Didn't find your answer?

Look at the list in the link below. Given the choice, you would have to be mad not to invest all your money in any tax avoidance litigation conducted by HMRC (above FTT so you get your costs). How therefore can there be any excuse that HMRC are starved of resources? I would be the first to invest in this (under PPP or whatever) given the chance!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-litigation-deci...

Replies (15)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Jul 2018 09:51

HMRC won 23 of the 24 decisions listed, with one producing a mixed result. How can you lose money with form like that? (It's more or less the same as the 99% criminal conviction rate in Russia & China, which speaks volumes!)

Thanks (2)
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Jul 2018 09:52

Judges are never truly independent of the Government.

"Widgery Washes Whiter".

Thanks (3)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
17th Jul 2018 10:01

Even a better win rate than Man City last season.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By GW
17th Jul 2018 10:15

"This is a list of litigation decisions where HM Revenue and Customs considered tax avoidance was involved and a decision was received during 2017 to 2018"

There is nothing that says the list is complete, or not selectively complied.

Am I getting too cynical?

Thanks (1)
Replying to GW:
avatar
By Maslins
17th Jul 2018 10:50

Indeed...I don't know the numbers, but from what I hear especially recently HMRC have lost more IR35 cases than they've won. Unsure what their criteria are for the ones they list on that page, but I imagine it's conveniently chosen to show the results they want to show.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By gordo
17th Jul 2018 12:47

Check page 97 of the annual report for the basis of the statistics used to claim 80% success rate. HMRC count partial wins as wins with no mention of partial loss and then calculate a percentage from that. Is a partial win not the same as a partial loss and does the maths even work? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Thanks (0)
Replying to gordo:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Jul 2018 13:14

The more interesting figure on that page I think is this:

"The tax protected in all litigation activity in the year was £37 billion"

That is an absolutely staggeringly massive sum of money and really makes you wonder why on earth HMRC are under resourced at all in the 1st place (as that sum alone is about 10 x HMRC's annual budget and about 1/3 of the annual NHS budget I think and about the same as the Brexit divorce bill)!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Jul 2018 13:02

Is it because HMRC is so badly run ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Jul 2018 13:13

Surely HMRC's budget is for The Treasury and ministers and the Government to decide, but I am totally mystified as to why such a clearly massively profitable venture is underfunded at all in the first place (clearly that would not happen in a million years if it was run by the private sector).

Golly, I am starting to sound like Richard Murphy!

Also, why is this staggeringly massive sum of extra tax not mentioned more in the press etc?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By gordo
17th Jul 2018 13:26

Perhaps the Government realise that the claim for 'tax protected' is as reliable as all other HMRC estimates. The very term 'tax protected' immediately makes me suspicious as to how it was calculated. If you read the rest of the HMRC spin/report you'll probably see what I mean.

Thanks (0)
Replying to gordo:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Jul 2018 13:39

I haven't believed anything the Government tells me for years.

It's unwise.

Thanks (1)
Replying to gordo:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Jul 2018 13:44

But even ignoring that, the ROI must be colossal. That tax saving probably cost a lot less than £500m to generate, which is a 5,000%+ ROI (possibly 10,000%+)!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
17th Jul 2018 15:26

And yet, HMRC see hitting small businesses with MTD is going to plug the tax gap, as it is their 'mistakes' that causes the bulk of it!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Vaughan Blake1:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Jul 2018 15:34

Because there'll be less mistakes with MTD ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By gordo
17th Jul 2018 16:05

If you look at the last page of the Annual Report, you'll find- "2.22 Making Tax Digital for Business was originally expected to generate £920 million of additional tax revenue by 2020-21 by minimising error and failure to take reasonable care through digital record-keeping and quarterly digital reporting. The government’s July 2017 decision to change the pace and scope of the roll-out meant that the additional tax revenue figures were updated accordingly (Figure 18). HMRC’s revised estimate of the additional tax revenue that Making Tax Digital for Business will generate by 2020-21 is £480 million and this was protected by the prioritisation exercise. HMRC expects Making Tax Digital for Business to have generated £1 billion of additional tax revenue by 2023. HMRC has identified that its Making Tax Digital for Individuals programme, that had no estimate of additional revenue, will now give rise to £293 million in additional tax revenue over the SR15 period.20 HMRC had realised £33.5 million of this by the end of March 2018."

Thanks (0)