You might also be interested in
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Easy option
Did they actually get the criminals?
or was it just a case of taking out the innocent!
That sounds just like HMRC. They always go for the easy option
Unistar
My firm were acting accountants for UGL & UTL. HMRC stance was a "blanket" stance issued by Red Dawn Primo. My clients have spent six years fighting HMRC over this matter. The effects on my client's business and lifestyle were severe.HMRC have no concept on the damage caused by their actions on this case. We are still waiting for an apology.
Apology?
Much as your clients deserve an unreserved apology, HMRC do not appear to be in the habit of apologising for anything. Good luck with that one.
I do like that bit
"A spokesperson for HMRC said that the refusal to appeal left them “naturally disappointed” as it had largely driven MTIC fraud out of the mobile phone sector, to the benefit of the legitimate fraud."
to the benefit of the legitimate fraud!
Gives you some idea where HMRC are coming from and would certainly explain their behaviour if they were on the criminals payroll.
HMRC VAT Fraud
HMRC were clueless. They still are. My client's were dealing direct with blue chip companies and acredited distributors. The vast majority of frauds occured (if actually occured at all) 8 or 9 suppliers down the supply chain. HMRC could not accept that my client was not involved in any carasal fraud. If client my was involved with criminals they would have been prosecuted accordingly. This case has been a waste of public money. HMRC costs on this case must be close to seven figures.
an oxymoron, surely!
Can HMRC point in their manuals to the definition of 'legitimate fraud'. Is it like mercy killing or mothballs, perhaps?