{"id":20494,"date":"2013-05-02T13:19:41","date_gmt":"2013-05-02T12:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=20494"},"modified":"2013-05-02T14:40:27","modified_gmt":"2013-05-02T13:40:27","slug":"should-the-independent-police-complaints-commission-investigate-dave-hartnetts-actions-on-goldman-sachs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2013\/05\/02\/should-the-independent-police-complaints-commission-investigate-dave-hartnetts-actions-on-goldman-sachs\/","title":{"rendered":"Should the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigate Dave Hartnett&#8217;s actions on Goldman Sachs?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Today's <a title=\"HMRC let Goldman Sachs off tax to avoid \u2018major embarrassment\u2019 for George Osborne\" href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2013\/05\/02\/hmrc-let-goldman-sachs-off-tax-to-avoid-major-embarrassment-for-george-osborne\/\" target=\"_blank\">hearing\u00a0brought\u00a0by UK Uncut<\/a> is bringing out\u00a0serious\u00a0and new evidence on HMRC's dealings with Goldman Sachs, especially with regard to the evidence from Dave Hartnett. Some of this <a title=\"Come on Dave Hartnett, that\u2019s just not credible\" href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2013\/05\/02\/come-on-dave-hartnett-thats-just-not-credible\/\" target=\"_blank\">appears to\u00a0conflict\u00a0with itself<\/a>, more with what has been said to parliament.<\/p>\n<p>Is this a serious issue\u00a0given\u00a0the sums involved? I think so, and I also think there is potentially something\u00a0that can be done about it. The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ipcc.gov.uk\/en\/Pages\/hmrc_whatcomplaint.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">Independent Police\u00a0Complaints\u00a0Commission can address issues arising in HMRC<\/a>. As they say on their web\u00a0site:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-20495\" alt=\"Screen shot 2013-05-02 at 13.06.02\" src=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02.png\" width=\"568\" height=\"454\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02.png 568w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02-300x239.png 300w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02-281x225.png 281w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02-375x300.png 375w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-13.06.02-165x132.png 165w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 568px) 100vw, 568px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Of course most of these are completely irrelevant to this matter.<\/p>\n<p>But is it corrupt to, as a Commissioner of HMRC, over-rule decisions made\u00a0elsewhere\u00a0in the\u00a0department\u00a0to save\u00a0embarrassment\u00a0to yourself when there is a direct resulting loss of revenue? After all, avoiding serious embarrassment\u00a0is a personal gain, secured here by a\u00a0personal\u00a0decision at cost to the Exchequer.<\/p>\n<p>I do not know is the honest answer. But it seems to me that the IPCC have a case to look at.<\/p>\n<p>UPDATE AT 14.40:<\/p>\n<p>Corruption in this context could either be theft, which seems inappropriate to consider in this case as there is no evidence I can see of it, or it could be fraud. It's worth noting section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-14.34.26.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-20498\" alt=\"Screen shot 2013-05-02 at 14.34.26\" src=\"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-14.34.26.png\" width=\"761\" height=\"248\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-14.34.26.png 761w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-14.34.26-300x97.png 300w, https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/Screen-shot-2013-05-02-at-14.34.26-200x65.png 200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 761px) 100vw, 761px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Clearly a Commissioner of HMRC meets the criteria of part 1(a).<\/p>\n<p>I do not know the answer to part 1 (b). That is why I have said the IPCC may wish to look at this issue.<\/p>\n<p>I do think it possible that saving\u00a0embarrassment\u00a0can constitute a gain in part 1(c). I also think it possible not pursuing a negotiation is to expose an organisation to loss, and section 2 makes that clear.<\/p>\n<p>Again, I make no conclusion, at all. I am saying the IPCC could be asked for an opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today&#8217;s hearing\u00a0brought\u00a0by UK Uncut is bringing out\u00a0serious\u00a0and new evidence on HMRC&#8217;s dealings with Goldman Sachs, especially with regard to the evidence from Dave Hartnett. Some<br \/><a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2013\/05\/02\/should-the-independent-police-complaints-commission-investigate-dave-hartnetts-actions-on-goldman-sachs\/\"><em> Read the full article&#8230;<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hmrc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20494","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}