Maybe because a 'problem' that costs the UK economy £2BN (according to the BBC) is still a problem....even if there are in your opinion bigger problems.

I might have got them mixed up with Gary Barlow in this instance.

Presumably pubs, restaurants, corner shops, car parks and all those other trades that do a large percentage of their business in cash are also on the take and evading tax then?



You can tell a lot about ideology from who a government considers a risk. Under Labour, HMRC ran targetted campaigns aimed at professions. Under this lot it's been electricians, plumbers and now it's builders and associated trades.

Just to inform and educate Dally a little...



What the likes of Vodafone and others do is take a very, Uvery extreme interpretation of legislation and case law in order to treat profits earned in the UK from UK customers as being taxable elsewhere. The elsewhere often being somewhere like Luxembourg with lower CT rates.



They are effectively shifting money that should be taxed in theUK overseas, and challenging HMRC to pursue them through the courts for it in the knowledge that they have the cash and lawyers to string it out for years, while HMRC don't.



As a result, HMRC will settle for something as being better than nothing for the public purse. These companies are wilfully evading UK tax, not avoiding it. If successive rounds of public sector cuts hadn't pulled the teeth from HMRC they may not have found it so easy.

Even the [iMail[/i has got an opinion piece today, opining that 'what is immoral' is government constantly harping on about tax and morality, while doing nothing to deal with the likes of Google and Vodaphone (the two it mentions) paying next to nowt, and multi-millionaires who live in this country but pay next to no tax.



So there.



Hurrumph.

I don't know if that would include Rothermere and Dacre, but I hope not

Good point.

www.politicshome.com/uk/story/28263/ Oops

www.politicshome.com/uk/story/28263/ Oops

Regarding Vodafone, let us not forget that the case had already been to court and the judge had decided (under the rule that shifting accounting offshore PURELY to avoid tax was not allowed) that they had indeed shifted it specifically for that reason (the upshot of that being that they were going to have to pay up to approx £6bn) ... but good old Dave Hartnett had a little chat with them and let them off with a much, much, smaller phased payment ... thereby just tossing the judge's ruling aside.

In my opinion, that's not just tax avoidance, it's far worse.

I think there's something under way to check whether what he did is actually legal.



Dave Hartnett is now leaving HMRC, apparently of his own volition, no mention of sacking or anything like that.

It'll be interesting to see what job he does next ... tax avoidance perhaps? (as soon as the restrictions allow ... or sooner if he knows a way round it?).



The whole thing reeks of chummyness.

As I said, it goes back to political will. If our legislators took the matter seriously they'd amend the law or write good law and they could provide HMRC with more or less unlimited funds (relative to Vodafone) if they wished. They fact is they don't (or at least didn't during the Labour years).

I have said on here a long time ago that we need to move to a tax system whereby liability is linked to turnover generated withy the UK or a worldwide tax.



UK politicians do not care about tax avoidance / evasion as is shown by the number of UK 'dependencies' that are tax havens.

Lets not forget that the person negotiating for Vodaphone was Hartnett's ex-boss who recommended him for the role he was leaving. Something is rotten and rotten to the core.