UK Uncut take HMRC to court over Goldman Sachs £10 million secret deal

[I1L2T3]

Someone doesn't know their tax law very well, if they intend to take HMRC to court.

 

 

The amount you owe, in law, is the amount that HMRC says you owe. If they say Goldman Sachs don't owe £10 million, then they don't, and the judge has no power to disagree with them.

 

We'll see.

[HeadingNorth]

We'll see.

 

We have seen. People have gone to court before to dispute their tax bill. When it arrives in court, the first thing the judge tells them is that he cannot do anything about the size of the bill, his only power is to force the disputant to pay what HMRC says they owe.

[green]

We have seen. People have gone to court before to dispute their tax bill. When it arrives in court, the first thing the judge tells them is that he cannot do anything about the size of the bill, his only power is to force the disputant to pay what HMRC says they owe.

 

The HOC Committee in Parliament which sat 10 days ago (you can find the link and video on Democracy live) stated that the deals that Dave Hartnett were involved in, contravened the rules, and were against the HMRC's own solicitors advice.

 

UK Uncut have said :-

 

This is at the heart of our legal action. We are saying that if was a genuine mistake, then it can be rectified and the money paid back. And being the reasonable people that we are, we have given them a couple of weeks to do so.

 

If not though, we will see them in court, as we believe that this handshake agreement is unlawful because, reportedly, Dave didn’t follow HMRC’s own procedures. So if it’s not quashed, Dave’s dodgy deal could land him in the dock.

[I1L2T3]

We have seen. People have gone to court before to dispute their tax bill. When it arrives in court, the first thing the judge tells them is that he cannot do anything about the size of the bill, his only power is to force the disputant to pay what HMRC says they owe.

 

This is different. This is a legal challenge to the way HMRC is operating.

[ricgem2002]

i hope they make them pay interest on the money they have got away with too:hihi: £10 million quid in the legal bill for this is chicken feed to what these compamies have fleeced the gov out of:huh:

[green]

i hope they make them pay interest on the money they have got away with too:hihi: £10 million quid in the legal bill for this is chicken feed to what these compamies have fleeced the gov out of:huh:

 

The £10 million was interest, on the years, that with-held the payment of the NI contributions.

[Bassman62]

Short-term loss perhaps but long-term if the HMRC calculates that they may be taken to court every time they do a questionable deal with corporates then they may be less prone to doing those deals. Long-term it could lead to more tax being collected.

Thank god for freedom of information. as you say may cost a lot on this one but in the long run may save a massive amount.

[Bassman62]

We have seen. People have gone to court before to dispute their tax bill. When it arrives in court, the first thing the judge tells them is that he cannot do anything about the size of the bill, his only power is to force the disputant to pay what HMRC says they owe.

yes but it will send out a message plus HMRC can and do threaten to add interest.