UK Uncut loses judical review

Robert Lovell
Share this content

Tax avoidance protest group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost a High Court case against HMRC over the lawfulness of a tax settlement with Goldman Sachs in 2010.

The grass-roots campaign group claimed HMRC had acted illegally when it reached a so-called £20m “sweetheart deal” over the amount that the US investment bank needed to pay in tax.

The High Court judge, Mr Justice Nicol, ruled the deal was...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.


Please login or register to join the discussion.

16th May 2013 16:35

total rubbish

just look at the opening lines of Uncuts press release , its almost total fiction- who is funding these panjandrums anyway? Mind you i cant follow the logic, if thats what it is , of Bullock & Pinsents

Thanks (0)
By dh326
17th May 2013 10:57


carnmores wrote:

just look at the opening lines of Uncuts press release , its almost total fiction- who is funding these panjandrums anyway? Mind you i cant follow the logic, if thats what it is , of Bullock & Pinsents

I agree, the logic in their statement appears to be that if you are big enough you should have the right to bully your way to a better deal than the average Jo blogs company paying the standard rate (or fine/interest etc), and that internationally you are more able to negotiate an individual settlement than you are in the UK?

Thanks (0)
16th May 2013 20:30

cash flow

By 2010 HMRC had agreed the US bank should pay the amount it owed but not the interest over five years.

Hope the above helps your cash flow. Now you do not need to set aside monies for interest due to HMRC.

Thanks (1)
17th Mar 2015 15:54


Thanks (1)
By iainx6
16th May 2013 23:53

UK Uncut

The judge ruled that the decision accorded with the Litigation and Settlement Strategy,

He noted that the Commissioners believed that the agreement of 19th  November taken as a whole represented a good deal for the Revenue. Sir Andrew Park agreed with that assessment. The judge observed that the Claimant had not contended that the judgment of the Commissioners in this regard was irrational, or that the 19th  November agreement did not give taxpayers value for money.

I think that was as far as he could go but it was not a rebuttal of the view it was a good deal, hence I assume "not soft"?

Thanks (0)
17th May 2013 11:22

Court Costs?

I hope UK UnCut were ruled to pay HMRC's costs and that HMRC send them a bill for all the time and expense wasted in defending a perfectly reasonable deal.

The average man on the street thinks tax is simple 'it's 20%, right?', and UK Uncut and these other so-called 'pressure groups' pander to this in their attacks, wasting taxpayers money forcing HMRC to defend their decisions.

Part of the problem with international taxation is that every country wants to keep a big a slice of the pie as they can, whilst every company wants to keep their tax bill as low as possible, so naturally companies will design structures to minimise their taxes.

People in the public sector whose pensions aren't funded apart from coming from our pockets won't care, but for private sector employees this actually matters- as those companies are where your pension funds are invested, and the less tax the company pays the better dividend they can pay and the more value for the company, which leads to a bigger pension.

Of course the biggest theft of all time was Gordon Brown's 'I'm scrapping a tax- ACT' which in reality meant no more tax credits on dividends and which resulted in pension funds being worse off to the tune of over 10 BILLION a year.

£20 million doesn't really seem that much in comparison...


Thanks (5)
By pembo
17th May 2013 11:48

Really ??

and Goldmans is of course a shining beacon of this philosophy.If this action was so spurious why are HMRC so relieved to see the back of it. Have you read Hartnetts emails ?

Typical comment from Sue Grabbit and Run that as ever misses the point by some distance.

Still Dave must be relieved as he continues to advise HSBC (another shining beacon of financial probity ) on how to combat "financial crime". The appreciation of irony does alas appear lost on the great and good of this country as they struggle to keep their balance on the revolving door of life.

Thanks (2)
17th May 2013 16:18

Whatever the merits of this case ...

... I personally applaud the fact that someone out there is at least testing the boundaries.  Just imagine what deals would be struck if HMRC were confident that they would not be held to account or public scrutiny.  I speculate that the rules of governance which have since been put in place would not have been brought about but for the public outrage at this deal.

If the public purse has to suffer a tiny drop in order to oil the wheels of justice in such cases then as a taxpayer I should regard that as an acceptable price to pay.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood.

Thanks (5)