Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Dishonest tax agents: The HMRC approach

by
4th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

HMRC has now released a note setting out its approach to dishonest conduct by tax agents, together with links to the technical guidance contained at Chapter 180000 of the Compliance Handbook and operational and process guidance at Chapter 880000.

Retired barrister John Flood explains that from 1 April dishonest conduct by tax agents becomes liable to civil penalties.

In my earlier article, Dishonest Agents: Trouble Ahead, I set out the legal framework for the new regime as does HMRC now in its note. They have however commented that “HMRC will normally look to prosecute dishonest tax agents but when they can’t, the department needs civil powers to penalise them”. This is an important reminder that the new civil sanction regime is not a substitute for criminal sanctions but an additional remedy.

Comments on my first article indicated a concern over vindictive officers and there was evidence of aggressive early approaches, as outlined in HMRC ‘dishonest agent’ letter wreaks havoc. HMRC has given a commitment that where they have evidence of dishonest conduct it will be a specialist officer who gives the conduct notice required to gets things going and that the notice will set out the evidence held. Although this will not stop officers acting arbitrarily the notice should indicate the nature of HMRC’s concerns and therefore provide some safeguard against capricious allegations. In any event this is an appealable notice.

Readers may be concerned that it is at this stage of unproved allegations HMRC may disclose details of dishonest conduct to the agent’s professional body, if they have one. This is permitted by S.20(3) Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 which gives HMRC power to make a public interest disclosure.

HMRC accepts that the onus is on them to prove dishonesty but claim that it is to the civil standard. This ignores ECHR cases which suggest that because of the nature of the sanctions involved the standard of evidence should be equal to the criminal standard.

Assuming that dishonest conduct is established the question of a penalty arises. HMRC indicates the level of penalty will involve whether the agent volunteers material and how much help is given to establish the extent of dishonesty. The minimum penalty of £5,000 is only available when the assistance is full and frank but penalties are appealable.

John Flood is a retired barrister and was formerly a deputy head of Specialist Investigations HMRC.

Tags:

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By The Black Knight
08th Apr 2013 16:01

The Right to a fair Trial?

Can someone please explain.

If you are accused of a criminal offence then under European Human Rights you have the right to a fair trial.

Under normal tax investigations the civil route/settlement is accepted in exchange for HMRC not prosecuting and all is normally well.

However If you believe you are innocent then the stakes are much higher for an agent who would want to prove his/her innocence so you would want to take advantage of the safeguards of a full Jury Trial and the full burden of proof?

Presumably you can refuse the civil route as you could by not agreeing settlement in a tax investigation?

My second question refers to a the article above: When can they not prosecute? I hope this is not where they don't have enough evidence?

Thanks (1)
By Donald6000
09th Apr 2013 22:03

Can you tell me what it is that HMRC know about anything

Having sacked all the hired help since 1980, the Revenue is now strutting its stuff like a fire breathing monster telling us that it can now sort out dishonest agents. How about dishonest Directors of the Revenue, who would forgive Vodaphone £5BN of avoided taxation?

If they have proof of dishonesty or think that they can uncover intention of dishonesty then they should prove it to the criminal standard and not [***] about with balance of probabilities.The fact that they are messing about means that they have not got anything and this is just a fake exercise in trying to persuade a few rogue agents not to let their sub-contractors claim money back.

Instead of coming out with this garbage, the Revenue would be better organising itself back into a half decent department, instead of coming out with pontificating gibberish which they have no hope of implementing. Another case of the dog which continues not to bark in the night.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
10th Apr 2013 12:43

I dislike this

It's a one way street.  HMRC can now choose any agent that gets under their skin and threaten them with this penalty if they don't bend over.

On the other hand HMRC can go fishing, waste everybody's time and money and there is no comeback at all on serial offenders from HMRC (apart from promotion for them..).

Thanks (1)
avatar
By The Black Knight
10th Apr 2013 15:48

They are unlikely to use these rules anyway?

Like most of this draconian legislation e.g. MLR it is not used, and only the compliant will comply.

What it does confirm is that the criminals have a get out of jail free card and HMRC does not take agent dishonesty or tax fraud seriously, demonstrated by their lack of willingness to prosecute anyone.

Most HMRC employees would not recognise a tax fraud even if it slapped them in the face.

 

 

Thanks (0)