HMRC Is Shite

HMRC Is Shite
Dedicated to the taxpayers of Britain, and the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who have to endure the monumental shambles that is HMRC.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

HMRC Nixed Beckham's Knighthood


According to the Evening Standard David Beckham’s knighthood was all-but-approved for the 2014 New Year’s Honours list until a last-minute intervention from HM Revenue & Customs.

HMRC reportedly put up a “red flag”, blocking the honour, on the grounds that the ex-England captain had been involved in a controversial form of lawful tax avoidance.

After that, Honours Committee officials reportedly entered into a dialogue with Mr Beckham’s advisers on how to “sort out” the issues raised by HMRC.

Two points cross my humble mind:

1 If the avoidance was lawful, what the fark was HMRC's problem?

2 Why was Beckham then given advice on how to sort out HMRC, when ordinary taxpayers are thrown to the wolves?

Tax does have to be taxing.

Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations

Insurance to protect you against the cost of enquiry or dispute with HMRC is available from several sources including Solar Tax Investigation Insurance.

Ken Frost has negotiated a 10% discount on any polices that may suit your needs.

However, neither Ken Frost nor HMRCISSHITE either endorses or recommends their services.

What is Solar Tax Investigation Insurance?

Solar Tax Investigation Insurance is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.

To find out more, please use this link Solar Tax Investigation Insurance



HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

14 comments:

  1. Its disgusting that the HMRC denied David Beckham a knighthood. He's has done great work for the UK and for various charities globally. Aren't HMRC supposed to be objective? If tax planning is perfectly legal but HMRC's problem is they just don't like it, then surely they are behaving subjectively?
    It is their job as public servants to administer laws made by parliament. This was HMRC moralising again - we could all do that, some might call out HMRC for the way they treat small business and for the brutal bullying of their own staff which some cowards believe to be their perfect right. When will we get a tax department which is professional and acts with integrity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous7 February 2017 at 13:33
      Are you getting treatment for your neurosis?

      Delete
    2. HMRC staff (ex-staff), brown-nosing, yes people, commenting on here??

      Delete
  2. Shill alert...

    Back on topic.

    Correct my assumptions if wrong;

    1. An incompetant female "public servant" with a track record (Sic) of spectacular failings from Birmingham through a variety of top public sector offices gets a gong?
    2. Another female who held high office withing local government and then the Political sector gets a gong (with questions about alleged tax planning/avoidance/structuring?
    3. A well respected male footballer with WORLDWIDE appeal geets shafted?

    WTF is going on with our awards system, is it totally corrrupt and broke?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Sir David might have been investing in the Ingenuous scheme. That's the lawful investment scheme which defeated HMRC at the Supreme Court I understand. The same case where the judge criticised HMRC for their law breaking.

    Was the Homer person still 'in charge' of HMRC back in 2014?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If correct then WTF is going on in Government!

      Delete
    2. The supreme Court ruled that Hmrc breached taxpayer confidentiality, nothing about the legality of ingenious avoidance schemes

      Delete
    3. They ruled Hmrc breached taxpayer confidentiality laws. Reportedly this was Dave Hartnett who was allowed to retire with a £1.7 million pension pot, so don't worry too much about him.

      Delete
    4. What's the difference between Ken Dodd and Dave Hartnett?
      Arise Sir Ken!
      If it were a football match the score would have been 2-0 to Sir Ken. "Lots and lots of Happiness" ;}

      Delete
  4. I say, I take great exception to your incorrect view that the Homer person was "in charge" of anything in 2014 or at any other time before or after that year!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous 7/2 @ 19:31

      May I replace the words 'in charge' with "collecting a huge wage and bonuses for holding the position of CEO"?

      Delete
  5. Two sides of the same coin: Mo Farrah is resident (and presumably pays and/or avoids taxes) in an overseas country, yet was awarded a knighthood - if we're talking about suitability for a knighthood and nothing else.

    Anon at 18:40 suggests that "Sir David" may have been 'investing' in a tax avoidance scheme which might have been found to be 'lawful' by the Supreme Court. We don't know that but what if "Sir David" is involved in cases which are yet to be settled - perhaps that knighthood gets put on the shelf for a year or two until everything is sorted..?

    I don't really see anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears that one can be a 'tax exile' but not a 'tax avoider'!

      Delete
    2. Hmrc should be asked "has this person broken any tax laws?". If the answer is no, then no further subjective comment is required from them.

      Delete