malicious troublemaking with the taxman

[Ruffa]

Hi,

My situation is a complex one to say the least, and so I felt maybe I should ask it in several parts.

I am non resident in the UK. So my first question is does the revenue launch investigations against individuals who
are non resident and have been non-resident in the UK for at least 4 years (maybe 5)?

Secondly can the revenue recieve documents that are private property into their possession without a court order?

For example could a malicious person who has wrongfully gained possession of your bank statements hand them to a UK authority
for the purpose of trying to provoke a tax investigation on a non resident individual?

Look forward to your replies...more questions to follow depending on the answers to these questions.

[pawncob]

HMRC can instigate an investigation on anyone, even non residents, if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that taxes have been evaded. They may act on anonymous info. such as you describe or may already have other details which point them in the right direction. They don't need a court order to "receive" these documents. If they arrive in the post, how could they not receive them?

[Ruffa]

Hi Pawn Cob,

Thanks for your reply. If then I am a non resident with no plans to return to the UK to work, do you think I should concern myself
with this situation? The documents would have been handed to them in person by a malicious family member who has possession of them as an act of theft. Surely the HMRC cannot recieve documents under these circumstances? And be allowed to use them to instigate an investigation?

[scottie2]

I infer from your post that you have concerns that someone may have provided information to HMRC and this may be used by HMRC to initiate an enquiry. HMRC don't need court orders to obtain information and from the sounds of things they may have been supplied with documents voluntarily in any case. HMRC receives information each year from an array of sources and they would examine it, particularly if it provides them with confirmation that taxes have been evaded. Some of this information is received anonymously and can be of variable quality, in terms of accuracy and detail. HMRC certainly do challenge a non-residency status, particularly in cases where they suspect that either the individual is still resident in the UK, has exceeded the various day count rule, or the link with the UK has not been permanently severed. It may well be that the information you refer to will be used by HMRC to mount an enquiry, but I think you need to tell us more before we can comment more fully. Hope this helps and get in touch if you need more help. manoj.anand@wlhtax.co.uk

[Ruffa]

I think what i am really asking is....in my circumstances is it wiser to let anyone who thinks I owe them money contact me, rather than me contacting them and asking "hey do I owe you anything?"

[scottie2]

Ruffa-you state that you are non UK resident for tax purposes and have been for several years-why therefore do you think that you owe taxes to HMRC? Please clarify exactly what you mean. If you have any tax issues relating to the UK, the only advice I can give and any tax professional worth their salt can give, is to come forward and make a voluntary disclosure of all liabilities. Doing this will help in keeping the penalties to a minimum. Hope this helps. manoj.anand@wlhtax.co.uk

[Gnome]

....and to clarify the legal position, TMA 1970 used to say that the (then) Inland Revenue could make use of any information obtained "by lawful means". However, the "by lawful means" provision was dropped (c2004?) from the legislation.

HMRC paid a reputed £100,000 a few years ago for information contained in computer discs containing information on Liechtenstein bank accounts, the information having been illegally obtained by a bank employee.

Disclosure is the wise course of action.

[Generix]

....and to clarify the legal position, TMA 1970 used to say that the (then) Inland Revenue could make use of any information obtained "by lawful means". However, the "by lawful means" provision was dropped (c2004?) from the legislation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe individuals (or any other entity) that 'acquire' by illegal means such data, which is then handed over or sold to HMRC, get any sort of immunity from prosecution for their own illegal deeds. This legislation just simply covers the UK tax authorities a$$ when they get tip offs etc, or when they want to actively persue illegaly obtained data, which in my opinion is very wrong/immoral etc.

(This isn't my area of expertise however, just something I have a passing interest in).

[mullet]

It would be useful in terms of providing context (and satisfiying nosy tax professionals) for the OP to make a brief yet anonymous Taxationweb disclosure. I'm intrigued - is this paranoia or a genuine concern because of misdemeanours?

[wamstax]

I think that there are a number of issues here.
The first is whether information could be used by HMRC that was provided by a family member. Any official would first of all have to satisfy themselves that they were not leaving themselves open to charges of handling stolen goods (just in the same way that the information provider could leave themselves open to charges of theft) if documents were provided to them. There are very specific lines of communication nowadays where HMRC intend to use covert intelligence and the information gathering has to be conducted with appropriately trained officers.

Inevitably a family member may think that they can land another family member in trouble only to find themselves in the potential conspiracy to defraud the HMRC / Public purse

Next HMRC would have to be sure that where they could not receive the documents (e.g. stolen property knowingly handled) they would have to obtain sufficient information to ensure that they could pursue matters formally (and possibly by way of criminal proceedings if heinous enough and in public interest) if having opened the enquiry the "suspected evader" decided to shut up shop and not respond
Once those hurdles have been overcome there would be no barrier to mounting a succesful enquiry.

As to the "suspect" - after all you are innocent until proven guilty (or is it the other way about) - if matters are serious enough it is in that persons own interests to seek advice (anonymously at first if desirable) with the intention of bringing all matters voultarily before HMRC and hopefully securing a CIF enquiry (COP9 - 2009) with immunity from prosecution.

Of course if matters are not sizeable enough HMRC may decide not to follow matters up however you should be aware of the MARD procedures where HMRC can get foreign jurisdictions to pursue liabilities that they establish on people currently in that other country.