HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) stepped up its crackdown on tax evasion on Tuesday, publishing its second list of “deliberate tax defaulters” on its website.
The list includes 15 names owing more than £25,000 in tax, including two pub landlords and a kebab shop owner.
Now I'm the last to deny that tax evasion is an issue. It is: a £70 billion issue.
But isn't it odd that the multinational corporations we all now know cost the UK billions in lost tax didn't top the list?
Keep asking why that is , and then note that the board of HMRC is dominated by big business and there are no small business representatives at all. And then you might have your answer.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Might that be because – however deplorable – tax avoidance of the type that ‘Big Business’ gets involved with is a complex but legal, though morally bankrupt actvity and tax evasion is an out-and-out crime?
Oh yes
But when you’re naming and shaming scale has to be an issue
It’s one thing for the PAC to quiz multinationals on their tax avoidance.. it’s quite another to expect HMRC to label them as ‘defaulters’.
There was a documentary film a while back about Fox News, and it highlighted how they’d deliberately mix stories/ideas in order to create a misleading impression. For example, a story about Iraq would include references to 9/11. The result was that a majority of Fox viewers thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11… thus providing legitimacy for the war.
Your seamless leap from evasion to avoidance is from the same playbook.
It is a seamless leap between tax evasion and avoidance
You’re right
Does the “thickness of a cell wall” strike a chord?
Yes. And as far as glib over-simplifications go, it’s a pretty good one. But if you actually think it through, the side of the prison wall that someone is on is quite important… as are the rules that determine it.
It’s quite possible to believe that avoidance is wrong, but maintain that the distinction between avoidance and evasion matters.
Richard conflates proven evasion with avoidance by unnamed multi-nationals. I note he does not accuse any named companies of illegal behaviour. And, unless there is evidence of evasion, he will not. Because to do so would be libellous. That’s why I find this post to be underhand and cowardly.
Why not say ‘why doesn’t this list of tax evaders include Amazon and Stabucks?’.
Avoidance can now be illegal
There isn’t a distinction
Driving at 30mph *can* be illegal. But usually it’s not.
You know that what Amazon and Starbucks do is not illegal. Nor Google, unless they lied about what their people do.. in which case it’s evasion (not a GAAR matter).
Don’t criticise HMRC for not naming multi-nationals as tax evaders if you’re not prepared to name them either.
Also, if there’s now no distinction, then stop criticising the GAAR, give credit to the tories for making avoidance illegal, and move on to campaigning for the enforcement of the law, not of morality. And alert the OED, because I’m not sure they’ve had that memo.
What, when abuse continues?
And the GAAR has indeed made a semantic change but will miss most of the actual abuse
Please get real
People die because of multinational corporation tax dodging
There’s no way I will ignore that
I hope that Lee T will give a response to Richard’s comment “People die because because of multinational corporation tax dodging”. This is the very crux of the matter. We need to make a banner!
Carol
We were not discussing the impact of tax avoidance, I was not defending or excusing any tax avoidance. It was a discussion about the language used, followed by Richard’s absurd assertion that there is now no legal distinction between evasion and avoidance.
Richard’s comment was entirely out of the context of the discussion. It was a hysterical device to draw attention from the what was actually being said.
Utter nonsense
Maybe you don’t like the fact I am right
The usual “soft targets” for HMRC.