This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

deliberate defaulters list question s

Samson22
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:54 am

deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby Samson22 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:59 pm

Hello all.
I can't get my head around the following

For example some evaded monetary values of less than others yet the penalty % is much for example one case the evaded was less than 100k and yet the penalty rate was close on 100%. Yet many others in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands ranged from 50 to 100 %. Unless I am missing something I would think the later examples should the ones getting higher rate of penalties?.

Also I thought deliberate meant they had every right to go back 20 years? Yet on this list I am yet to see a case beyond 7 years. And given the sums involved in many examples it's hard to believe these people /companies where paying the right amount before the relevant date. Hm does have discovery assesments in there kit afterall and onus on (non)tax payer to disprove So am I missing something ??

Plus are these criminal prosecutions or civil fraud investigations? Or mix of both? If civil seems tad weird as some cases of criminal prosecutions involve sums than quite a lot in the defaulters list.

bd6759
Posts: 3297
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby bd6759 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:22 pm

This will help you

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/11/schedule/24

HMRC will recover tax back to the point the evasion started. Not all evaders have done so for 20 years with being caught.

HMRC cannot charge a civil penalty where there has been a successful criminal prosecution (double jeopardy). But in criminal cases recovery under POCA would result in the proceeds of the crime being recovered.

Samson22
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:54 am

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby Samson22 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:18 pm

Thanks for the answers.
I was a trifle confusing meant is the list purely civil cases or criminal only. Or both not are the individual cases criminal and civil.

That's interesting re POCA as curiously when one checks out criminal prosecutions of various self employed professions vs landlords (one who actually has an asset) seems to be shed loads of self employed more vs landlords prosecuted which to my mind would be other way round. And even there let property campaign page states in the section about if you don't disclose its only in extreme cases would it be criminal conviction.

Also given the amounts in criminal cases occasion
They seem to be more lenient on those that under declare vs no declarations at all even if sums are more. And non coperration is a no go.was one builder who eventually paid 400k but for almost a year tried to reason civilly and didn't even issue a assessment .

One thing I find perverse (if correct?) would if someone did not pay correctly 20 years and was refered to CPS and then passed away not would the poca not apply and they treasury would only be able to get 6 years worth of income tax or 14 vat either still less than the 20. Of course inheritance tax would apply ( unless farmland do was bought ) the irony the income tax would be a liability to offset the Inheritance tax.

I

bd6759
Posts: 3297
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby bd6759 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:47 pm

Civil is more cost efficient, recovers tax interest and penalties. The burden of proof is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).

Criminal is expensive and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

I don’t disagree there should be more prosecutions: it acts as a deterrent. That is the purpose of the defaulters list, but nobody pays attention to it. There are some juicy names on it, but the press never pick up on them.

Samson22
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:54 am

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby Samson22 » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:11 am

I think the loopholes should be closed first before ruining small fry comparatively. For eg of the mere handful of landlords jailed one was for 'only' 150 cgt dodges yet just locally I know of a portfolio landlord doing the non resident cgt avoiding millions literally but he will have no worries at all. Some might say always will be loopholes but that one they could have at least made it so only applies those non resident before April 2015 instead very rich second home owners if content to be out of country for a time can save the cgt .
Plus the celebrity often nothing happens such as England manager was accused a few years ago and nothing ever came of it.

Or the queen estate should be subject to tax. Either one or no one the current situation is neo feudal.

I don't get re proof burdens I mean if it's deliberate civilly surely the proof is same criminally as its been established its deliberate mean if deliberate was always criminal and careless not I would get it. But by what your seems shades of deliberate almost.

your right about the name and shame being ignored because apart from when it was launched I have not heard examples in broadcast media

Samson22
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:54 am

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby Samson22 » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:27 am

The number of prosecutions seems to less than 5 years ago. So seems civilly is the route generally.

What monetary threshold do they opt for criminal proceedings? Or is length of time more important or extent of under declaration? The legal costs? I read some case where the convicted had only to pay 1500 and did not state due to lack of monies. But you know more than I

bd6759
Posts: 3297
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby bd6759 » Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:18 am

HMRC has published their policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-investigation/hmrc-criminal-investigation-policy

All HMRC penalties are civil penalties, even if the behaviour is deliberate. Only the Courts can impose a criminal sanction. The burden of proof in Civil matters is the balance of probabilities, and the burden is on the appellant, not the respondent (HMRC). The appellant has to show that the amount assessed is excessive.

Like Ken Dodd before him, Harry Redknapp came across as a likeable simpleton in court, and it was not proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that he opened an offshore account in the name of his pet dog for the purposes of tax evasion. Juries are a fickle bunch, which might explain why HMRC don’t prosecute too often.

Even if the prosecution fails, the tax and interest is still payable, there is just no other penalty.

Samson22
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:54 am

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby Samson22 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:51 am

Thanks for the link. Many of those examples are easy to understand. Them talking about strong deterrent and repeated unlawful conduct ( just deliberately not paying correct amount in tax 2nd as fits that) very much seems hit or miss a day bad luck of the day can be criminal conviction rather than amounts. How anyone who is not a football fan think harry was innocent is beyond me same with Ken Dodd.

One on the deliberate list I find curious is there is a pastor whom ducked some 400k yet was not criminally prosercuted which given they did over 150k gift aid fraud and is a position of trust /authority suprises me.

bd6759
Posts: 3297
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: deliberate defaulters list question s

Postby bd6759 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:15 am

You should google the pastor. He has friends in high places...!


Return to “General”