I think it quite appropriate to reproduce the following press release from UK UnCut. The sentiment is widely shared, showing how in touch these people are:
Campers at Occupy London and activists from direct action group UK Uncut will join forces to descend upon the head office of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on the afternoon of Monday 24th October to demand the resignation of HMRC boss Dave Hartnett [1].
Protesters- outraged at Hartnett's role in approving secret sweetheart deals to let mega-rich corporations off billions in tax- will gather at the Occupy LSX camp at St. Paul's Cathedral at 12 noon before marching on HMRC's head office at Whitehall in an attempt to reach Hartnett's office.
Hartnett was, last week, again dragged in front of parliament's Public Accounts Commitee to answer questions on dodgy deals with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs that cost the taxpayer up to £6bn and £10m respectively [2]. MPs on the committee accused Hartnett of abusing his position to "cover up his own mistakes".
A survey last year found that Hartnett was Whitehall's most 'wined and dined' civil servant, treated by corporations 107 times in 3 years to top a survey of 172 senior civil servants [3]. Conservative MPs and commentators from across the political spectrum have joined the call for Hartnett to resign [4] [5] [6].
Occupy London supporter Kyshia Davey said: "HMRC has just announced it will be going after 146,000 pensioners to demand hundreds of pounds from them following a tax code cock-up. Meanwhile, its boss is striking secret deals with opulent corporations to let them off billions of pounds in tax. Hartnett is fatally undermining public confidence in the UK's tax system at a time of austerity and he must resign immediately."
UK Uncut activist Sam Gilbert added: "Whilst 25,000 rank-and-file staff at HMRC have been fired, leaving the organisation almost incapable of functioning, Hartnett has been carving out a career as the most 'wined and dined' civil servant in Whitehall. The money from Vodafone's £6bn tax dodge alone could have prevented all of the cuts in public services over the past year."
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/tax-dodging-goldman-sachs-greece?newsfeed=true
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:
Actually Hartnett should be dismissed rather than be allowed to resign. Additionally, his pension arrangements should be examined to check whether or not it is possible for his pension to be reduced. It is time for those at the top to be made responsible for their actions when these have so obviously disadvantaged the state. I have no doubt that some low paid employee would be summarily dismissed for this type of behaviour.
Does anybody know if there is an e-petition to dismiss Mr Hartnett?
There was but it was removed from the site
Can we also have a parlimentary inquiry into what happened with Vodafone, did HMRC lose the case in court and then settle?
Dear PaulF, one view is that the UK legislation that HMRC were seekin to apply to Vodafone was not consistent with EU law and therefore could not, in fact, be applied to Vodafone. If so, it is sensible that, rather than legislate through the European court where the chances are HMRC would have lost (remember this is not the same as saying the UK law did not apply … it is just that the UK law should not exist in its then current form), HMRC and Vodfone did the reasonable thing and reached an agreement. You have probably heard of the Cadbury case. Cadbury would possibly have been caught by the UK legislation but it was ruled that the UK legislation could not apply because the UK legislation was inconsistent with EU legislation.
A problem is that the UK legislation is complex, the EU legislation is complex and many commentators understand neither.
Regards
Augustine
I disagree re Vodafone – there was no suggestion they would have won in Europe and had consistently lost in the UK, having allowed for the EU
Richard, I thought the court decisions were about whether the CFC legislation could be applied if some form of amendment was deemed to be included in the CFC legislation to take account of Cadbury. I did not think that the court cases were about whether HMRC were actually correct in seeking to apply the as deemed amended CFC legislation or even whether HMRC would have been successful in applying the as deemed amended legisltion. What the CofA decided was that the CFC legislation is consistent with EU legislation if certain deemed provisions were included. The CofA did not rule on whether, as a matter of fact Vodafone was within the CFC legislation.
I also thought that the decision went with Vodafone in the HIgh Court, was split in the Commissioners and the Chairman there used his casting vote, hardly “consistently lost in the UK”.
Have you even read the judgements?
regards
Augustine
Sure I’ve read them
And HMRC won the cases – which is why Hartnett, as ever, was wrong
Richard, as you have read them you know that what at issue was an argument about whether the CFC legislation had to be disregarded or whether words could be read into the CFC legislation to make it consistent with EU law. You will also know that the cases were not about whether the CFC legislation actually applied to facts of the Vodafone case.
How does this demonstrate Hartnett, “as ever, was wrong”? As I mentioned HMRC “lost” in the High Court and you must be aware of this. Why then claim that Vodafone “consistently lost in the UK”?
The possibility exists that HMRC were aware of how difficult it would be to prove the entirely different point that the Vodafone arrangement was wholly artificial and decided money in the hand is better than being bogged down in the European court. As it is neither you nor I will know the “real” reasons but it is probably useful to be as clear as possible about what we do know.
Regards
Augustine
This issue has been discussed endlessly here and elsewhere and nothing is to be gained bar wasting my time by doing so again
Hartnet is a co-opted member of the exclusive-fellowship-of-big-time-tax-dodgers…
He is obligated to influential persons in the City and Westminster …
Don’t ask; don’t say ….
PSG, do you really believe what you have written or is it just “blog talk”? If so it suggests that DH is in some manner corrupt. I have my doubts about such a view. Ask yourself, what would you do in his situation with the resources he has available.
Regards
Augustine
Augustine
If as you imply Hartnett has no choice because his resources are limited and he finds this situation somewhat difficult, then of course he could take the honourable course of action and resign and publicly state his reasons for so doing.
Augustine:
Corrupt? A word increasingly used to explain, excuse and ignore the gluttony of the financial sector, the reckless approach of the government, the ineffectual HMRC and FSA and the collective failure of world economies that we as individuals hare now paying for
Determined action by the HMRC is required to prevent the super rich from avoiding tax and that will only happen when politicians are prepared to take on the public’s concern and tackle the issues. Until then we persevere like the British kings who invited the Saxons for protection but then found their position undermined by people who have no allegiance to the country and who failed to make any contribution to the national treasury …
Meanwhile our public services continue to creak as more demands are made on them: and HMRC officers, FSA managers and career politicians continue to fail to grasp the nettle-of-reform for fear that this will reduce opportunities for well paid jobs in the City.
Corruption is endemic throughout the City – and among those charged with supervising the City – and this situation will continue until the people who abuse our money and trust are prevented from debasing the financial sector in particular and the world economy in general.
And the HMRC is central to this issue.
PSG does not do “blog talk”.
I would stress I do not think financial corruption is implied or suggested
Corruption of the system is
I agree wuth Augustine. Have met Dave Hartnett a few times so I have just a little nous of what is going on. Strikes me that he is a PR guy and PR guys wine and dine everywhere, like left wing academics for example. Within the current structure the irony is that he has probably raised more revenue than anybody else would have done. In my opinion it is the structure of the Tax raising system , a complicated edifice built by all political parties, that needs reforming.
By the sound of it the system suits you well