The Mirror reports this morning that:
A fatcat who helped energy firm Npower's owners avoid millions of pounds in tax now sits on the board of HM Revenue and Customs — as an adviser to the Taxman.
Former npower boss Volker Beckers ran a tax avoidance operation in Malta which meant the firm paid no corporation tax in the UK for four years while energy bills soared by 55%.
A Mirror investigation has found that Beckers was a director of Scaris Limited, which was run on a shoestring with one employee out of a cheap rented office in the Mediterranean tax haven.
Npower's German owner loaned billions of pounds to the UK company through Scaris and the interest payments on these loans wiped out UK profits, so no tax was due.
The tone is not my style. The story has much to do with me, but with the Mirror having had the budget to visit Malta to discover that Becker, now a non-exec at HMRC, was a director of the company that was key to this whole tax avoidance scheme.
I've long wondered why HMRC needs a board made up of representatives of big business without any trade union, employee or civil society representation. When those from big business have been associated with tax avoidance then the doubts grow. As the Mirror notes:
Campaigner Richard Murphy, of Tax Research, claimed Beckers' role on HMRC's board was difficult to justify.
He said: “He is a German national who has been a director of a company that has clearly been involved with tax avoidance .
"How this qualifies him to supervise our national tax authority is hard to explain.”
I am pleased to note that Margaret Hodge MP agrees.
Candidly it is time to sweep this Board clean and give HMRC the leadership it needs and deserves. That would be one that believes in collecting tax, for a start.
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:
“I’ve long wondered why HMRC needs a board made up of representatives of big business without any trade union, employee or civil society representation.”
And why no small business representation?
Indeed
I want you on the Board!
I would like you on the board!!!
So, it seems, would Margaret Hodge
Indeed. He should be on the board. But how comfortable are you with the implications of your “trade union, employee or civil society representation” Do you just mean people you agree with? How about the Tax Payers’ Alliance? Representatives from the tax avoidance industry?
“Civil society” is an extensive catchment area. Do you really mean all of it?
As with the GAAR – there has to be a qualification test showing commitment to the cause
Since when did any organisation recruit people seeking to undermine its aims?
What do you say are the cause and aims of the HMRC for this purpose?
I reckon it is to extract whatever tax civil society thinks is appropriate from the rich and other neoliberals to ensure money is not lost to the economy. Is this on the right track? I would be grateful for your guidance.
Do you think there is a place for someone like me to be on this Board? I don’t know much about tax and I left school at 16 with no qualifications. But I hate neoliberals as much as anybody.
So it would be accurate to say you want representatives from civil society, not those who are representative of civil society? Or are you defining civil society as those committed to “the cause”.
I am saying anyone who serves HMRC has to be committed to collecting tax
The sole aim and objective of the HMRC is to enforce (and be subject to) the law as established by Parliament and interpreted by the courts.
Whether this results in tax or non-collection of tax is not at all HMRC’s concern. It is then entirely the concern of Parliament.
Suggesting they have an objective beyond this is frankly a frightening idea that belongs in fascist states.
I’d appreciate a clear statement of where you stand on this.
For heaven’s ask stop being stupid
Do you honestly think there are automatons who go to work and exercise no judgement at all because there every action is dictated by statute
Clearly you have no comprehension of human nature, organisations or statute
Public sector appointments surely require a robust Job Description to comply with public body Governance. As a public employee I regularly have to write Job Descriptions, with posts externally advertised for applications. It would be revealing to find out if Job Descriptions exist for these HMRC posts and to see the roles and duties – to promote tax collection and requirement to reduce avoidance. And a Qualification Test endorsed by advocates of tax justice.
Why not do an FoI and share it with us?
If HMRC officers, in exercising human nature and not acting as automatons(as you suggest) think tax is collectable, but the courts think it isn’t collectable, then it isn’t collectable. Period.
It is the aim of HMRC to read the law as the courts would do, on the assumption that any judgement they make in the course of their work may one day be tested in the courts (even if in practice very few get that far).
I accept they don’t always get it right, but that must be the sole aim when collecting tax. No other test is relevant or acceptable.
All public sector workers should be doing this in their dealings with the public.
But since the courts have not ruled on 99% of all taxes judgment has to be used
So very politely, your suggestions remain utterly ludicrous posturing intended to constrain the legitimate right of the state to enforce its property rights
OK – nice challenge.
I think we are talking at cross purposes here.
I agree that in determining what the law is on a particular question does sometimes require judgement where there isn’t anything clear in the statute or existing case law.
However, there are techniques (not infallible, sure) to determine what the law is (ie what would a court say) in these circumstances.
All I am saying is that attempting to discern and apply the law is HMRC’s sole consideration. Other considerations by HMRC officers in carrying out their duties (eg their political ideology, personal feelings about a particular taxpayer) are completely irrelevant.
Certainly, to say ‘this should be taxable because the state needs the money for such-and-such’ or is not a consideration for HMRC (that’s for Parliament to do). If there isn’t clear law saying something is taxable, then it isn’t taxable.
In summary, the state only has claim to it as its ‘property’ (to adopt your language) if the law says so. It has no other legitimate claim.
I don’t think I am saying anything controversial here. I am curious at why you refuse to state your position clearly (and appear to suggest HMRC needs more input from your ideological mates).
No one disagrees that a tax officer should not allow political ideology and sentiment to cloud their judgement
That is a very long way from what you said in the first instance
Butt it’s also true HMRC has to make judgement. If you deny that you know nothing about law and how it is understood, or the basics of the philosophy of language
Complete overhaul of HMRC should be on Milibands agenda!
I think there is a wider problem here – many government departments appear to have these sorts of big business representatives in senior non-exec positions. Not at all clear what they contribute to organisations whose principal aim is to provide a public service, not bolster the bottom line, or fill the pockets of their executives.
Agreed
I am not against using expertise from anywhere and HMRC’s Board should be balanced.
But this particular appointment looks plain awful. But as I keep saying, HMRC needs root and branch reform, and so does the whole Tax policy formulation area.
It’s distressing how little talent is coming through the ranks of HMRC itself. I’m not sure how much any token outsiders would help, but surely HMRC’s board should be primarily made up of experienced and knowledgeable people whose loyalty is beyond doubt because they have spent their career defending the UK’s tax interests. Sadly the CV of most of the possible candidates is a sorry tale of closing offices and shafting their own workforce.
I agree – that should be the best recruiting ground
But when so much high level work is done by secondees what is the chance?
There was a hilarious moment about 3 years ago when the role of Dave Hartnett was questioned. The then ‘head’ of HMRC had to confess that DH retained his role because he was the ONLY member of HMRC’s board with any experience of tax.
I just can’t imagine Sainsbury’s (say) saying that Ms X was crucial to their Board of Directors as she was the only one with retail experience!
The cult of the all-purpose manager/consultant seems to bedevil the Public Sector whilst the Private Sector has, I think, now worked out that it really isn’t a good idea.
Ed: A comment deleted for being tediously small minded
When I allow one comment I do not then give licence for general abuse