Jolyn Maugham has provided an excellent analysis of the Court of Appeal decision in the Ingenious case.
His analysis is more interesting though. As he says:
There is a world of difference between HMRC recognising that there is no legal impediment to it acting in the public interest by enhancing transparency — and HMRC actually acting in the public interest. The former can be (and hopefully now has been) accomplished in consequence of the Court of Appeal's decision and several brutal and public Hodgeings. But we get to the latter only through internal cultural change. Let's hope we now see some.
I agree with my learned friend.
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!
We’ve seen a lot of criticism of David Hartnett, mostly for errors of judgment that, I think, largely arise because of an HMRC instinct to bail out of investigations that are seen as lasting too long. Still his quote that nobody “thinks film scheme are anything other than scams for scumbags” makes him sound like a real HMRC person.
There are no real HMRC people on the board that governs HMRC now. If Patrick McKenna were appointed to the Board he would not look out of place.
True