Rachel Gauke: A response from LexisNexis

Kashflow logo
Share this content

After one of his colleagues found herself in the media spotlight, Tolley’s Chris Jones comes to her defence.

In the last four days there have been several references by the national media about LexisNexis and one of its members of staff.

This began with a blog post David Gauke’s wife is Tax Avoidance Lawyer” by Guido Fawkes.  This post and subsequent stories - including a comment on AccountingWEB (subsequently rebutted) - have misrepresented the role of one of LexisNexis’ professional support lawyers. 

Rachel Gauke produces content for LexisPSL which is an online tool that guides lawyers through the workings of the UK tax code.  She does not advise individuals or companies on how to avoid tax or reduce their tax bills.

If you have not heard of us, LexisNexis is the leading provider of legal and tax information to organisations in the UK. We have a proud history of producing legal content that goes back 200 years and tax content that goes back 100 years.  Our publishing history has contributed to ensuring the rule of law is respected.  We take this responsibility seriously. 

Customers of our Tolley (tax) suite of products range from high street accountants, through to multinationals and the government.  Mr Fawkes, and others, failed to point out that the government receives the same tax services provided by LexisNexis as customers in the private sector.  We supply a variety of publications, online content and magazines to HM Revenue & Customs and HM Treasury.

The content we provide helps the taxpayer, tax agents, and the tax collector comply with the law.  The work of the UK tax profession enables citizens to comply with a plethora of statutory obligations.  Many of our customers are high street practitioners who provide advice to those who must produce self-assessment tax forms.  Without the tax information we produce, those practitioners would not be able to ensure that businesses and individuals comply with the law.

LexisNexis and our customers help to make the tax system work in practice.

As part of our commitment to the rule of law, we recently hosted a joint event with Christian Aid.  We asked a group of tax experts to design a tax system for a fictitious developing country in order to identify how tax can be collected efficiently and fairly in the countries favour.  We plan to continue this project in order to support Christian Aid in the work they do and act as a bridge to the business community.

Chris Jones is director of tax markets for Tolley, a LexisNexis brand.

About Accounting WEB

AccountingWEB logo

Contributions from the AccountingWEB.co.uk editorial team.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
26th Jul 2012 16:27

just a thought.....

do neither of them carry cash - because i am assuming given the comments he made that effectively when paying cash there is always a possibility that the money will go into someones pocket and not onto the accounts.....

Thanks (0)
26th Jul 2012 17:32

Maybe ....

... it's based on personal experience ie. he pockets any cash given to him without declaring it so everyone else must too????

Thanks (0)
avatar
27th Jul 2012 10:09

Mrs Gauke

Some one some where out there must have been paid cash by either Mr or Mrs G, come on  own up and put them out of their misery. Perhaps he will think through the ramifications before he next pontificates on the general publics "tax" morals. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
13th Aug 2012 10:40

leagal matter

Different countries have different questions of violations of human rights and needs of the various legal documents and procedures to correct problems and violations of them. Many people are confused to understand the violations of fundamental individual rights and how to declare the law. Being a student of a university degree in Human Rights, have attempted to summarize what are human rights?

Thanks (0)
avatar
14th Aug 2012 11:22

cash payment

Why do people assume that a business person receiving cash will automatically pocket it and not record it for business and tax purposes.

 

The whole idea of lifestyle checks in tax investigations is intended to root out such fraudulent activity.

 

What can be wrong with paying cash but asking for a receipt?

Thanks (0)

Related content