Jump to content

Tax cheats fined


Recommended Posts

This from one of the pinks gave me a warm glow!!



"Tax cheats assisted by a former HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) officer have been ordered to repay over £1 million for fraudulent activity.


A total of 14 people took part in a £1.2 million tax fraud, including a former HMRC administrative officer, who diverted the money in tax payments to his 13 co-defendants.


Former HMRC officer Michael Kitchen and his co-defendants were all sentenced earlier this year.


The group of cheats included Kitchen's sister, Stephanie Gough, and four family members.


Kitchen’s former job consisted of allocating payments made by businesses to their PAYE accounts. He diverted a proportion of 158 payments to the tax accounts of a circle of friends and associates.


Each were ordered to pay a share of the £1 million and were either given prison sentences or fined and ordered to do community work.


Kitchen was ordered to pay £175,000 by May next year and was sentenced to six years in prison for cheating the public revenue and perverting the court of justice.


Ian Horridge, internal governance at HMRC, said: 'Kitchen abused his position of trust in a sophisticated and sustained fraud aimed at paying the tax liabilities of his friends and associates. HMRC is committed to the highest level of integrity and we take the strongest possible action against the tiny minority who let us all down by falling short of those standards.' "


Link to comment
Share on other sites

....what is somewhat more worrying than companies ostensibly providing services to the (previously unsuspecting) general public avoiding tax by such methods, is the fact that major suppliers of outsourced services to Government appear to have used such "transfer pricing" and other methods (including tax credits for a nominally loss-making business), to avoid large amounts of tax.


Now, in this case, it appears to me that in the better fiscal circumstances this was, for a long time possibly given the "Nelson touch" by Government, as the resulting pricing allowed a demonstration of "savings" (at least at the front line), whilst the reduced tax-take was considerably less apparent.


In these more straitened times, the arrangements are now coming under scrutiny.


Major suppliers in IT and Services provision have had fingers (rightly or wrongly) pointed at them for such practices (which appear to have been commonplace, and of course, not illegal)


Amongst them are CSC, Accenture, Capgemini, Fujitsu, HP, and IBM.


The sums involved are eyewateringly large!




(It's nice to be able to use Private Eye as a source sometimes - further searching will reveal Parliamentary Commitee review of the issue for those doubters).





Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2012-12-07 12:57 PM


Could not agree more.


It is still pretty bad tho'


I am glad Starbucks felt the anger of people by their reduced turnover - how best to protest!!! Not use them!!



Can't imaging why anyone would want to drink excessively overpriced dishwater, anyway. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Starbucks now get lots of publilc approval for VOLUNTEERING to pay tax, after "negotiations" with HMRC.

The rest of us just get it taken off us!


I agree with the idea of boycotting grossly immoral companies (can't boycott ALL immoral companies, we'd have to go back to subsistence farming!).


But in the end it's the Government's job to close loopholes, so that companies can't pick and choose what taxes they feel like paying. I know it's complicated, but we have enough well-paid civil servants who ought to be able to write watertight rules!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Stalwart says it all - Starbucks and other named high flyers have done nothing illegal in having complied with UK tax rules laid down by our Govt and HMRC . and for those who would argue

on the moral issue - they would be shooting themselves in the foot should HMRC also be taken to task over their many failings incompetence and distress discussing this aspect would bring forth.


HMRC have only themselves to blame in having what is probably the worlds most complicated tax rules and conditions - amounting to many thousands of pages of rules and regulations that it is said even HMRC themselves have difficulty in fully understanding or decoding !




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true Skyliner - in my experience the issue is usually where individuals not conversant with the rules and given the task of dealing with those very issues within HMRC.


I have several examples - one where Discontinuation Relief applies to an Investment bond that was surrendered and STILL the tax office dealing have not referred it to an individual that knows what and how to deal with it. This case has rumbled on for 3 years now.


Another classic of some years ago was where we were threatened with an HMRC "visit" if we did not accept what this HMRC guy was saying - so we said "OK - come and see us!" - Luckily my Boss at the time knew one of the senior bods at the tax office and we got it sorted - but the issue was/is, in both cases above, someone genuinely ignorant of the rules within HMRC trying to bullish!t their way over reality.


I wonder how many people they get away with it on?


Because those you deal with in the first place invariably get quite stroppy if you point out that they are wrong.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is recognised and accepted that most civilised nations rely heavily on raising tax and provided the proceeds are then sensibly and fairly utilised few then can have complaints. However I can not

get over concerned about any loss or avoidance of tax affecting HMRC and other forms of HM Govts legalised robbery and theft - Now it is known that our tax is used to prop up the scandal of MPs fraudulent expense claims, undeserved severance pay, free travel for MPs relatives, 850 lords daily attendance allowances - £12-billion wasted on scrapped NHS computer systems - The list of Govt squandering and wastage would probably fill a volume or two .

Good luck to Starbucks and all others who have navigated a legal path through over a thousand

pages of complicated tax instructions and rules that even the originators - HMRC themselves have difficulty in fully comprehending. But heres a thought - Had Starbucks paid any disputed

tax shortages into HMRCs coffer - does anyone seriously beleive it would make a jot of difference

towards lowering their personal tax - or otherwise improving any aspect of life for the average

hoi poiloi proletariat and general great unwashed - other than being absorbed into funding another round of squandering within Westminster.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...