The Treasury press release on the Swiss deal is out. Dave Hartnett, de facto boss of HMRC whose fingers are very obviously all over this deal says of it:
“The world has changed for tax evaders. A few years ago, nobody would have anticipated that we would conclude an agreement with Switzerland to tackle tax evasion.
Absolute nonsense: we already have the European Union Savings Tax Directive and an upgrade was close to delivery. Please don't talk rubbish Dave.
He continues:
However, with the clear wish of Switzerland as well as the United Kingdom to ensure that tax is paid as it should be
How he has the gall to say this is beyond belief: the Swiss have fought every attempt to make sure people pay the right amount of tax - and still are. This deal is all about ensuring banking secrecy - whopse sole purpose always has been and is now to assista criminality - will remain intact, and it will. So Hartnett is simply not telling the truth.
But he carries on:
we are embarking on a new course which preserves important principles for each jurisdiction, and will be fair for all UK taxpayers.
No it is not. Those people who have paid the right amount of tax, openly and honestly will be galled to know that the boss of HMRC is delighted that those who evaded can n ow pay much less than they ever owed in an honesty box with no names attached and can rest confortable knowing that as a result they will never be prosecuted for their crimes. They shouldn't be pleased: they should be very, very angry that HMRc is headed by someone who is so happy to let tax evaders off the hook and I am sure they are.
Hartnett again:
Our strategy is working.
That's the one of supporting the UK's tax havens is it Dave?
We will secure significant sums of tax that some had thought we would never see.
Oh nonsense - the European Union Savings Tax Directive could have delivered so much more.
Not only does this agreement settle past liabilities and make arrangements to secure correct taxation in the future, it also gives HMRC more scope to find out about Swiss accounts.”
Now he's becoming ridiculous: we can ask about 500 a year but only if we can find out about them first. Fat chance Dave. You've just done a deal that guarantees anonymity.
Hartnett's rapidly become the biggest liability in the history of the Revenue. Vodafone. Goldman Sachs. Now this.
It's shocking that he's been allowed to lay waste to so much tax justice in such a short period of time.
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:
Is Switzerland a member of the Europan Union?
No
But they are members of the European Union Savings Tax Directive
Worth remembering that they have been since 2005
Richard, to be precise Switzerland is party to an agreement that mirrors most, but not all the terms of the 2004 EUSD (which only applies to member states). They are NOT however bound by the terms of any subsequent revision of the EUSD.
Switzerland has not even been involved in the current negotiations about the revision of the EUSD. Those have reached a deadlock because Luxembourg and Austria refuse to abandon banking secrecy. There was hope for some time that both countries would agree to a compromise, but this would have made the withholding regime permanent, and would have definitively taken automatic exchange off the table. This compromise was then scuppered by Italy’s somoewhat erratic behaviour on the issue.
With the EU so clearly divided, and with two members hostile to any deal involving automatic exchange, it must have been obvious to everybody that the objective of a revised EUSD with automatic exchange was simply unachievable. And that is even before starting negotiations with Swiotzerland on a mirror agreement.
This is certainly the view that Germany took, and one would suspect the UK.
You know that’s untrue
You know that Luxembourg and Austria had agreed
I agree Italy were erratic
And you know Switzerland had no real choice by follow suit – as last time
Nd the UK have now chosen to break ranks
That’s the truth
Yours just the opposite
[…] In Treasure Islands, I wrote in quite some detail about the appalling attitude to tax exhibited by Dave Hartnett, head of HMRC (the UK tax authorities.) To save time, I’ll point readers towards this latest Tax Research blog looking at his attitude. […]
“And you know Switzerland had no real choice by follow suit — as last time”
You keep asserting this as if it is true, hoping that by saying it enough times people will eventually believe it to be true. But you singularly fail to provide any evidence to support this.
Switzerland will never give up bank secrecy under present circumstances. You know that. The only reason it signed up last time is because bank secrecy wasn’t threatened.
“You know that Luxembourg and Austria had agreed”
Again an assertion, again a falsehood. A quick google search tells the real truth.
You are a fantasist.
Odd that even Darren – who opposes everything I say – says the new EUSTD will go through despite this deal
And yes I do have good reason for thinking the deal will go through – not least because it very nearly did in July
“the Swiss have fought every attempt to make sure people pay the right amount of tax — and still are. This deal is all about ensuring banking secrecy”
You say this, but also assert that the Swiss would have had to sign up to the EUSTD. How can you reconcile the two statements? Switzerland is a sovereign nation. What leverage does the EU have to force them to do something they have spent decades refusing to do?
Coercion
It works against those undertaking criminal acts in the end
Their consciences can be pricked in the end
It’s a grinding process but it does work against the Swiss
Even the most hardened Swiss banker can be embarrassed by evidence the criminality of his bank
And the risk of being arrested abroad
It’s how the US is winning right now
I have never liked or respected Dave Hartnett.
Even worse than the monetary cost of his generous tax settlements attributable to this man is the effect that his profligate expenses and arrogant, dismissive and unsympathetic attitude have had on the respect that the population have for HMRC. And when you don’t have respect for the funding arm of Government, there are very serious consequences