Should we learn a lesson from this ?

Should we learn a lesson from this ?

Didn't find your answer?

Mass murderer Derrick Bird was tipped over the edge by a major tax investigation into an undeclared £60,000 which he feared would see him sent to prison, it was disclosed last night.

Increasingly desperate and drinking heavily, he became embroiled in a bitter dispute with his twin brother David who was the first of his 12 victims.

Bird, 52, killed brother David then family solicitor Kevin Commons, who he thought was colluding to cheat him out of his mother's £96,000 inheritance.

He wanted the money to clear his tax demand which exceeded £10,000 after the Inland Revenue caught him with £60,000 in undeclared and untaxed earnings in a bank account, a friend said last night.

Fellow taxi driver Mark Cooper said: 'All he said was that they had caught him with £60,000 in the bank. He said, "They have caught me with £60,000 in the bank, the tax people". He just said, "I'll go to jail".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283857/CUMBRIA-SHOOTINGS-Tax-drove-mass-murderer-Derrick-Bird-edge.html#ixzz0prrvmfS6
 

We know how threatening HMRC letters can be.

We know how HMRC refuse to allow time to pay.

We know the stresses this can cause.

We are all guilty of underestimating it's effect on clients because we have "seen it all before".

But, if the above report is true, is it time for HMRC's methods to be changed.  Is it possible that 12 people died because of a £10,000 tax demand?  Do we really understand just how desparate such demands can make people?

Replies (76)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By JCresswellTax
04th Jun 2010 08:54

Sort of

But it wasnt so much the demand for ther £10k as the threat of going to jail for fraud.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Jun 2010 09:00

Thats the point

That is my point. HMRC make threats, but in fact the chances of a cutodial sentence in such a case are virtually zero. Indeed, its entirely possible that HMRC could never prove deliberate fraud to the standard required in criminal proceedings.

I've seen threatening letters from HMRC which are, quite frankly, ridiculous, and display a woeful lack of legal knowledge.

I've also seen innocent men destroyed and even commit suicide as a result of the fear and stress caused by the threat of proceedings. This is quite common in the case of false rape allegations for instance.

Maybe it's time HMRC stopped using their scare tactics, and actually behaved in a professional manner for a change.  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 09:38

Hang on a minute

Bearing in mind that the quoted article is from a tabloid, that article states that the £60k was undeclared and untaxed earnings. Is that a known fact or an assumption on the part of the newspaper? If it is factually correct, then the individual must have known that the income had been untaxed. And if he did, what on earth was it doing in a bank account? Regardless of what 'scare tactics' HMRC may have used, I think it is appalling that it is being implied that HMRC are somehow responsible for this man's actions. HMRC do get a lot of things wrong, and their behaviour can certainly be improved but if we are to believe what we read in the papers (which is hardly a given) this individual appears to have brought everything on himself (after all, it is reported that he has already been found guilty of - or at least been accused of - theft in the past. I would hazard a guess that the thought of going to jail arose from the individual's own lack of knowledge of the system, his awareness that he had done something wrong and perhaps his previous history - and not as a result of any alleged threat by HMRC.

Thanks (0)
the sea otter
By memyself-eye
04th Jun 2010 10:17

Hang on another minute

This man (if reports are to be believed) was 'fiddling' his income to evade tax - a not uncommon occurance if the people I meet with in the pub are an example. Several openly admit to undeclaring sizeable chunks their income and are confident they will not be caught (or are ignorant of the consequences). In that, they are mostly correct. Those that are caught then express amazement/indignation/hurt..you name it - that they should be 'singled out'.

Not entirely surprising if one of them should go beserk as a result, but don't blame HMRC for finding out - the pity is they don't catch more!

And yes, I do point out to folks what would happen if they are found out, but not many listen. 

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
04th Jun 2010 10:38

East target

If HMRC were able to check up on more people then I'm sure less would be tempted to evade tax. HMRC seem an easy target for governments who want to save money.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
04th Jun 2010 10:40

Hear hear

Blaming HMRC on the basis of tabloid press reports at an early stage of what is undoubtedly a tragic and complex situation is a 'rush to judgement' that should wait for all the facts to be established, and seems unprofessional.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 10:43

Should we learn a lesson from this.

Yes that he was a nutter and no excuse of any kind can mitigate what he did, life has a lot of pressures but one nutter about every 10-15 years can't handle it and goes round shooting people.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Bonetti
04th Jun 2010 11:05

Valid point IMHO

I think the thrust of what CD was saying (and I think it's valid) is that HMRC are using an almighty sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It would seem possible that his mental state was more susceptible than most to the stress which drove him to do what he did (an expert was on telly this morning suggesting a head injury he received 3 years ago may have been a factor).

The point is that HMRC send out letters willy nilly to people whose reactions HMRC have no way (or interest) in knowing.

No-one would suggest the guy should be let off but an aggresive stance from the outset has potential repercussions and this may an example of those repercussions. As has been stated, we are all different.

If you think HMRC should take this line because the size of the organisation is such that it cannot do otherwise then do not bleat when you consider they're going OTT against one of your clients. It's one thing or the other.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
04th Jun 2010 11:13

Wittgenstein had it right

'an aggresive stance from the outset has potential repercussions'

But we (properly) have zero evidence of what stance HMRC took in this case, or if they were involved at all.

So comment can only be based on supposition, prejudice or circumstantial evidence, so is practically worthless, apart from the benefit to us of letting off steam.

Like the man said: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 11:14

Common sense

Many people commit violent and unreasonable acts. We can make excuses for them (poor upbringing, etc), but in the end we should all have a conscience.

If the guy had just committed suicide then I would have sympathised. The fact that he has killed several people, and injured more, can only be attributed to being mentally ill, or totally selfish and self centred with a desire to 'make someone pay'.

OC

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
04th Jun 2010 11:22

HMRC can scare taxpayers

"or totally selfish and self centred with a desire to 'make someone pay'."

I'd go with that.

Many times I've phoned HMRC about debts, etc. and I've managed to diffuse an initial poor attitude by the HMRC person. Some clients wouldn't know how to respond and things could get a lot worse than necessary. Accountants have a lot of experience of dealing with HMRC but taxpayers can get really worried. Hopefully an accountant could have calmed things rather than being an early target!

 

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
04th Jun 2010 11:24

With respect

I realise that you all have the best of intentions, and this may well be a discussion about HMRC, but can I ask that we don't perpetuate this tabloid mentality here please.  I know when something like this happens everyone cannot help but discuss it, it is after all human nature, but in the interest of respect for the dead and the affected families, I do not feel at this time that this conversation is appropriate.

I hope this is taken in the spirit it is sent.

Thank you. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Lords
04th Jun 2010 11:39

Should we learn a lesson from this

Sorry Becky

I cannot agree

If the reports were proved to be correct and the public can be made aware of the (new) powers of HMRC and the way these powers are going to be used surely this debate is worthwhile if only to try and prevent such a tragedy reoccurring 

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
04th Jun 2010 11:56

I agree with Becky

I don't think Becky was talking about how HMRC should deal with "customers" - it was more the comments about Mr Bird. I agree some people, myself included, have said things we may now consider inappropriate.

As usual, Becky gets it right again!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Chris Smail
04th Jun 2010 12:06

Pull this thread?

Given people (well journalists anyway) will be trawling the net for info I think Becky should pull this one.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Bonetti
04th Jun 2010 12:09

Wider issue

I do think there is a valid wider issue in the way HMRC conducts itself.

Whether or not there is a genuine connection with these tragic events is (of course) hearsay but that doesn't diminish the relevance of an examination on how HMRC conducts itself.

I cannot agree that it's a tabloid mentality and it seems short-sighted to state that it is.

HMRC demands can have devastating consequences so it seems a perfectly reasonable debate. How are the victims served by stifling that debate?

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
04th Jun 2010 12:39

I'm sorry, I must not have made my point adequately

I think this is a worthy debate, but I don't think now is the appropriate time to have it as the families of those involved are still in the infancy of their grief.  I am not by any means trying to stiffle decent and reasonable debate, moreover, I welcome and encourage it.  But I am personally concerned with respecting peoples' grief.  That was the point I was wishing to make, I am sorry I did not get that over initially. 

I won't pull the thread, this content is locked down to the outside world.  Thanks to those who have also expressed their wishes to pick this up at another time maybe. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Jun 2010 13:03

The point is ......................

The point of starting this thread was not to discuss the actual case, because we simply dont know the facts.  BUT, if the newspaper reports are correct, and the BBC is now reporting similar facts, then it does raise a very valid point which we should consider.

Perhaps I have more experience than many of the effects and potential consequences of accusations, court proceedings, threats of incarceration etc.

There is, in law, something commonly known as the eggshell skull theory. This means that even if damage caused by your actions is not reasonably forseeable, you are still responsible as you should have allowed for the fact that the "victim" may be particularly vulnerable.  The general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", [Lord Justice Lawton [R v Blaue (1975),]

Now we all know that HMRC do sent extremely aggressive demands without any attempt to see what possible effect this might have on the taxpayer.  I've had demands and threats addressed to dead clients. I've had threats made for monies which are clearly not due. 

Now we, as accountants, are used to dealing with HMRC and are hardened to their attitudes - but taxpayers are not. This case may be extreme, but the damage caused to taxpayers who become ill, become depressed, etc are also srerious and I believe that it really is time that HMRC and indeed all government departments took responsibility for their actions and their mistakes.  

Thanks (0)
By JCresswellTax
04th Jun 2010 14:11

Getting Silly Now

Seems we are getting into trouble no matter what we post about on here now.

Goodbye from me.

Thanks (0)
By GarethHughesFCCA
04th Jun 2010 14:26

.

Sorry posters I disagree with some of these comments completely.

The guy was severely mentally unstable. A £10k tax bill could have been dealt with, and a custodial sentence for fraud in these instances was highly unlikely. In fact, to blame HMRC for attempting to collect unpaid tax from real a tax dodger is ridiculous.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Jun 2010 14:42

Gareth

 A £10k tax bill could have been dealt with, and a custodial sentence for fraud in these instances was highly unlikely. In fact, to blame HMRC for attempting to collect unpaid tax from real a tax dodger is ridiculous.

tooltip();

 

Posted by GarethHughesFCCA on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 14:26

 

The FACT they chase up due tax is not the problem, but the manner in which they do it is. Threatening someone who for all they know might be particularly vulnerable with prison is not reasonable.  Tax is a civil debt - the chances of HMRC proving beyond reasonable doubt that criminal intent was present is remote to say the least.  Defending such cases is the easiest job in the world.

It really is time that HMRC became more professional and more responsible in their actions and attitude.

The reports on this sad case, if correct, merely serve to bring this issue to the publics attention.

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
04th Jun 2010 14:55

A series of events

I think we will discover in due course that the horrific shootings on Wednesday were the culmination of a series of events and that mistakes were made along the way (before the moment that Derrick Bird picked up a gun).

Some of those mistakes will be Derrick Bird's, some will be mistakes (in hindsight) of others who might have handled situations differently.

It will be all too easy now to say, "If only so-and-so had done such-and-such" but who would have anticipated that he could turn into a gunman on a murder spree?

The people of Cumbria will recover from this - and lessons will be learned.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 14:58

We don't know

and presumably never will, if the mention of a jail sentence was made by anyone other than the individual. We may as well have a go at the traffic warden who penalised me for overstaying my welcome by 3 minutes. Legally, I may have no defence, but the authority's refusal to take a reasonable stance in view of the circumstances, which don't need analysis here, left me gobsmacked. Now, had I run amok with a machete, would people now be arguing that wardens should no longer be allowed to issue penalty notices just in case it's enough to send someone over the edge?

But I think that the wider issue is that there are certain individuals who will seize every opportunity to have a go at HMRC and other government departments. As soon as I'd heard the report on the radio this morning I wished my local bookies had been open to place a bet that this thread would appear. I'm not saying that they don't deserve it on occasion, but to use this tragic case as yet another platform for such attacks is, in my own opinion, obscene. Becky is quite correct with her comments above (though of course I'm now amongst the guilty parties in continuing the discussion).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 16:18

I am sorry, Becky, but

how can you possibly ask members to refrain from discussing this issue when, as soon as one logs on to AccountingWeb, they are presented with the headline:

 "Tax investigation leads to murder in Cumbria"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Jun 2010 16:20

.

 

But I think that the wider issue is that there are certain individuals who will seize every opportunity to have a go at HMRC and other government departments. As soon as I'd heard the report on the radio this morning I wished my local bookies had been open to place a bet that this thread would appear. I'm not saying that they don't deserve it on occasion, but to use this tragic case as yet another platform for such attacks is, in my own opinion, obscene. Becky is quite correct with her comments above (though of course I'm now amongst the guilty parties in continuing the discussion).

This is best reply

tooltip();

 

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 14:58

 

There is a wider issue here, which i had hoped might be addressed, namely the agressive stance recently taken by HMRC.

In law the principal is simple - if you make a threat, and its found not to be justified, then you are guilty of an offence. Why should HMRC be exempt from this?

As far as I can see no one has discussed the case itself, and quite rightly. 

Perhaps you consider the BBC, the Times etc to be obscene too?  Or maybe you simply believe that civil servants are above the law and not bound by the rules of civilised behaviour? 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Jun 2010 16:32

There is a wider issue here, which i had hoped might be addresse

And I'm sure it will be, at the proper time and in the proper forum, but not on the platform of this tragedy. I'm not going to be diverted from my view. What I think of civil servants etc is irrelevant - my point is that I find using this case as another reason to attack HMRC a disgusting and highly unprofessional tactic. (Much as I find AWeb's 'tabloid' headline and article referred to above.)

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
04th Jun 2010 16:34

I was talking as a person and not as your community manager

I am beginning to wish I had never expressed my opinion as there seem to be a contingent of members who misunderstood me.  It is my personal rather than professional view that this is not the appropriate time to have this debate.  I was trying to be respectful of the dead and their families.  That is all.  And you are quite right, I disagree with the editors' decision to run the story, but again, that is my personal opinion and I do well understand what drives a news agenda, I am a journalist. In fact I chose not to become a fully-fledged journalist for this very reason - it did not suit my personal ethics and I could not 'turn off' that little voice in my head which told me I was prying into people's lives.  Hence the side-step into community.

But I would like to take this opportunity to say I am sorry that so many of you took my previous posts the wrong way, I should have been clearer and I regret that you have taken umbrage with my comments.  I am sad that this has happened.  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Lords
04th Jun 2010 16:48

Should we learn from this

Becky

When does an inappropriate time become the appropriate time?

I have relatives in the Whitehaven area and am aware as anyone of the distress etc  that has been caused by this terrible incident

This should not however prevent this matter being discussed

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Gina Dyer
04th Jun 2010 16:57

Point taken...

regarding the headline of the news item mentioned above. This has now been amended.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
04th Jun 2010 17:38

No title?

How did you not enter a title?

Thanks (0)
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
04th Jun 2010 17:18

My say as well

The points for and against this thread and the associated news story both have merit, but it was at my instigation that we followed up the Mail/Telegraph/BBC angle on the shooting.

Like parents who have to present a united front to their kids, I usually avoid contradicting anything Becky says because she does such a good, sensitive and patient job moderating this forum. But...

When I finally had the background drawn to my attention, it was obvious that there was a point for considering the story as a topic for professional debate and consideration. The headline did not initially strike the right balance but has now been fixed.

While I don't totally agree with CD, he is justified in asking whether the HMRC's new carrot and stick investigative techniques are appropriate. And I don't think it has to be a question of members setting out to bash HMRC. As always I have a lot of time for David Winch's suggestion that Wednesday's events in Cumbria were the culmination of several factors. There are lessons to be learned and discussing them in a calm and professional manner here could potentially help the department and the profession to look for ways of enforcing the tax rules that don't put individuals into extreme states of stress or emotional vulnerability.

It might help to know if Derrick Bird had any kind of professional help with his tax situation. I suspect not, and in any case it might be unrealistic to suggest that a tax adviser could have prevented such an extreme reaction. But perhaps it might be worth looking again at how tax responsibilities are communicated.

HMRC has consulted and advised agents about the new compliance regime, but I don't think it has done very much to broadcast the implications for individual taxpayers, who are still being targeted with the message that "tax doesn't have to be taxing". I think the department could constructively put across messages about the business-like way would like to go about collecting tax, and reinforcing the idea that the money collected is used for everyone's benefit.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Jun 2010 18:30

Setting the record straight

Ok - let's first get one thing said. There are certain individuals who will always post in any thread I comment in, and particularly one I start, claiming that the thread should be pulled etc.  These individuals know who they are. If they dont approve of a thread, perhaps one should ask why they read it? 

At no time was this thread intended to discuss the specifics of the case in question, as I believe was made clear to begin with, but, whatever any individual may feel it has raised again a whole variety of issues from gun control to whether the police should be armed and what caused it.

I do not believe that "respect" for the victims and their families is an issue as no one, so far, has posted anything that could possibly be construed as disrespectful.  I believe such an oversensitive view really does a disservice to the victims families. Should the police cease investigating as it is "disrespectful"?  Where someone dies in a road accident should the road be closed for x weeks because it is "disrespectful" to use it? Perhaps newspapers & TV should never report fatalities because it's "disrespectful"?  It is not the fact it is discussed that matters, it's HOW it is discussed.

There is growing evidence that ONE of the factors involved was an HMRC investigation, and, as a consequence of that, the fear of imprisonment.  Whether that fear was rational does not matter, the fact is it was there. 

Over the years I have gained experience which I doubt others on this site have. I have been involved in cases of people under extreme stress due to court action against them, and, who were in fear of imprisonment. During those years I have had three clients commit suicide.  Two of the three I am totally convinced were completely innocent, but all three took their lives rather than face the risk, the possibility, of being imprisoned. So, I think I know what stress can do to a man (or in one case a woman). 

If the reports are correct, I would not be completely surprised that HMRC action could drive someone to suicide. Over recent years HMRC letters have become much more officious and intimidatory.  Indeed some of their "standard" letters border on illegal.  

It really is time that HMRC and other organisation, and indeed many companies, realised that they are dealing with human beings, and that they were forced to actually find out why they havent been paid, and how they could be paid, rather than using their current battering ram tactics which cause extreme harm and distress to many perfectly innocent taxpayers inadvertantly caught in the tax man's web.

Certainly we have dealt with numerous cases of HMRC threats which were totally unjustfied and were demanding payment to which they were not entitled.

If we as individual businesses sent the kind of letters now routinely used by HMRC we would quickly find ourselves subject to action under s40 Admin of Justice Act or s2/4 Protection from Harassment Act.  Perhaps its time HMRC reviewed their behaviour.

 

Incidently, I once had a client (sub contract bricklayer) turn up at the office and become violent because he had received a totally erroneous bill and threatening letter from HMRC.  We actually had to involve the police.  About 2 months later I heard that he had committed suicide after discovering his wife was having an affair.  Now, was the stress caused by HMRC maybe a contributory factor to his subsequent actions?  Could I have maybe done something different?:  Who knows.  So yes, this kind of thing does happen.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Guest1
05th Jun 2010 08:45

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

One of the features of this forum is that you can often witness technical brilliance and, lively debate. All sorts take part reflecting the society in which we live. We have to accept that, quite often, opinions will differ.

I responded to C-D's initial posting yesterday, purely on the basis that, in this day and age, we regularly forget to consider how our; thoughts, words and deeds will affect our fellow man or woman. We overlook that some people in society are; less fortunate than ourselves and may not be as able to fight their corner. That was how I regarded C-D's question for considered debate.

When it was mentioned that the conversation was felt not appropriate, I; listened to what was being said and, deleted my own comments, as a mark of respect.

However, it became clear to me, later in the day, that Aweb had set out in the morning to carry its own comments and, with hindsight, I wish I had been principled to leave my thoughts as they were originally posted. In my view Aweb had a "bad hair day" yesterday. For the time being at least, I'll take a back seat and watch from the sidelines, something like JCCresswellTax.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Jun 2010 10:56

Very suspicious

How interesting.

As the OP I have the facility to mark the "best reply".  I have NOT done so.

Yet, I discover that an anonymous post making derogatory comments about what it terms as "certain individuals" has suddenly been marked as "best reply".  

Further, the "best reply" designation cannot be removed and appears to be blocked. 

How suspicious - is someone again playing silly games, and breaching AWeb's security to do so ?  

Certainly the post concerned is not the "best reply", indeed it is simply another example of an anonymous poster thinking they have the right to censor other members.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 11:07

Could it be

that in your eagerness to quote from the reply, you also included the 'best reply' tick, which someone else has clicked upon? (It wasn't me, and I honestly don't know whether that's the reason or not - only AWeb can answer that point).

In any event - the 'best reply' was mine. But there was certainly no intention of censoring or attacking anyone. It just so happens that I find the use of the case in question to support yet another attack on HMRC as distasteful to say the least, just as I found the sensationalist headline "Tax investigation leads to murder" both offensive and absurd. That is my opinion, and I should be allowed to voice it. Who is doing the censoring now?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 11:28

LOL

Proof at last! http://tinyurl.com/264r7km

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Jun 2010 13:12

Hypocrisy
Could it be

that in your eagerness to quote from the reply, you also included the 'best reply' tick, which someone else has clicked upon? (It wasn't me, and I honestly don't know whether that's the reason or not - only AWeb can answer that point).

In any event - the 'best reply' was mine. But there was certainly no intention of censoring or attacking anyone. It just so happens that I find the use of the case in question to support yet another attack on HMRC as distasteful to say the least, just as I found the sensationalist headline "Tax investigation leads to murder" both offensive and absurd. That is my opinion, and I should be allowed to voice it. Who is doing the censoring now?

tooltip(); 

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 05/06/2010 - 11:07

 

How interesting - you managed to post within 10 minutes of mine - monitoring this thread are you?  Now I wonder why?

Your explantion is utter drivel as you well know as only the OP has the facility to nominate a "best reply" AND should be able to remove that designation.  In this case it cannot be.

And your reply was certainly NOT the "best" - it was merely the usual attempt to have pulled any thread that you disaprove of (usually because I started the thread). It is clear from your posting that modesty is not one of your traits.

It's nice to see that you believe AWebs editorial to be "abusive & absurd" also.

As for "distasteful" - what may I ask gives you the right to dictate to others (including every newpaper, the BBC, ITV, Sky - all of whom have carried this report). Do you have expertise in the field?  Have YOU had experience of suicides & murders?  Have YOU had experience of the effects HMRC can and do have on people?

Now let's take a look at your "logic" shall we.  You popst that you consider the discussion "distasteful" yet then state "That is my opinion, and I should be allowed to voice it".  So it seems you demand the right to voice your opinion as your "right", but, consider that others should not do so if it offends your bizzarre standards. Hypocrisy is the term that springs to mind.

Now perhaps you will do us all a favour, if you dont approve of a thread - dont read it or post in it. Or dont you believe in feedom of speech for others ?

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 13:31

Drivel

First of all, I'm entitled to "monitor" and to contribute to any thread just as anyone else is. (I've read and posted to several other threads today, not just this one).

Secondly, my explanation of the 'best reply' may well be drivel. That's why I clearly stated that I don't understand how it can have happened. I was merely offering a possible explanation - if it's completely wrong, so be it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I'm not dictating to anyone. If I find something distasteful, why should I be prevented from voicing my opinion? I'm not saying that you should not have started this thread, but what makes you think you have a God-given right to make comments that go unchallenged if others do not agree with them? And, yes, I do consider the AWeb editorial board to have been wrong in saying "Tax investigation leads to murder". They themselves have admitted the error of their ways and revised that headline. Again, if I think Aweb are wrong in any way, am I not allowed to say so?

For some reason, you seem to be seeing this as some form of personal attack on you. It is anything but. I happen to agree with many of the points you make on this site. Indeed, I agree with your comments here about HMRC and others improving their behaviour. What I disagree with - and, I repeat, I should be allowed to voice that disagreement, is the seeminingly knee-jerk direct link to the Cumbrian case.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Jun 2010 13:49

Experience

As previously stated - about 3 years ago I had a client commit suicide - and HMRC were part of the reason.

Where anyone, including HMRC, acts in a manner which is calculated to cause distress and fear, and, where they take no account of the possible vulnerability of their victim, then this is a matter which should be of immense concern to the public, and to the profession. 

I have long held the view, repeatedly demonstrated by some of the posts I read from others on here, that too many accountants are afraid to stand up the HMRC and demand change.  Too many take a pompous view that they are "professionals" whilst forgetting who actually pays them and who they are supposed to represent. 

Many just "roll over" when challenged by HMRC and lack the spirit to defend their client's and to use every tool at their disposal to ensure justice for their client. 

The standards of behaviour by HMRC over, I would suggest the last 10-15 years, have fallen appallingly and their is a lack of integrity and decency displayed by HMRC which is unacceptable. 

This case simply serves to again demonstrate the effects their behavious can sometimes have on others.  Yes this is an extreme case and their appear to be other factors involved as well, but that is the often the case. Nevertheless, HMRC have a duty not to set out to deliberately cause fear and distress to others whether they owe tax or not, and perhaps this case will help to ensure it never happens again to anyone else. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 17:06

"perhaps this case will help to ensure it never happens again to

Perhaps it will also help to ensure that taxpayers don't try to dodge their tax liabilities (though I doubt it). Regardless of HMRC's behaviour in this case (about which we know diddly squat) at least it has demonstrated that if you try to fiddle your taxes you risk getting caught, with devastating consequences.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Jun 2010 17:52

Desirable & acceptable ?

 

Perhaps it will also help to ensure that taxpayers don't try to dodge their tax liabilities (though I doubt it). Regardless of HMRC's behaviour in this case (about which we know diddly squat) at least it has demonstrated that if you try to fiddle your taxes you risk getting caught, with devastating consequences.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 05/06/2010 - 17:06

 

How nice that you consider this to be desirable or even acceptable consequences of "fiddling taxes".  

How nice also that you claim in one breath to know "diddly squat" about this case, and in the next breath condemn him for "fiddling his taxes".  

Now I do happen to know that he had been challenged over monies banked and apparently not declared. The point is that you do not know whether that did in fact indicate additional tax liability.  It may have been legitimate, a gift, an inheritnce, won on the horses, a lottery win, or a 101 other things. Similarly, I wonder if he had actually claimed all the expenses and allowances he was entitled to?  Perhaps a good accountant examining his affairs may conclude that in fact HMRC owe him money - who knows?

And, regardless of whether he owed taxes or not, my comment related to the manner in which HMRC now goes about the business of collection. Their letters, as said before, verge on the brink of breing illegal, and their tactics have been heavily critisized on several occasions by the courts.  Only recently their threats over an alleged £500 tax bill led to their claim being thrown out of court and £3,000 damages for distress, plus costs, being awarded to one of our clients.

Perhaps HMRC will learn that threatening someone with bankruptcy for an alleged debt of £500 is in fact, illegal, as it is below the minimum sum allowable and deliberate misrepresentation of that kind is quite rightly severely frowned upon by the courts.

However, given your attitude that taxpayers get what they deserve if they "try to dodge their tax liability" I am sure your clients will sleep soundly knowing that you have their best interests at heart.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 18:19

Missed the point completely

Where did I say this was an acceptable consequence of fiddling taxes? I didn't

Where did I condemn this particular individual for fiddling his taxes? I didn't

I have made not one assumption about this case, unlike others.

What is a given is that the press and media (including AWeb and certain of its members) have implied a direct link between the HMRC enquiry and the actions of this individual. I have never drawn such a conclusion. Whether factually correct or not, the highlighting of the individual's tax affairs and linking them to his actions might  cause some to think twice about dodging taxes.

As for the suggestion that I do not have my clients' best interests in mind, I would be justified in saying that I find that grossly offensive and insulting, to use one of your favoured phrases, were I not thicker-skinned.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
05th Jun 2010 19:50

false information

I'm sorry but its a complete lie to say that HMRC don't allow time to pay! Complete and utter rubbish! There are two helplines - one for businesses who are struggling to pay and one for individuals - if you know you are in debit and cannot pay on time - you call and they will discuss the possibility of time to pay.  The Business Payment Support Helpline has received alot of praise for the work they do in supporting businesses during the downturn. HMRC didn't have to do this - they responded to the financial climate as it is.  Please look at their charter - it says they will help people who want to pay and vigorously pursue those who don't. Thats pretty fair I would say.  Its completely out of order to blame HMRC for what his man did. There can be no excuse or scapegoat for the hideous crime this man committed. Simple as.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Jun 2010 22:38

Obviously HMRC's public relations team work weekends.

 

Time to pay?  I will quote you from a tape recording made of an HMRC officer. This recording was put in front of a court.  The taxpayer in question requested 3 months grace before paying his tax bill as his wife had been hospitalised with cancer and he could not work and be at her side at the same time.  The cretin (and thats the kindest word I can find for him) at HMRC said and I quote from the transcript of the tape -

"I don't care about your wife, people like you are scum, you shouldn't be allowed to eat until you've paid every penny you owe".

Is THAT "discussing" ?  Where exactly in the "Charter" is THAT ?  Just which rock did that individual crawl from under ?

 

And just as a matter of interest in view of your defence of the indefensible - explain to me how our client died early in 2005, her final return complete with death certificate and grant of probate was submitted - and the return complete with attachments was sent back with a covering letter stating that it could not be accepted as it must be "signed by the taxpayer in person Mrs * ******(deceased) ? 

Perhaps also you could explain why her children, 5 years after their mother's death, have recently received a letter from HMRC addressed to Mrs * *****(deceased) and threatening court proceedings if she does not submit her 2008/09 return?

Actually we await the threatened court hearing - at which I will take great delight in nailing HMRC to the floor AND handing the details to the press.

The standards displayed by HMRC are appalling.  As previously stated threatening someone with bankruptcy for a debt of £500 is actually ILLEGAL.  It is a criminal offence to deliberately misrepresent the law to gain an advantage, yet I have seen more than one case where such illegal threats have been made.

There is a serious attitude problem within HMRC and what they sem to have forgotten is one fact.  They work for us the people. WE pay their wages. They are OUR servants, not the other way round.

Finally, as regards the particular case, the police HAVE confirmed that HMRC were investigating this gentleman AND that he had spoken to witnesses about the effects of this. 

As for your statment that "there can be no excuse for the hideous crime this man committed".  What an appalling statement which simply demonstrates your disgraceful and unpleasant attitude. It is very likely that it will be found, indeed I would say almost certain, that he acted whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed.  That being so he did not in law commit a crime.  Your judgemental statement is utterly offensive. Perhaps you should show some compassion for his family as well as those of his victims.

It seems to me the only parties who are not innocent, are those who drove him to this state, and at present according to Cumbria police, that finger is pointing amongst others towards HMRC.

Don't bother responding - judging by your previous post it is clear you have nothing of value to say.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Jun 2010 09:38

balance

Wow what a blatant display of lack of intelligence, balance and plain bias against HMRC.  You're the newspaper editor who reports the story of someone who overdoses on paracetamol and then starts a campaign to get it banned because ALL paracetamol is bad! If that story is true, its despicable, but I don't accept for a minute that that kind of language is the norm. You have chosen to ignore the millions of transactions that hmrc conducts correctly every year. No one hears about them.  Lets introduce some balance eh? I'll use your approach. Fact - a womans life was literally saved by someone at hmrc 2 weeks ago when she was talking to her on the phone about her tax and the woman suffered a brain haemorrhage. The staff member said her speech started to slur . It sounded like she dropped the phone at some point but she could still hear her breathing so the advisor spoke to her manager who called an ambulance for her on another line, directing them to her address as she in another part of the country. Her son called back a week later to thank hmrc for saving her mothers life. That made it to my local newspaper.

There are plenty of people who are in debt - whether to hmrc or the banks or their credit card, and in many cases for alot more than £10K - don't forget that. To suddenly now say that HMRC are to blame for this mans behaviour (and before all the facts are known) is ridiculous! Perhaps this man had been evading his taxes as reported in the press - thats illegal. He wasn't asked for his dead mothers signature.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By professional
06th Jun 2010 09:45

4.3 billion deferred at the last count

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2008/business-payment.htm

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Jun 2010 09:57

Anonymous

Wow what a blatant display of lack of intelligence, balance and plain bias against HMRC. 

tooltip();

 

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 06/06/2010 - 09:38

 

What a blatant display of ignorance and offensive insults and plain bias in favour of HMRC.  Try reading a witnesses statment - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7806422/Cumbria-gunman-Derrick-Bird-watched-violent-film-before-killings.html.

This makes it VERY clear that the actons of HMRC were one of the primary issues in pushing this man over the edge.

 

I note that yet again you condemn someone who has not been convicted of any offence so clearly you have no problem with doing what you accuse others of and displaying bias. The difference is that by accusing someone of being a criminal, and I quote from your earlier post - "there can be no excuse for the hideous crime this man committed" YOU actually commit an offence and arrogantly set yourself above the courts. It seems that you have no problem with convicting someone "before all the facts are known".  

 

As for your ludicrous story - you appear to be saying that if I save someones life today, and murder someone tomorrow, that is OK and one can be contra'd off against the other. Ridiculous. 

 

   

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Jun 2010 10:39

"This makes it VERY clear that the actons of HMRC were one of th

It does nothing of the sort. The article in question simply mentions that the individual had 'secreted' £60k in a bank account, HMRC had discovered this and he had fears about going to prison. We have absolutely no knowledge of how or why those fears arose - perhaps one of his mates had told him that would be the outcome? We just don't know. As for HMRC, for all that we know, perhaps HMRC had done no further than issuing a standard opening letter.

To suggest that HMRC's actions were a primary issue in pushing this man over the edge is simply further blatant bias against HMRC. If (and I admit it is still a big if, since all we have is hearsay - but the reported words of witnesses, and use of phrases like "secreting funds", would certainly lead one to this conclusion) the reports are true THE primary issue in pushing this man over the edge would appear to be his own action in trying to conceal untaxed earnings.

You eagerly accuse others of making rash judgements based on a case about which we know nothing. That should extend to those who make assumptions about HMRC's involvement until every available fact is in the public domain.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Jun 2010 10:55

Experience

You eagerly accuse others of making rash judgements based on a case about which we know nothing. That should extend to those who make assumptions about HMRC's involvement until every available fact is in the public domain.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 06/06/2010 - 10:39

 

As is VERY clear - I speak from experience of dealing with HMRC for 40 years, and, from experience of the appalling attitude displayed by HMRC as evidenced by documentation in our possession. The standard (or lack of standard) of HMRC staff is very clearly summed up by a letter in our possesion in which in response to an enquiry by a taxpayer HMRC wrote -

"We cannot discuss your tax affairs with you as we do not hold a 64-8 signed by you authorising us to discuss your tax affairs with you".  The phrase lunatics taking over the asylum springs to mind.

We also have letters demonstrating the sheer arrogance of HMRC, for example, we have two letter written by the same officer in the same month -

Letter 1 states - "Just because you have proof of posting that does not constitute proof of delivery"

Letter 2 states - "Where we have proof of posting that is deemed to be proof of delivery".

So HMRC in it's arrogance places different standards of proof on others to those it places upon itself.  Hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

As regards the case in question,

“He wanted to talk about his money problems. He thought he was in proper trouble,” said Mr Jacques. "He was worried he could go to prison". "He had something on his mind – that he was going to go to jail over tax evasion."

That makes it pretty clear that this was a major concern and contributory factor in the stress which drove him to his actions.  Our denial of that fact grows increasingly desparate.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Jun 2010 11:18

?

"As regards the case in question,

“He wanted to talk about his money problems. He thought he was in proper trouble,” said Mr Jacques. "He was worried he could go to prison". "He had something on his mind – that he was going to go to jail over tax evasion."

That makes it pretty clear that this was a major concern and contributory factor in the stress which drove him to his actions.  Our denial of that fact grows increasingly desparate."

There is no denial, not on my part at least, of that "fact". But actually, it is not a fact yet - we are still relying on the words of others. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that he was concerned about his tax affairs, nor that he had fears about going to prison. What we do NOT know is how or why those fears arose. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that HMRC had dealt with the issue in such a way as to give ground to those fears. On the other hand, he may simply have been completely ignorant of the implications of not declaring taxes. He seems he was aware that he had done something wrong - he may simply have been fearing the worst possible outcome, having perhaps read reports of others having gone to jail for serious tax evasion. A client of mine some years ago was caught drink-driving. She was only just over the limit but even so had fears about going to jail. No-one, as far as I know, had ever suggested a prison sentence - she was simply fearing the worst. The point is that until we know every fact of this case (which is unlikely ever to be the case)  it is just plain wrong to assume that HMRC's actions had anything directly to do with it. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of your examples above, but just because you have had to deal with such cases does not mean that HMRC approach every case in like fashion. Unless what you're saying is that HMRC, having discovered untaxed income, should keep silent about it in case an enquiry would tip the taxpayer over the edge?

Thanks (0)

Pages