Letting off bankers £10million tax bill

[Gromit]

// HMRC is also under fire for letting Goldman Sachs, the giant US investment bank, off paying £10 million interest on a long disputed tax bill.
Mr Hartnett has previously admitted this was a mistake. He confirmed yesterday that lawyers were initially not consulted about whether Goldman Sachs was liable for the interest on a £30 million bill from a failed tax avoidance scheme on bankers’ bonuses.
Mr Hartnett says he was advised by an official that there was a “legal impediment” to charging interest, which later turned out not to be the case.
He is under severe pressure over the deals, but yesterday insisted that he had no intention of resigning. Mr Hartnett told the MPs that an official was not paid his bonus because of the blunder.
Margaret Hodge, chairman of the public accounts committee, remained unsatisfied with the situation. She said it “sticks in the gullet” that Goldman Sachs got a deal not available to ordinary people struggling with their tax bills. //

http://www.telegraph....ne-off-8-billion.html

Comments please.

[venator]

(yawns)

[factor-fiction]

Do you think he should resign then because his legal adviser got it wrong?

[Kayless]

Not sure what you are driving at Gromit, an official got it wrong, I don't see this as a resignation issue.

[jno]

isn't that what taking responsibility is all about, factor30? Someone's cost the country £10 milion and all that's happend is that an official didn't get his bonus.

[Gromit]

We are stuggling to pay off our debts, and though £10 million lost to the treasury is quite small, it seems the only sanction against the people who lost the money is that an underling lost his christmas bonus. If I lost my employer £10 million, I don't think I would have a job. (if this mistake cost £10million for just one taxpayer, how many other companies has this wrong advise been applied to. £10 million could be the top of the iceberg).

[sunny-dave]

Hartnett should resign - he's incompetent and 'in the pocket' of the big financial institutions, plus big companies like vodafone etc etc.

Just look at his published list of 'lunch appointments' and 'hotel hospitatlity' and compare them with the sweetheart deals over tax which he has personally agreed.

< grump grump grump - sorry seem to in a rent-a-rant mode today >

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure the top man in an organisation should be expected to go every time someone makes a mistake but if it can be shown that it happens regularly and there are structural problems which mean mistakes will occur too often, then someone should resign or he should be forced to go. I'm not sure who he is accountable to though- who could sack him?

[Kayless]

So what would you like to happen Gromit? The advisor who got it wrong ritually disembowelled in Hyde Park? I can't see that Mr Hartnett could be held responsible, politicians do rely on officials.

[jno]

for "ritually disembowelled" read "sacked" perhaps?

[sunny-dave]

Hartnett is not a politician - he is a career Civil Servant, who runs HMRC and seems to treat it as a personal fiefdom, where he is the sole arbiter of what is right/wrong.

As such the buck should stop with him for these enormous failures to collect the correct tax - he should be sacked if he will not resign.

[Gromit]

If people cannot do the job they were employed to do then they should lose their job. Whether they are Head of Haringey Social Services, a train network operator who does not maintain the tracks or a tax collector who does not collect tax owed.

It is an employers market at the moment. There must be very many people who could do his job correctly and not lose us £millions.

[Kayless]

Fair enough Gromit but that would also go for most of the officials in the public sector!

[Gromit]

I am well aware that there are poor officials and managers in the public sector. And yes, they should be forced out if they do not perform.

[New Judge]

This particular case is very small beer and is just the tip of the iceberg when Mr Hartnett’s record is examined. As sunny-dave made brief reference to, the biggest scandal on his watch was the Vodafone debacle. Here Mr Hartnett negotiated a deal with the communications company which ended with them paying (if I remember correctly) about £1.6 billion. This was about half what even the company itself had set aside to settle the matter and possibly about a quarter of what some experts say was due. Reports suggest that Mr Hartnett enjoyed considerable hospitality at the expense of the company and also that he ignored the advice of HMRC’s lawyers. Vodafone is no stranger to tax disputes and still has an ongoing case in India where the amount disputed varies between $2.5bn and $5bn, depending which report is read.

There seems to be no move to query Mr Hartnett’s judgement or to review the decisions he made. He has suggested that the deal struck with Vodafone represented good value for the UK taxpayer.

HMRC in general seems to be riddled with incompetence. Thousands of “ordinary” taxpayers find themselves with large (by their standards) tax bills because their affairs have been mismanaged by the tax office. Reports suggest there seems little doubt that they will be pursued ruthlessly for the few hundred quid they owe. But then, of course, they may not be in a position to lavishly entertain tax officials whilst negotiating an agreeable settlement which would best protest the taxpayers' interests.

[rov1100]

With all the descriptions in the press about lost £bns I think we have become immune to just a few £mn. Playing with monopoly money has turned the whole circus into a game.

[Gromit]

Very rare that New Judge and I agree. I like his answer, but probably because he is agreeing with me.

[New Judge]

It's strange, Gromit, but I also tend to like answers which agree with my point of view!!! We must have more in common than we think !!

[sandyRoe]

Could Mr Hartnett find gainful employment on the board of Vodaphone when his career with the civil service is over?

[jake-the-peg]

You can't compare the tax affairs of major multi-nationals to individuals.

They recognise the benefits they bring and see taxation as a business deal to be negotiated in respect of that - and Governments have to play along.

However it does seem as if this individual needs to go back to negotiating school having sold the Government out too cheaply on more than one occasion.

One might almost suspect he'd been told to get money in fast whatever

He was most reluctant to reveal his instructions claiming client privilege if you please!