I guess it's not too late to mention I had a piece in Comment is Free yesterday under the above title. Written in haste in Terminal 5, the piece addressed a current Greek tax crisis that we in the UK share:
It's been an open secret for some time that the Greek tax authorities have had access to data on the identity of Greek residents holding bank accounts in Switzerland. It has also been widely known that they have shown a lack of willingness to use this information to tackle those listed. Unsurprisingly, given the severity of the measures being imposed on Greek people, this created resentment that reached the point whereKostas Vaxevanis, a Greek journalist, decided to publish the list of 2,000 names to which he believes the Greek tax authorities have access, but about which he alleges no action is being taken. His reward is to be arrested.
As I noted, the paradoxical nature of this is extraordinary< especially as:
The biggest single leak of names from a bank came from HSBC in Switzerland, whose former chairman is Lord Stephen Green, now a Tory trade minister.
That list from HSBC, and other lists like it, are in the possession of HM Revenue & Customs in the UK. So far no one has come to court as a result. The impression given by the UK tax authorities is the same as the impression given in Greece, which is that these matters should be dealt with rather quietly and subtly, while the bankers and maybe lawyers and accountants, who no doubt played a hand in creating many of these arrangements, appear to be carrying on without hint of remorse or risk of prosecution.
The arrest of Vaxevanis in Greece rightly challenges this cosy position. A man who wants justice to be done has been arrested. In the meantime it is all too obvious justice is not being done, and lame excuses are being offered. It is said that we cannot pay for such lists, or that they were stolen in the first case. But there is a long tradition in many legal systems, including the UK's, of paying for information to secure prosecutions, and of turning a blind eye to the acts of those supplying it. You can be sure that a list of benefit cheats, however secured, would not be treated in the way this list has been.
As ever, there is a rule for the rich and those who offend their codes, and another for everyone else.
The rest of the article is here.
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:
Dave Hartnett travelled to Germany to collect the UK in person. No wonder he believed himself to be invincible and indispensable, knowledge being power and all that.
I meant the UK list. There has been one (successful) prosecution from the list, Richard but the person does not belong to the ruling class.
Mad Hat, can you provide a link to the HMRC press release for this prosecution please?
Here goes:
http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/articles/property-developer-fined-%C2%A3400000-%E2%80%98swiss-disc%E2%80%99-prosecution-tax-evasion-49291
Property developer fined £400,000 in ‘Swiss disc’ prosecution for tax evasion
5 July 2012.
Andrew Goodall.
A millionaire property developer who failed to disclose a Swiss bank account to HMRC during a civil enquiry pleaded guilty to cheating the public revenue, in the first prosecution based on data stolen by a former HSBC employee and obtained by HMRC under the terms of a tax treaty with France.
Some experts have questioned tax authorities’ use of stolen data. The ‘Swiss disc’ was reported to list more than 6,000 British investors with HSBC accounts in Geneva.
Wood Green Crown Court heard that Michael James Shanly, aged 66, from Berkshire, opened an account with his own and his mother’s money.
HMRC said in a press release: ‘When his mother died, he later closed the account, and transferred all the money — evading £430,000 inheritance tax. Shanly was ordered to pay fines and compensation totalling £830,000.’
Chris Martin, Assistant Director HMRC Criminal Investigation, said: ‘Mr Shanly — like others — took advantage of his offshore account to hide money that was owed to the public purse. He thought it was out of reach of HMRC and hoped we would never find it. However we discovered it, and he will pay a heavy penalty. HMRC are continually receiving information from various sources and working together with partner agencies here and abroad. Those attempting to hide offshore accounts must be aware that HMRC are closing in on offshore assets.’
HMRC said further prosecutions were likely. Recorder Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC told Shanly: ‘In this court there are no rules just for the rich and no rules just for the poor … the tax system relies on voluntary and honest disclosure of tax affairs and it applies to all equally.’
The Times reported today: ‘[HMRC] had believed that more than £800,000 that accrued in the account belonged to Shanly, the court was told. However, after new expert evidence emerged, HMRC accepted that the money had been deposited in the account by Shanly’s late mother to support his older brother, Richard, who had health and personal problems. Richard Shanly died in 1997.
‘HMRC accepted that the money was not Shanly’s but argued that he should have paid inheritance tax amounting to £430,000 on the amount when his mother died in 2004 … William Clegg QC, for Shanly, told the court that his client had never personally benefited from the money and had already paid HMRC most of the outstanding inheritance tax in May this year. The businessman had neglected to disclose the account to HMRC during the civil investigation because he was preoccupied at the time with difficult adoption proceedings that he and his partner were involved in in Poland, the barrister said.’
The paper reported that Shanly was ordered to pay £400,000 in fines, compensation of £430,000 and legal costs of £26,000.
John Cassidy, tax investigation and dispute resolution partner at PKF, said the prosecution would send out a strong message to anyone with hidden assets in offshore accounts. ‘If anyone is under the impression that HMRC is being complacent or just scaremongering, they need to think again and consider their options,’ he said.
‘Uncertainty’ over use of stolen material
Harry Travers, Partner at London solicitors BCL Burton Copeland, said today: ‘Although the defendant in this case apparently pleaded guilty, the Crown were relying in a criminal prosecution on stolen material, and in my view HMRC shouldn’t be doing that.’
He added: ‘If the case had gone to trial I am not sure that this material would have been admissible.’
Writing in this week’s issue of Tax Journal, Jonathan Fisher QC, a barrister practising at Devereux Chambers, said: ‘There remains considerable uncertainty in English law regarding HMRC’s ability to use criminally obtained evidence when pursuing taxpayers in respect of their concealed offshore income.’
He noted that while HMRC had been using [stolen] material to launch tax investigations, an opportunity to challenge the use of the material in civil or criminal proceedings had not yet arisen.
‘When it does, there are some good arguments to be advanced and HMRC should not be in any doubt that the taxpayer’s lawyers will be ready and waiting,’ he said.
Thank you for that, very interesting.
It would be interesting to hear from HMRC exactly what percentage of the persons on the list admitted they were evading UK tax.
So release the names of tax evaders and get sent for trial for breach of privacy (Greece) or facilitate money laundering (which tax evasion is) which should get you 14 years, help cover it up and become a minister in the tory government (Green).
What a double standard! Why are none of our brave newshounds getting hold of the uk list of HSBC Switzerland tax evaders and publishing it?
We have a right to know how effectively our police and HMRC are holding these criminals to account and who they are. Transparency is what blows away corruption after all. Why aren’t our parliamentarians pressing them? Possibly for the reason that your briefing note for your tax lecture doesn’t seem to emphasise too strongly, cronyism between politicians and the corporate world that has caused the corruption. The cancer is right there in the heart of our government for all to see.
Its not that the politicians are frightened to tell the people they need to pay more tax, they actively connive in reducing the tax bills of their supporters and spread the burden of meeting public expenditure as widely as they can among the masses.
It it is one thing for the authorities to act on information such as this, and it’s one thing for people to put pressure on them to do so. However, to publish a list of that nature, without having actual evidence of wrongdoing, is something else.
Of course, we know that secrecy is a primary reason why people have certain overseas bank accounts, and we know that the ability to evade tax is one of the benefits of that secrecy. However, merely having a bank account in Switzerland is *not* evidence of any kind of wrongdoing.
I have an overseas bank account. It’s not in a tax haven or ‘secrecy jurisdiction’, albeit that I actually don’t know if/how anyone will report the (entirely modest) income on that account to HMRC on my behalf.. but I know that *I* will report it on my tax return. My reason for having that account is nothing to do with hiding anything from the taxman (or anyone else). I could, just as easily, have an account in Switzerland for the same reason… should someone who’s just found my name amongst some stolen data be able to publish it and paint me as a tax evader? Surely not. I wouldn’t mind HMRC getting in touch and checking there’s nothing dodgy going on, but if I saw my name on (say) this blog, then it would constitute a breach of privacy and, perhaps, false (libelous) insinuation that I am a criminal.
Maybe you’d be OK with people on witchhunts bismirching your name on the grounds that you’re doing something that could be part of something illegal.. (say, driving alone through a red-light district at 4am?.. something else I’ve done regularly.. because I lived there!) or maybe, really, you think all people, even the wealthy, even people who are actually criminals, are entitled to ‘due process’ and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise?
These were not just any old Swiss bank accounts
This was HSBC private banking – that is investment funds
I have not condoned the leak
I have condemned the lack of action on using data and the absurdity of arresting the man who leaked and not the real criminals
“tax evasion is a British problem too”
The Tories don’t think so…
“David Anderson (Blaydon, Labour)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a review to assess the merits of setting up a tax avoidance system wherein all such schemes would be illegal without prior agreement by his Department.”
*
*
“David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
The vast majority of people and businesses in the UK do not try to avoid their tax and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is very successful at tackling the small minority who do. HMRC is able to deploy a range of approaches to prevent, detect and counteract tax avoidance–and the Government is looking to strengthen its hand further by, for example, enhancing the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes rules and developing the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule (GAAR). Once introduced, the GAAR will act as a powerful deterrent to those engaging in abusive avoidance schemes. Where such schemes persist, it will also improve HMRC’s means of tackling them effectively.”
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-10-29a.125356.h&s=speaker%3A11427#g125356.q0
It is fair to say Gauke spouts nonsense, often