again show yourself to be a secrecy jurisdiction defending troll
For which reason this debate is over
The world has agreed – rightly – such activity is abusive
It’s a shame the professions in their desire to break democracy don’t agree
Kimi is my nickname. I thought the ‘debate’ was over, or have I hit a nerve?
It’s over as far as I’m concerned
The jury found you out
You do not need to know who the recipient is to commit libel. Leave the law to the lawyers.
I am not a secrecy defender, I am a protector of state sovereignty. I believe that any country has the right to enact their own laws and regulations, free from interference of countries who believe themselves to be superior. It is an attitude that Britain carried for far to long and America picked up. If a freely elected government decides to enact a law that Britain disagrees with then that is simply too bad. I we start to question the sovereign rights of countries we undermine not only their freedoms, but our own. The flawed principle that you so easily called the EU is a point worth considering. That flawed principle has stripped away from Britain the right to fully make its own decisions. The same thing you want to impose on foreign sovereign states. British rule for all because you believe it will lead to equality in Britain.
On a more simplistic issue, if you believe that democracy as the untainted ideal ever existed you clearly can not see reality, and that ivory tower is looking more like your reality.
I dare you to post this comment, but frankly I am of the opinion, given you responses on this blog, that you do not actually have the courage to have your beliefs questioned. This ‘debate’ you refer to has not been a debate it has been one side putting forward propositions and the other side insulting rather than testing those ideas. It is hardly surprising as the entire blog, not just this post is filled with the ranting of someone who is unable to see reality, rather proposes grand schemes that have never been tested and are so improbable in succeeding that they are not worth the space they take up. If the situation of the world makes you unhappy then you are going to spend a great deal of your life unhappy, because like most extremist views, whether far right, far left, pro-market or otherwise, extremes never survive.
I do sincerely wish you a pleasant day, hell if we can’t agree on anything then we might as well agree that it is a nice day.
Oh come on – secrecy jurisdictions have declared war on our state sovereignty. You can’t make up anything else to explain their behaviour.
And far from being as you describe – my ideas are taken up as they are moderate, and workable and form the centre of the political spectrum – which is why all parties (OK, the Tories only occasionally) talk to me
Which is why country-by-country reporting is in Dodds Frank
And will be proposed as EU law in October.
And is being considered by the IASB and OECD.
Not quite fitting your description, is it?
And because of my work the Tax Gap is not the #1 HMRC objective.
I could even claim, with others, to have ensured that tax havens were put back under massive scrutiny.
Extreme? No. Plausible, deliverable, fact based, policy thinking for real solutions that you don’t like.
I’m delighted with the change effected so far – with more to come
Your comment shows you to be the anti-democracy extremist. I’m delighted to oppose you – you’re the danger to UK society.
PS Incidentally the only K Webb who is a barrister in the UK does not fit your claims as to qualification or speciality. Is passing off allowed by a barrister?
As this partly relates to this, I have been researching the concept of a ‘structural’ deficit with interest. If I have understood it correctly, it seems to state that deficit spending outstrips tax revenues for some considerable time. This appears to be very disengenuous because, as far as I can gather, deficit spending has outstripped tax revenues since before World War II and beyond. For much of the last century (and this one) deficit spending has always outstripped tax revenue….why else would we always have a budget deficit?
And if the previous government and this coalition government has allowed the ease of tax avoidance and evasion, if thousands of HRMC staff have been thrown out of work and the rich have been allowed to get away with a income tax rate of 40% for the past 25 years, how do they suggest that this structural deficit is addressed?
Governments have been run from a position of insolvency for years. Tax revenue has rarely, if ever, been enough to pay off these debts.
It appears to be a flawed theory.
Inflation always squared the circle…
Many apologies for being a bit thick Richard, but what do you mean by this? Do you mean that inflation would help burn off some of the debt by devaluing the money supply, and by extention, the debt?
SteveO
the rich most certainly don’t have a tax rate of 40%. Thanks to their friends in law & accountancy they mostly have a tax rate of 0-5%. I suspect that if you were to take a road in a new estate like, say, Bradley Stoke (nr Bristol) you would find the inhabitants pay more income tax, in total, than those on Bishop’s Ave, NW3.
I think it has to be made clear many do pay 40% on PAYE
But you’re quite right – those with control over their enterprises (and that includes senior employees) do not in many cases
William – source please for that incredibly sweeping statement. Don’t take the position of a few people eg to shop owner to be a proxy for the majority
And let’s be clear, the highest earners are on 50pc whether they are paye or not (or more if you add in national insurance) the 40pc band gets cut off around the 100000 mark (which frankly in London is not a huge number)
Sweeping statements like that do nothing for the integrity of this blog and I commend Richard for correcting you
Despite what many seem to want to believe it is not that easy to avoid the higher tax rate as an individual- but then the truth does remove your traditional whipping boys of the accountants and lawyers I suppose.
“the highest earners are on 50pc whether they are paye or not (or more if you add in national insurance) the 40pc band gets cut off around the 100000 mark (which frankly in London is not a huge number)”
Yes, top earners over £100,000 are paying 50% income tax….but for how much longer? There have been voices raised in the coalition for this to be scrapped. I certanly wouldn’t be surprised if it was.
To abolish 50% tax rate would be electoral suicide for Tories
LDs already opposed
Well, time will tell on that one. And don’t the LibDems almost always cave in to what the tories want? I hope you’re right, Richard, but I do believe if the tories find an adequate excuse to abolish the 50% income tax rate, they will do it.
They are always on the side of capital and always will be!
100% behind this. However RM I must correct you about Labour. They were warned about this, I know, it was only in the latter days that they started to listen. The Coalition are at least listening about how to make better tax policy.
But the whole system is unprofessional. It starts with Parliament who do not devote enough time or run expert committees. It continues with the Treasury who employ “spotty teenagers” as tax advisers who have never had a job outside politics. Regarding the Tax Gap, my idea would be for an Independent body to assess this, otherwise
HM Revenue & Customs are Judge and Jury in the assessment of their own performance.
Mr. Murphy, it is with respect I write
(Editor’s note: this pompous poster – note the avatar – did not do anything of the sort so I deleted the comment in accordance with this blogs moderation policy)
Mr. Murphy I see free speech is also unacceptable on your blog. How sad as a good open debate is always healthy and allows the free flow of ideas regardless as to their merits.
What twaddle
Of course free speech is allowed
You can run your own blog and no one is trying to stop you – least of all me – so your argument is completely wrong
But editorial freedom is also important – and no editor is obliged to post what is presented to them
You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, in other words