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

NAO to scrutinise HMRC corporate tax settlements

by
16th Dec 2011
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The National Audit Office (NAO) will launch an investigation led by a judge into corporate tax settlements agreed by HMRC.

The NAO investigation is set to examine up to 10 large corporate tax deals and HMRC will be required to justify:

  • why they were reasonable
  • how they complied with legal advice
  • how the decisions matched internal guidelines

However, the inquiry is not expected to result in the companies facing additional tax bills.

James Bullock, a tax partner at law firm McGrigors, said: "The HMRC’s Litigation and Settlements Strategy is, paradoxically, too inflexible. The complete lack of flexibility in this policy means that it is, in practice, impossible for HMRC to settle highly complex cases - and this is precisely the stick that has been used to beat Dave Hartnett over the deals he did conclude. The revised Litigation and Settlements Strategy is still delphic in tone as regards settlements and needs a complete rewrite.”

The move follows a critical Public Accounts Committee report that is due out next week which looks at recent big deals, such as Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.

The report is expected to allege that HMRC’s actions in these cases let down the public through systematic management failures, depriving taxpayers of hundreds of millions of pounds.

However, Bullock added: “The most important thing to note is that deals between taxpayers and HMRC clearly still need to be done. We can't have a situation where every dispute goes to litigation which is expensive and time-consuming - the system simply couldn't cope and most taxpayers couldn’t afford it.”

Tags:

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By dstickl
20th Dec 2011 07:54

"Misconduct in Public Office" by HMRC's Dave Hartnett?

Is the NAO Terms of Reference missing a key point of alleged "Misconduct in Public Office" by HMRC's Dave Hartnett?

And why does Robert Lovell write that "the [NAO] inquiry is not expected to result in the companies facing additional tax bills" ??

Consider the following CPS guidance of QUOTE

Misconduct in Public Office  Principle

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.

Definition of the offence

The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 ('AG Ref No 3').

The offence is committed when:

a public officer acting as suchwilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holderwithout reasonable excuse or justification

 

Scope of the offence

Level of misconduct required

The offence is, in essence, one of abuse of the power or responsibilities of the office held.

Misconduct in public office should be used for serious examples of misconduct when there is no appropriate statutory offence that would adequately describe the nature of the misconduct or give the court adequate sentencing powers.

The third element of the definition of the offence provides an important test when deciding whether to proceed with an offence of misconduct in public office. Unless the misconduct in question amounts to such an abuse of trust, a prosecution for misconduct in public office should not be considered.

The culpability ' must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment' (R v Dytham 1979 QB 722).

The fact that a public officer has acted in a way that is in breach of his or her duties, or which might expose him/her to disciplinary proceedings, is not in itself enough to constitute the offence.

Examples of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include:

wilful excesses of official authority;'malicious' exercises of official authority;wilful neglect of a public duty;intentional infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person;frauds and deceits.Dishonesty or corruption

There is no general requirement that the misconduct be dishonest or corrupt. Proof that the defendant was dishonest is, however, an essential ingredient when the allegation of misconduct involves the acquisition of property by theft or fraud.

See R v W [2010] EWCA 372, which involved a police officer who used a credit card that had been issued to him for personal purchases.

Bear in mind, however, the principle that where there is clear evidence of a substantive offence(s), that should form the basis of the case, with the 'public office' element being put forward as an aggravating factor.

Breaches of duty

Some of the most difficult cases involve breaches of public duty that do not involve dishonesty or corruption.

In all cases, however, the following matters should be addressed:

Was there a breach of a duty owed to the public (not merely an employment duty or a general duty of care)?Was the breach more than merely negligent or attributable to incompetence or a mistake (even a serious one)?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of a duty to act or subjective recklessness as to the existence of a duty?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness that the action or omission might be unlawful?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of the likely consequences of the action or omission.Did the officer realise (subjective test) that there was a risk not only that his or her conduct was unlawful but also a risk that the consequences of that behaviour would occur?Were those consequences 'likely' as viewed subjectively by the defendant?Did the officer realise that those consequences were 'likely' and yet went on to take the risk?Regard must be had to motive.Elements of the offenceA public officer

The prosecution must have evidence to show that the suspect is a 'public officer'. There is no simple definition and each case must be assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out and the level of public trust involved.

The judgment of Lord Mansfield in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32 refers to a public officer having:

an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit ... by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed.

It does not seem that the person concerned must be the holder of an 'office' in a narrow or technical sense. The authorities suggest that it is the nature of the duties and the level of public trust involved that are relevant, rather than the manner or nature of appointment.

In R v Whitaker [1914] KB 1283 the court said:

A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.

This approach was followed in a series of cases from other common law jurisdictions: R v Williams (1986) 39 WIR 129; R v Sacks [1943] SALR 413; R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386. In R v Dytham (1979) 1 QB 723 Lord Widgery CJ talked of 'a public officer who has an obligation to perform a duty'.

Remuneration is a significant factor, but not an essential element. In R v Belton [2010] WLR (D) 283 the defendant was an unpaid voluntary member of the Independent Monitoring Board. The Court of Appeal held that remuneration was not an indispensable requirement for the holding of a public office, or for liability to prosecution for the offence of misconduct in a public office.

The fact that an individual was a volunteer might have a bearing on whether there had been wilful misconduct, but was only indicative rather than determinative of whether an individual held a public office.

The court in AG Ref No3 referred to the unfairness that could arise where people who carry out similar duties may or may not be liable to prosecution depending on whether they can be defined as 'public officers'. What were once purely public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment. (An example is the role of the court security officer).

The court declined to define a public officer, however, but said:
This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office.' (AG Ref No 3)

Acting as such

The suspect must not only be a 'public officer'; the misconduct must also occur when acting in that capacity.

It is not sufficient that the person is a public officer and has engaged in some form of misconduct. The mere fact that a person is carrying out general duties as a public officer at the time of the alleged misconduct does not mean he or she is necessarily acting as a public officer in respect of the misconduct.

There must be a direct link between the misconduct and an abuse, misuse or breach of the specific powers and duties of the office or position.

The offence would also not normally apply to the actions of a public officer outside that role, unless the misconduct involved improper use of the public officer's specific powers or duties arising from the public office.

A deliberate misuse by an off-duty police officer of the powers of a constable, for example, may mean that the officer is 'acting as such' by virtue of his or her assumption of the powers of the office. Such a situation might arise if an off-duty police officer arrested an innocent man with whom he had a personal dispute or took steps in order to prevent or frustrate an enquiry.

The principles involved apply equally to holders of all public offices. In the case of a school governor or a local authority official or other such member of a public body, for example, it will be necessary to show that the misconduct was closely connected with exercising (or failing to exercise) the relevant public function.

 Wilful neglect or misconduct

Nature of the neglect or misconduct

The wilful neglect or misconduct can be the result of a positive act or a failure to act. In the case of R v Dytham [1979] QB 722, for example, a police officer was held to have been correctly convicted when he made no move to intervene during a disturbance in which a man was kicked to death.

There must also be an element of knowledge or at least recklessness about the way in which the duty is carried out or neglected. The test is a subjective one and the public officer must be aware that his/her behaviour is capable of being misconduct.

Meaning of 'wilful'

In AG Ref No 3 the court approved the definition of 'wilful' as 'deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not'.

In R v G [2003] UK HL 50 Lord Bingham said with respect to inadvertence:
It is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another. But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one genuinely does not perceive the risk. Such a person may fairly be accused of stupidity or lack of imagination, but neither of those failings should expose him to conviction of serious crime or the risk of punishment.

Lord Steyn added:
the stronger the objective indications of risk, the more difficult it will be for defendants to repel the conclusion that they must have known. (R v G [2003] UK HL 50)

Abuse of the public's trust

Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct

Public officers carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole. If they neglect or misconduct themselves in the course of those duties this may lead to a breach or abuse of the public's trust.

The behaviour must be serious enough to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. In R v Dytham, Lord Widgery said that the element of culpability:
must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment.

In AG Ref No 3 the court said that the misconduct must amount to:
an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.

Consequences

The likely consequences of any wilful neglect or misconduct are relevant when deciding whether the conduct falls below the standard expected:
It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence. The conduct cannot be considered in a vacuum: the consequences likely to follow from it, viewed subjectively will often influence the decision as to whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the officer.' (AG Ref No 3).

Whilst there is no need to prove any particular consequences flowing from the misconduct, it must be proved that the defendant was reckless not just as to the legality of his behaviour, but also as to its likely consequences.

The consequences must be likely ones, as viewed subjectively by the defendant. Although the authorities do not say so, likely can probably be taken to mean at the very least 'reasonably foreseeable'; it is arguable that likely may mean 'probable' in this context.

Motive

In order to establish whether the behaviour is sufficiently serious to amount to the offence, the officer's motive is also relevant:
the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error
To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom.
(R v Borron [1820] 3 B&Ald 432: Abbott CJ, at page 434.)

At its highest the motive may be malice or bad faith but they are not prerequisites. Reckless indifference would be sufficient

Without reasonable excuse or justification
 

It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a reasonable excuse or justification, although the nature of the prosecution evidence should in practice negate any such element.

The defendant may advance evidence of a reasonable excuse or justification. It is for the jury to determine whether the evidence reveals the necessary culpability.

Charging Practice

Misconduct in public office should not simply be used as a substitute for other offences without some other aggravating factor.

Misconduct by a public officer can often be adequately presented as an aggravating feature of a statutory offence. Where the misconduct can be adequately presented by a statutory offence giving the court adequate sentencing powers, that offence should be the starting point. The fact that the offender is a public officer should be treated as an aggravating feature of that offence.

An assault by a police officer committed on duty should not, for example, automatically be considered as misconduct in public office. A charge of assault would normally provide the court with adequate sentencing powers and the ability to take into account the breach of trust by the officer as an aggravating factor (R v Dunn (2003) 2 Cr.App.R.(S)).

Misconduct in public office should be considered where:

there was serious misconduct or a deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious potential or actual consequences for the public;

there is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct (such as a serious breach of or neglect of a public duty that is not in itself a criminal offence);the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate; orit would assist the presentation of the case as a whole (for example, where a co-defendant has been charged with an indictable offence but the statutory offence is summary only and cannot be committed or sent for trial with the co-defendant).

ENDQUOTE of CPS guidance.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
20th Dec 2011 10:47

According to HMRC

it's not misconduct it's a big mistake. The figures bandied about that has been written off is a pure estimate and represents what might have been collected if a full investigation had been carried out. A bit like HMRC's estimation of what they hope to get in by desimating sme's.

One rule for them and one us

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
20th Dec 2011 11:54

Will judge investigate an alleged "Misconduct in Public Office"?

Although there are two references to “misconduct” on PAC’s report page 120, the PAC Summary states:

“We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General’s proposal to conduct further work to consider the reasonableness of the settlements reached in the specific cases where normal governance processes were not followed, and to report on whether proper legal advice was secured in a timely manner and that HMRC complied with its own published procedures and protocols. The Department has agreed to co-operate fully with this inquiry and with any subsequent hearings we hold.”

However, the evidence of Osita Mba LLB (Hons), BCL (Oxon), showed [on PAC 20 Dec’11 report page 125] that

QUOTE 3.4 First, it is significant that the C&AG restricted the scope of his examination in this manner despite the public interest disclosure I made to him and his assurances on the matter. It would appear that the C&AG, who is a prescribed person under the PIDA 1998 to whom external disclosures can be made relating to “the proper conduct of public business, fraud, value for money and corruption in relation to the provision of centrally funded public services”, has not investigated the matter I reported to him as required by the PIDA 1998 (the C&AG’s discretion under section 1(3) of NAA 1983 being explicitly “subject to any duty imposed on him by statute”) and settled principles of public law. ENDQUOTE

The above evidence of  Osita Mba, in my personal opinion, suggests:

(1) that the NAO etc may risk a result of a tainted or partial future report, given the apparent ToR given by Robert Lovell; and

(2) a judge should be tasked to specifically investigate whether there has been "Misconduct in Public Office" by HMRC's Dave Hartnett and/or his legal advisers.

QUESTION: Can we trust the judge [The National Audit Office (NAO) will launch an investigation led by a judge into corporate tax settlements agreed by HMRC] to investigate whether or not there was a case of "Misconduct in Public Office" at HMRC?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Trevor Scott
20th Dec 2011 13:27

When the law and politics collide, law is usually the loser.

Given:

1. The potential monetary amounts at issue; a supposed £25 billion.

2. The lack of systems, procedures and accountability at both HMRC and Treasury.

3. The desire of the Parliamentary Committee to sort out an organisation that has been failing for years, but which appears (itself) to lack the energy/strategy/tactics that would affect significant change.

Isn’t it inevitable that a process would be created whereby a supposedly independent and credible body, the NAO, would have to investigate and then create the very “football” necessary to force the Government to kick the organisation into touch.     

Due to it being important for any country’s tax collection agency appearing to be always acting legally and correctly, I think that evidenced wrongdoing will always be covered up by ruling governments.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
20th Dec 2011 13:44

Under normal circumstances,

trevor you would be totally right. However the feeling in the world today, which should not be ignored,is that joe public have had enough of floundering governments and something has to be done about them. In our case it will be demonstration after demonstration. DC has already taken up the challenge with saying that money in christmas puds is not a health and safety issue. So anything is possible

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
20th Dec 2011 13:46

IF there was no contract, THEN HMRC should take steps to ...

If John Jenkins is correct that HMRC assert that "it's not misconduct it's a big mistake" and if HMRC's assertion is correct, then let's ask: "As there was a big mistake in the negotiations etc, is it possible that there was no contract between HMRC etc?".

Because, IF there was no contract with HMRC etc, THEN HMRC should take steps to collect "what might have been collected if a full investigation had been carried out", shouldn't they?

AND, here's the coup de grace: IF the above suggestions are correct and IF "the [NAO] inquiry is not expected to result in the companies facing additional tax bills" as suggested by Robert Lovell, THEN there has been - or will be - "Misconduct in Public Office" by HMRC's Dave Hartnett and/or his legal advisers, surely?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
20th Dec 2011 13:50

I cannot

see GS paying up without having a closure certificate drawn up can you? Who gave DH his mandate? It's all huff and puff and going nowhere.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
20th Dec 2011 14:16

Some Bankers pay less NI & get BANKERS' BONUSES, but 4 IR35 ...

The "Curse of IR35 strikes again": Some Bankers can pay less National Insurance AND get BANKERS' BONUSES apparently, BUT for "one man bands" ...

The PAC report contains the following Questions asked [pages 27-8] on 12 October 2011, QUOTE:

Q34 Mr Bacon: Let me help you on this question of the warning. HMRC did warn Goldman Sachs that if it resisted it would be liable for the interest; that was in the letter written by HMRC to Goldman Sachs in 2005. And yet here we are, five years later, and you just, with a wave of the hand, agreed. Despite the fact that it had resisted enormously—and all the other people involved in this type of scheme and the other users of the scheme basically ‘fessed up and settled— Goldman Sachs held out and does not pay any extra penalty. This is one of the things that Mr Inglese and his colleagues in the meeting were so concerned about.

As the Chairman quoted earlier: “It was clear…the proposed settlement gave GS no additional penalty for having resisted for 5 more years.” As Dean Rowland explained, Goldman Sachs was “raking every conceivable point in the Tribunal, and putting up a ‘stooge’ witness when Mr Housden”—a Goldman Sachs official—“was the obvious person to answer questions.” It did not suffer any penalty for that. For the avoidance of doubt, what we are talking about here is a scheme whose purpose was to ensure that extremely rich and extremely highly paid people paid less tax and national insurance in this particular case on their bankers’ bonuses than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think that this type of deal would have been available to a medium-sized company of 150 employees in my constituency, would it?

Dave Hartnett: Mr Bacon, what I have made clear already—

Q35 Mr Bacon: We are supposed to be equal before the law.

Dave Hartnett: That is a principle of HMRC. There was no wave of the hand. There was no pushing aside of interest in order to secure a deal. That is not what happened. Mr Rowland was not there; nor was anyone else. A mistake was made and it was actually me who took the mistake to Mr Inglese. ENDQUOTE

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
21st Dec 2011 13:16

More allegations in Private Eye on HMRC ...

Although Trevor Scott asserted "When the law and politics collide, law is usually the loser" on Tue 20 Dec'11, and then added:

"Isn’t it inevitable that a process would be created whereby a supposedly independent and credible body, the NAO, would have to investigate and then create the very “football” necessary to force the Government to kick the organisation into touch.     

Due to it being important for any country’s tax collection agency appearing to be always acting legally and correctly, I think that evidenced wrongdoing will always be covered up by ruling governments."

Trevor, in my opinion, unfortunately missed out:

(1) That evidence placed before the PAC of: Osita Mba LLB (Hons), BCL (Oxon), that showed [on PAC 20 Dec’11 "Tax Disputes" report page 125] that:

QUOTE 3.4 First, it is significant that the C&AG restricted the scope of his examination in this manner despite the public interest disclosure I made to him and his assurances on the matter. It would appear that the C&AG, who is a prescribed person under the PIDA 1998 to whom external disclosures can be made relating to “the proper conduct of public business, fraud, value for money and corruption in relation to the provision of centrally funded public services”, has not investigated the matter I reported to him as required by the PIDA 1998 (the C&AG’s discretion under section 1(3) of NAA 1983 being explicitly “subject to any duty imposed on him by statute”) and settled principles of public law. ENDQUOTE

Which, in my opinion, indicates that any subsequent investigation(s) in this area by NAO may well be seen to be tainted, and could be greeted with a raspberry, especially by those voters hit hard by IR35, and

(2) Any reference to a short article published in "Private Eye" No. 1303 of 9 Dec'11, page 5, col 2, which in my opinion reads:

QUOTE

DESPERATION at HM Revenue and Customs last week, as the tax authority missed its third deadline to answer demands from UK Uncut Legal Action, a spin-off from the protest movement, to overturn the dodgy tax deal on which boss Dave Hartnett "shook hands" with Goldman Sachs last year - exposed in Eye 1287.

This isn't the kind of procrastination the Revenue generally accepts from taxpayers and is likely to see the protesters embark on judicial proceedings very soon. The shilly-shallying might have something to do with the fact that the HMRC's chief lawyer deciding its response, Anthony Inglese, is the man who approved Dave's dodgy deal in the first place (and went on to collect the biggest bonus in the Revenue for that year soon afterwards).

ENDQUOTE

All of which, in my opinion,  may cause politics to bow to law – as in the phone hacking scandal – especially if the PCG gets its act together in view of the unequal treatment alleged on IR35 …

Thanks (0)