HMRC claims £24bn from tax crackdown

HMRC has claimed it increased its tax take by 15%, up £3.2bn on last year, bringing in a record £23.9bn from “increased activity” on unpaid tax.

The Revenue said the haul was a result of its crackdown on large scale tax avoidance schemes, where more than £8bn came from large business, £1bn from criminals and £2.7bn from tackling avoidance schemes at court.

David Gauke, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, said: “We set HMRC ambitious targets to increase its yield and the figures published today demonstrate that HMRC is successfully meeting these challenges.

“It also sends a clear signal - HMRC will pursue those seeking to avoid their responsibilities and will collect the taxes that are due.”

HMRC also said it had protected the exchequer from future tax avoidance by closing corporation tax and stamp duty land tax loopholes.

The figure is nearly £1bn higher than the target set by George Osborne in the Autumn Statement in December. Government targets include an extra £24.5bn in the year to next April, and £26.3bn for the following year. HMRC expects to secure £100bn between 2010 and 2015 as a result of its investigations into unpaid tax.

The most recent figures...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
Moonbeam's picture

Given HMRC's lousy information systems...    4 thanks

Moonbeam | | Permalink

how on earth would it know how much tax to pursue?

Lots of taxpayers' money is wasted on chasing the wrong people for money they don't owe.

Lots of taxpayers' money is wasted on employing people to answer questions about incorrect demands.

I suggest the senior people are sacked and a new breed of manager is brought in from industry, with the brief of beefing up the whole nightmare operation, bringing in money that is genuinely owed, and getting the computer systems sorted now and future proofed.

The government would have to agree a moratorium in passing more mind boggling tax legislation that costs far too much to administer.

The whole Customs and Excise ethos is that taxpayers are largely up to no good and it's right to pursue them to the bitter end without checking the facts first. That attitude affects staff morale and their relationship with the accountancy profession. If HMRC could confidently rely on its systems accountants would have a lot more respect for it.

I am in favour of everyone paying what is due and on time - after all I do that myself. I am not in favour of individual companies and people being run into the ground when they don't owe a penny.

Nice Idea.......But........

Michael C Feltham | | Permalink

Moonbeam wrote:

I suggest the senior people are sacked and a new breed of manager is brought in from industry, with the brief of beefing up the whole nightmare operation, bringing in money that is genuinely owed, and getting the computer systems sorted now and future proofed.

Unfortunately, when HM Inland Revenue originally instructed consultants (as they were then called Arthur Anderson - remember Enron?) Anderson Consulting won the bid for core ICT systems.

When later, government wished to pull out they gave Anderson Consulting notice and were staggered to then realise whoever signed off on the contract hadn't realised HM Government had failed to demand ownership of the IPR!

Anderson demanded something astronomic (£100 Million/year) for license fees of the core IPR of the system..........

They stayed on the job.

Sadly government's record since circa 1980 on ICT systems has been an unmitigated disaster; and each and every project has overun on  time and cost, as well as failing to deliver expected outcomes.

 

Sack all the Compliance Dept

Briar | | Permalink

We accountants in Cumbria would be responsible for say perusing the work of (say) Kent accountants, Kent accountants would look at businesses in (say) Cornwall, and Cornwall accountants would check on Cumbrians. 

I am sure that we could all increase the "tax take" and improve our work as well (knowing that we could be looked at by someone qualified to do so. We would expect to be paid (on results?) but given our expertise we would be cheaper than HMRC.

Old Greying Accountant's picture

Jus heard ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

Briar wrote:

We accountants in Cumbria would be responsible for say perusing the work of (say) Kent accountants, Kent accountants would look at businesses in (say) Cornwall, and Cornwall accountants would check on Cumbrians. 

I am sure that we could all increase the "tax take" and improve our work as well (knowing that we could be looked at by someone qualified to do so. We would expect to be paid (on results?) but given our expertise we would be cheaper than HMRC.

... my first cuckoo this spring!

Laying eggs!

Briar | | Permalink

Like it!

I was just laying my eggs in someone else's nest!

Old Greying Accountant's picture

Don't know about you ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... but I am flat out with my own work, let alone checking some other poor bugger who is doing his best to get a feasible set of accounts from the pile of shite the client dropped in a week before the deadline!

Should have done better

redboam | | Permalink

How much better would this number have been if Goldman Sachs and Bernie Ecclestone hadn't been let off the hook?

But it would be fun!

Briar | | Permalink

I would have fun checking and bringing to book some of the larger firms who, arrogantly, prepare rubbish accounts (by juniors), charge large fees, and think that they are invincible. I am also flat out with piles of allsorts but I could kick out the lousy ones if I was paid by HMRC to do their job much better than they can.

In the final analysis, sorting out the tax evaders would help us all. HMRC make a very poor job of it. We could do it better. Legitimate tax avoiders (ISA investors, pension contributors, one-man limited companies) would not need to be challenged if their accounts were not obviously wrong.

Yes, the poor guy who is trying to make a living but cannot keep any accounts has to be helped (I do a lot of it!) and we do our best for them - but HMRC have no idea of the problems or the efforts which we put in. But then they claim victory by persecuting the (relatively) innocents.