Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, has accused the government of inflicting “unnecessary damage” on its reputation when it retrospectively outlawed a £300m tax deal in a move the bank says compromised taxpayer confidentiality.
Mr Diamond attacked the government for the “effective naming” of Barclays in the Treasury's statement to Parliament in February which described the bank's debt buyback arrangement as a “highly abusive” scheme.
In a letter to Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Treasury select committee, Mr Diamond said the way the situation had been handled was “completely unwarranted”. He said: “Unnecessary damage was placed on Barclays' reputation just at a time when the focus should be on rebuilding confidence and accelerating growth, not undermining it.”
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:
And just how did Barclays not act in accordance with the Code of Practice on Taxation for Banks.
As far as I can see, they reported the arrangements they were undertaking to HMRC, HMRC found them contrary to the intent of the 2010 amendments and rthe Code and so they were blasted out of the stratospehere.
It would appear that it was a big mistake to name Barclays and may do more harm that good when other signatories to the Code decline to volunteer information due to reputational risk.
They said they wouldn’t tax avoid
They did
Really hard to spot the problem, isn’t it?
I’m sorry but your answer is far too simplistic.
In your opinion they avoided tax, in HMRC’s opinion thay were avoiding tax. In the opinion of Barclays and their advisers they were not.
But for the Code, it is unlikely that the matter would have been disposed of so easily and without recourse to the courts.
They complied with the Code – they presented the facts, that is what they were duty bound to do.
Whether it was avoidance or not is subjective.
Everything is subjective
And in my subjective opinion and that of HMT they did not comply with the Code and did avoid tax, aggressively, as a result
You may differ, of course
But the man on the Clapham Omnibus would consider you unwise for doing so on this occasion, I think (subjectively)
The Man on the Clapham omnibus our yardstick an objective test, the reasonable person without specialisation. Furthermore, the Man on the Clapham omnibus is not well versed in taxation legislation and is therefore incapable of making a proper and objective comment on the application of tax law.
However, my point is not to do with whether Barclays were avoiding tax or not but that Gauke was wrong in drawing attention to the taxpayers name and that this was not in the spirit of the Code and may affect its working in the future. Gauke and the Treasury didn’t think this through and were simply headline seeking.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is fit to try a person as part of ajury
And rightly so
As for Gauke – has he ever got anything right?
For once (and it’s rare) I agree with you on this
But not with Diamond – anyone could have worked out who it was
Wasn’t this the Bob Diamond who told us he regrets past behaviour, and although he cannot turn the clock back he recognises that they need to be “good citizens” in the future?
The same Bob Diamond who benefitted from bank bail outs through the indirect mechanism of establishing that no matter what they do they will not be allowed to fail?
Why, I think it is.
Odd then that he continues to look for specious reasons not to pay his tax: Good citizens recognise the spirit of the law: looking for a loophole is contemptible in the circumstances and in face of his own patronising drivel no longer ago than last November.
Reputation? What reputation? The only reputation he has is as a self serving, patronising individual fully on side with the attitudes of his bank. To remind you of his “lecture” the text is linked in this post
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48486845&p=337990120