The former head of Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took into account potential embarrassment to George Osborne when letting off Goldman Sachs from paying up to £20m in interest payments, a judge has concluded.
In a high court ruling, the judge found that the 2010 "sweetheart" deal brokered by the then permanent secretary for tax, Dave Hartnett, was lawful but "not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue". He criticised the fact that it had been done behind closed doors and without proper approval or reference to lawyers.
The judgment by Mr Justice Nicol found that Hartnett "took into account the potential embarrassment to the chancellor of the exchequer if Goldman Sachs were to withdraw from the tax code. HMRC accepts that was an irrelevant consideration and should have not featured in his decision-making process."
Given the constraints on the hearing UK Uncut were almost bound to lose
But the hearing has revealed a great deal, and shown the criticism of HMRC was valid.
And it has shown the decision making was wrong.
I think that more than justified the action.
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:
What about the real embarrassment to the HMRC and UK as the credibility and integrity of the tax system, which is its legitimising factor, is increasingly seen as a sick joke by the rest of us who pay with no option?
Precisely
Rosa, as an employee of HMRC, I’m afraid I have to agree with you.
But is it not the case that the Court upheld the agreement, and the Judge concluded that the decision would have been the same even if Hartnett had not (incorrectly) taken account of potential embarrassment to the Chancellor?
So is HMRC correct to say “The High Court’s judgement confirms what HMRC has always said: that while we made errors in settling the Goldman Sachs dispute, we made the right settlement in the circumstances, and that our decision was both proper and lawful.”
This would mean that HMRC had not acted illegally.
He said it had not acted illegally
he had no choice – the terms of the review dictated that
He made clear it was a bad day for HMRC
And it was
RIP Taxpayers’ Charter!
I think that died when HMRC brought in its Customer Centric Strategy, its now know as “Your Charter” and can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/your-charter
I noticed that they had the young UK Uncut guy pitched against Mark Littlewood on Newsnight – a.deliberately unequal battle. Haven’t seen you on the box, lately, Richard. I wonder why.
I was on Sky last night
And only got dropped from C4 because Vince Cable came along
I thought you might like to see this helpful ministerial reply, living up to Mr Osborne’s commitment at the G7 meeting a week ago for increased banking transparency.
David
Hansard, 15 May 2013 : Column 273W
Goldman Sachs
Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken by HM Revenue and Customs to recover the interest owed by Goldman Sachs on the tax bill which it delayed paying. [154816]
Mr Gauke: HMRC has a statutory duty to maintain taxpayer confidentiality and may not disclose information unless the limited and controlled circumstances set out in the statute creating HMRC apply.
Amusing