HMRC - would this be negligence?

[Whatcanudo?]

This is a hypothetical question:
Just supposing that seven or eight years ago you had a very successful and profitable business importing and distributing to about one hundred shops every month. Just supposing that one day you heard that a foreign national had set up business in competition with you. Just supposing this individual went around to all your customers telling them that he was going to put you and all of the existing suppliers out of business, that he had unlimited financial backing from one of the most corrupt countries in the world and that his terms were 'VAT is optional' and that he would copy and undercut any prices. Just supposing that his very first order was for £27,000 to one of your customers and he had persistently asked to supply this for cash without VAT although the customer had refused.
Just supposing that your customers all started taking advantage of the easy opportunity of evading VAT and that you, not being prepared to do the same, found that your sales began to decline sharply.
Just supposing that as soon as this happened seven years ago, you reported all of the information to HMRC including name and address of the criminal supplier, what he was buying and selling and who he was selling to and they replied thanking you for your information.
Just supposing that nothing happened and a year or so later you contacted HMRC again and still nothing happened. Just supposing you then started writing to various politicians and they contacted HMRC but still nothing happened. Just supposing that one of those who had written to HMRC had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Just supposing that you then discovered that the money used to finance this competitor was diverted foreign aid. Just supposing you also discovered that this criminal, who was increasing his share of the market rapidly as your own business declined, was paying cash for goods in China and writing his own invoices with a company he had set up in China (very easy to do).
Just supposing that, as your business died and as you suffered the stress and anxiety of losing everything and even facing bankruptcy you continued to write to HMRC but still nothing happened.
Just supposing that, five years after you had first informed HMRC, you received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of HMRC asking you not to provide them with any further information because they could not guarantee to keep it confidential.
Just supposing that, after almost eight years of struggle, stress and anxiety when you were close to bankruptcy you saw that this criminal was and still is openly defrauding HMRC of millions of pounds of VAT and other taxes by selling without VAT, importing on false invoices, using phoenix companies and that he now totally dominated the business and had become the biggest supplier in the market and was making, or laundering, a fortune.
And, just supposing HMRC had been fully aware of these activities for eight years and yet had done nothing except ask you not to tell them about it because they could not guarantee to keep your information confidential..
If you were in this situation and you had recently been provided with written proof that the crimes which you had reported to HMRC eight years ago were still ongoing only at a much increased rate, would you go to the national press, knowing that this might risk your personal safety?
As I say, this is a purely hypothetical question.

 

[Mr D]

And you think the press in this hypothetical case will be able to do more than politicians and HMRC staff can?

What hypothetical result are you looking for?

What hypothetical safety do you currently think you have that you think will change if you go down a particular route?

 

[Newchodge]

You don't post on here under the name 'treez' as well, do you?

 

[Whatcanudo?]

You don't post on here under the name 'treez' as well, do you?

No, I dont

 

[Whatcanudo?]

And you think the press in this hypothetical case will be able to do more than politicians and HMRC staff can?

What hypothetical result are you looking for?

What hypothetical safety do you currently think you have that you think will change if you go down a particular route?

I would think that if a case like this were written about in the press HMRC might be prompted to look into it instead of turning a blind eye

The result I would be looking for would be for HMRC to put these people out of business and save the taxpayer millions in evaded taxes which, of course, is what they are supposed to do

Those who are involved in money laundering on a large scale are not know to look kindly upon those who expose them

 

[Newchodge]

I would think that if a case like this were written about in the press HMRC might be prompted to look into it instead of turning a blind eye

The result I would be looking for would be for HMRC to put these people out of business and save the taxpayer millions in evaded taxes which, of course, is what they are supposed to do

Those who are involved in money laundering on a large scale are not know to look kindly upon those who expose them

Then talk to the press on condition of anonymity

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Then talk to the press on condition of anonymity

Yes, I think that is probably what I would do.

 

[Mr D]

I would think that if a case like this were written about in the press HMRC might be prompted to look into it instead of turning a blind eye

The result I would be looking for would be for HMRC to put these people out of business and save the taxpayer millions in evaded taxes which, of course, is what they are supposed to do

Those who are involved in money laundering on a large scale are not know to look kindly upon those who expose them

Ah I see. So they may have insufficient info now and after the press do a story still have insufficient info...?
Or have done an investigation and resolved whatever matter - but of course as you aren't a party to that investigation you wouldn't find out results...?

If you have been reporting them all this time then is there any difference between years ago and future regarding danger to yourself?

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Ah I see. So they may have insufficient info now and after the press do a story still have insufficient info...?
Or have done an investigation and resolved whatever matter - but of course as you aren't a party to that investigation you wouldn't find out results...?

If you have been reporting them all this time then is there any difference between years ago and future regarding danger to yourself?

In this case they would have had plenty of evidence for the past seven or eight years to apprehend and prosecute the offenders because the crimes would have been being carried out quite openly - everyone, hundreds or even thousands of people would have known that it was happening
If HMRC did nothing to stop this it would be for a reason - possibly lack of resources, it being considered too time-consuming or possibly even politically 'inconvenient'
In terms of danger to the individual there is a difference between reporting to HMRC, (even though they cannot guarantee to keep information confidential) and reporting to the national press unless one did so anonymously

 

[billybob99]

This is a hypothetical question:
Just supposing that seven or eight years ago you had a very successful and profitable business importing and distributing to about one hundred shops every month. Just supposing that one day you heard that a foreign national had set up business in competition with you. Just supposing this individual went around to all your customers telling them that he was going to put you and all of the existing suppliers out of business, that he had unlimited financial backing from one of the most corrupt countries in the world and that his terms were 'VAT is optional' and that he would copy and undercut any prices. Just supposing that his very first order was for £27,000 to one of your customers and he had persistently asked to supply this for cash without VAT although the customer had refused.
Just supposing that your customers all started taking advantage of the easy opportunity of evading VAT and that you, not being prepared to do the same, found that your sales began to decline sharply.
Just supposing that as soon as this happened seven years ago, you reported all of the information to HMRC including name and address of the criminal supplier, what he was buying and selling and who he was selling to and they replied thanking you for your information.
Just supposing that nothing happened and a year or so later you contacted HMRC again and still nothing happened. Just supposing you then started writing to various politicians and they contacted HMRC but still nothing happened. Just supposing that one of those who had written to HMRC had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Just supposing that you then discovered that the money used to finance this competitor was diverted foreign aid. Just supposing you also discovered that this criminal, who was increasing his share of the market rapidly as your own business declined, was paying cash for goods in China and writing his own invoices with a company he had set up in China (very easy to do).
Just supposing that, as your business died and as you suffered the stress and anxiety of losing everything and even facing bankruptcy you continued to write to HMRC but still nothing happened.
Just supposing that, five years after you had first informed HMRC, you received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of HMRC asking you not to provide them with any further information because they could not guarantee to keep it confidential.
Just supposing that, after almost eight years of struggle, stress and anxiety when you were close to bankruptcy you saw that this criminal was and still is openly defrauding HMRC of millions of pounds of VAT and other taxes by selling without VAT, importing on false invoices, using phoenix companies and that he now totally dominated the business and had become the biggest supplier in the market and was making, or laundering, a fortune.
And, just supposing HMRC had been fully aware of these activities for eight years and yet had done nothing except ask you not to tell them about it because they could not guarantee to keep your information confidential..
If you were in this situation and you had recently been provided with written proof that the crimes which you had reported to HMRC eight years ago were still ongoing only at a much increased rate, would you go to the national press, knowing that this might risk your personal safety?
As I say, this is a purely hypothetical question.

Please can you use the enter key on your keyboard.

Thanks.

 

[Mr D]

In this case they would have had plenty of evidence for the past seven or eight years to apprehend and prosecute the offenders because the crimes would have been being carried out quite openly - everyone, hundreds or even thousands of people would have known that it was happening
If HMRC did nothing to stop this it would be for a reason - possibly lack of resources, it being considered too time-consuming or possibly even politically 'inconvenient'
In terms of danger to the individual there is a difference between reporting to HMRC, (even though they cannot guarantee to keep information confidential) and reporting to the national press unless one did so anonymously

So if hypothetically HMRC have all this evidence and all this political questioning raised then either they have investigated or they haven't.
If they haven't then maybe the evidence isn't as solid as you think.

Is this like how government was persuaded to investigate swiss bank accounts when the evidence of wrongdoing turned out to be … wishful thinking?
Or the investigation into a multinational that took 6 years and was effectively both the biggest tax investigation and the biggest waste of resources HMRC have ever had?

If the people you are hypothetically talking about catch wind of complaints and come looking they would have been able to find you already. After all, who could they know would be most likely source of complaints - the disgruntled competition.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Please can you use the enter key on your keyboard.

Thanks.

Sorry, I do not understand

 

[Whatcanudo?]

So if hypothetically HMRC have all this evidence and all this political questioning raised then either they have investigated or they haven't.
If they haven't then maybe the evidence isn't as solid as you think.

Is this like how government was persuaded to investigate swiss bank accounts when the evidence of wrongdoing turned out to be … wishful thinking?
Or the investigation into a multinational that took 6 years and was effectively both the biggest tax investigation and the biggest waste of resources HMRC have ever had?

If the people you are hypothetically talking about catch wind of complaints and come looking they would have been able to find you already. After all, who could they know would be most likely source of complaints - the disgruntled competition.

Well, as I say, it is only a hypothetical question

 

[Noah]

First thing, on the assumption that this is a True Story, you have my sympathies.

I understand your caution in dealing with criminals of this type, and also your expectation that the official channels should handle this. Having said that, I find your patience a litlle surprising; I might have gone public a lot earlier. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

A couple of suggestions on "going to the press" : consider Private Eye, The Economist, and even those Bellingcat chaps as starting points. Whatever you do, look into any specific journalist or organisation for their record on protecting sources.

one of those who had written to HMRC had been the Chancellor of the Exchequer

If you mean Gideon, I wonder how he would feel about publishing this in The Evening Standard?

 

[obscure]

So if hypothetically HMRC have all this evidence and all this political questioning raised then either they have investigated or they haven't.
If they haven't then maybe the evidence isn't as solid as you think.

Hypothetical evidence is always 100% solid... hypothetically speaking.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

First thing, on the assumption that this is a True Story, you have my sympathies.

I understand your caution in dealing with criminals of this type, and also your expectation that the official channels should handle this. Having said that, I find your patience a litlle surprising; I might have gone public a lot earlier. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

A couple of suggestions on "going to the press" : consider Private Eye, The Economist, and even those Bellingcat chaps as starting points. Whatever you do, look into any specific journalist or organisation for their record on protecting sources.


If you mean Gideon, I wonder how he would feel about publishing this in The Evening Standard?

Thank you very much for this advice. Actually I could have actually already spoken with one of those who you suggest who might be very keen to publish - would really appreciate any other journalist suggestions though

 

[Mr D]

Hypothetical evidence is always 100% solid... hypothetically speaking.

Of course.
Just it isn't always enough to start an investigation or to disprove evidence supplied during an investigation by the other side.

 

[Mr D]

Thank you very much for this advice. Actually I could have actually already spoken with one of those who you suggest who might be very keen to publish - would really appreciate any other journalist suggestions though

If seeking to reduce danger, start trying to hide and change locations every week or two. Protecting sources only means they don't give up who you are, that doesn't prevent the other side knowing who you are already.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Of course.
Just it isn't always enough to start an investigation or to disprove evidence supplied during an investigation by the other side.

But is this hypothetical case the CEO of HMRC wrote asking not to be provided with any further evidence or intelligence even though there was plenty of additional evidence available. It would be difficult anyone to argue that there was not enough evidence when they had specifically asked not to be provided with ANY further evidence.
A bit like a policeman turning up at the scene of a murder where there are eyewitnesses and saying "don't tell me who did it"

 

[Whatcanudo?]

If seeking to reduce danger, start trying to hide and change locations every week or two. Protecting sources only means they don't give up who you are, that doesn't prevent the other side knowing who you are already.

Thank you for that advice.

 

[Newchodge]

Does HMRC have a CEO?

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Does HMRC have a CEO?

Yep, Google it - current one in Jon Thompson - previous one was Lin Homer

 

[Mr D]

But is this hypothetical case the CEO of HMRC wrote asking not to be provided with any further evidence or intelligence even though there was plenty of additional evidence available. It would be difficult anyone to argue that there was not enough evidence when they had specifically asked not to be provided with ANY further evidence.
A bit like a policeman turning up at the scene of a murder where there are eyewitnesses and saying "don't tell me who did it"

Good thing for the policeman too, eyewitness accounts are not the most reliable.

So if you had plenty why was it not provided at once? Here's a titbit about this criminal activity and here's another titbit later …. ?

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Good thing for the policeman too, eyewitness accounts are not the most reliable.

So if you had plenty why was it not provided at once? Here's a titbit about this criminal activity and here's another titbit later …. ?

I am sorry but I really do not want to discuss details here - as I say, it was a purely hypothetical case
I presume you work for HMRC?

 

[Mr D]

I am sorry but I really do not want to discuss details here - as I say, it was a purely hypothetical case
I presume you work for HMRC?

LOL - no, I don't work for HMRC.
I have referred work to them for investigation where it has come up in other enquiries. A few dozen times.

 

[dan19900]

That's just how it is, HMRC are useless. Most of my Chinese suppliers think I must be Jesus for wanting the value declared correctly, I literally have to remind them 3-4 times every time I order and they still often declare $10-20k orders as $60 samples or 'metal pipes' comes up often for some reason.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

LOL - no, I don't work for HMRC.

I thought we all worked for HMRC... whether we want to or not...

 

[Mr D]

I thought we all worked for HMRC... whether we want to or not...

If one Professor Richard Murphy had his way we'd all be working for the state and the glorious state would let us have a little to eat and places to sleep. The state is mother, the state is father.

I try and avoid supporting the infernal revenue service too much.

 

[Mr D]

That's just how it is, HMRC are useless. Most of my Chinese suppliers think I must be Jesus for wanting the value declared correctly, I literally have to remind them 3-4 times every time I order and they still often declare $10-20k orders as $60 samples or 'metal pipes' comes up often for some reason.

Not just the Chinese who do that.

I ordered some sample boxes last year from a supplier in Angola.
Quite how the firewood was let through as a cubic metre crate value $5 I will never know. Took me months to get the payment sorted out. $300 for a few wooden boxes in the crate plus shipping and insurance.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

That's just how it is, HMRC are useless. Most of my Chinese suppliers think I must be Jesus for wanting the value declared correctly, I literally have to remind them 3-4 times every time I order and they still often declare $10-20k orders as $60 samples or 'metal pipes' comes up often for some reason.

You are right. Unfortunately HMRC appear to be a law unto themselves. It is they who decide if action is to be taken or not even when provided with all the evidence necessary to prosecute and even if legitimate traders are being ruined by criminals.
And what self-respecting law enforcement agency anywhere in the world would ask not to be provided with information concerning an ongoing crime?
Regarding under-invoicing on import, this is now so common and so easy to do without any fear of ever being caught that inevitably more and more traders will resort to this. In fact, HMRC are so ineffective that for many taxes are regarded as an easily avoidable voluntary contribution. At the same time HMRC are regarded as a joke.
The sad thing is that this could all be resolved so easily but HMRC prefer things as they are. No matter the huge and growing cost to the taxpayer.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

I thought we all worked for HMRC... whether we want to or not...

You will find that there are many, often those from other countries who run businesses here who have discovered that, far from us all working for HMRC, they can very easily avoid most taxes and do so with impunity. But, of course, HMRC do not want to know about any of that.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

I thought we all worked for HMRC... whether we want to or not...

I am afraid that for many government agencies advertising, promotion, attending conferences and filling in reports is more important than actually catching criminals.

 

[kkfcXHzmCc]

HMRC are probably in on it!

 

[The Byre]

I used to own and run a news agency for trade mags and now and again we'd get stories like these. Someone like yourself would button-hole one of our reporters and pour their souls out over some massive injustice or corrupt practice.

My next port of call would be the relevant scandal sheet. In the UK it was always News of the World. In Germany Bild Zeitung or Bild am Sonntag. We then became the agent who is helping the person with the 1st-hand info to get their story out and get a pay-out from the paper. We took between 10% and 20%, so a £50k front-page story was a good payday for us and for the journalist who found the story!

As much as I adore the Eye and have been a subscriber for many years, stories in there get ignored and sweet-FA is done about them. Sad but true. Your story has to go on the front page of a national.

 

[Mr D]

I am afraid that for many government agencies advertising, promotion, attending conferences and filling in reports is more important than actually catching criminals.

Of course.
When targets become the most important element of a business then the targets will be met regardless of actual need.
Its more important for a government department to have a paper trail showing what they have done than actually doing something useful.

 

[STDFR33]

Stopped reading when I realised that 60% of your opening post was 'just supposing'.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

HMRC are probably in on it!

No, I don't think that is the case at all. I am sure that they are all scrupulously honest. Those at the top are very well remunerated - after all it is only taxpayers' money.
This is a headline from the Daily Mirror of July, 2016:
Bungling tax boss Lin Homer lands £2.4 million pension pot from HMRC
In my hypothetical case above Lin Homer could well have been one of those who had personally asked that HMRC not be provided with information concerning fraud because they could not guarantee to keep it confidential.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

I used to own and run a news agency for trade mags and now and again we'd get stories like these. Someone like yourself would button-hole one of our reporters and pour their souls out over some massive injustice or corrupt practice.

My next port of call would be the relevant scandal sheet. In the UK it was always News of the World. In Germany Bild Zeitung or Bild am Sonntag. We then became the agent who is helping the person with the 1st-hand info to get their story out and get a pay-out from the paper. We took between 10% and 20%, so a £50k front-page story was a good payday for us and for the journalist who found the story!

As much as I adore the Eye and have been a subscriber for many years, stories in there get ignored and sweet-FA is done about them. Sad but true. Your story has to go on the front page of a national.

Thank you very much for this advice.
Actually although this is only a hypothetical case, from discussion I have had to date I am certain that this would be a front page story. After all, if this were a true story, the public outrage that would follow the revelation that HMRC, at the highest level, asked not to be provided with evidence which might assist them in investigating an ongoing crime would be considerable. Moreover, if it could be proven eight years after the crimes had been first reported to HMRC, that they were continuing on a much larger scale and the perpetrators making fortunes through tax evasion whilst many hard-working and honest taxpayers were under pressure to pay their taxes the public outrage would be unbounded. But, as I say, this is just a hypothetical case. Incidentally, I think in a case like this, if you were to write to the current CEO of HMRC he would probably ignore your letters and you would probably not even receive an acknowledgement.

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Stopped reading when I realised that 60% of your opening post was 'just supposing'.

OK

 

[Whatcanudo?]

Of course.
When targets become the most important element of a business then the targets will be met regardless of actual need.
Its more important for a government department to have a paper trail showing what they have done than actually doing something useful.

Yes, true, and it is always the easy cases, the little people who get targeted when they offend and ignored when they complain.