Zahawi sacked!

Ok my turn

He wasn’t FINED five million.

HMRC invited him to agree with their assessment that :

A) he had not acted within THEIR interpretation of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

B) the amount to which he had failed to operate by THEIR definition was ‘x’

C) as a result of that failure he now owed them ‘x’ plus interest at the official rate of 8%, compounding daily until payment, and in addition

D) he also, because they judged his action to be both deliberate and carried out in full knowledge of above statute, he was being surcharged a penalty of 30 % of x plus compound interest

It is the 30% penalty rate that is the highest they can impose
AND THAT

E) if he wished to dispute this he was free to go to a tribunal while the interest rose daily and the penalty too

It was the TOTAL of x + compound interest + penalty that amounted to the five million

Those of us who have clashed with the Inland Revenue in the past will tell you the tribunal works on the reverse of natural justice in that you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

I’m no fan of the shithead but the twat chose to pay up for an easy life hoping it would go away instead of fighting them.

These are the real facts of the matter. Nobody knows what would have occurred had he taken the bastards on and unfortunately he had made it harder for the next person they come after to hit back.

Having said all that …

Not declaring this at the time, and taking the job as head of said gestapo, was just ridiculously fucking stupid and for that, either for being so fucking stupid as to think he could hide it, or for being so fucking arrogant as to think he could do what dozens of better tax cheats in politics could do and get away with it, he really does need throwing in The Thames.

In my case John Majors Rottweilers came after me for claiming Bed and Breakfast accommodation in Sutton whilst freelancing at London Underground Ltd just before Blair’s successful election campaign. They hit me for all the accommodation expenses plus interest but no penalty. Their letter stated I had ‘misinterpreted’ the relevant sections of ICTA 1988.

I took them to the tribunal and tried to make a mockery of their statement that accommodation costs cannot possibly be a business expense because I could not possibly invoice the client while asleep and I LOST.

It made quite a stir on the editorial pages of John Samsons Computer Contractor at the time.

Amazingly, the ability to screw small to medium enterprise for doing no more than what large enterprise did for its employees with subsistence expenditure persisted until none other than Gordon Brown put a stop to it in 2001 with his TOTAL revamp of expense allowances permissible for at site working for a period not exceeding two years

I learned a lot. Particularly how to screw the Revenue over properly. When they challenged my substitution clause as invalid under IR35 I invited their tax inspector to come to the naval base and demand the right to be my substitute. The test came to Faslane, did exactly what he said would be needed to allow a substitution clause … and was marched away by armed Special Boat Squadron members. Tbe MOD take access to the nuclear sub bases very seriously

I got a stiff warning from the Navy not to do that again and three weeks later the tax office admitted the Navy had the absolute right to vet any person sent to fulfil my subcontract and could demand several months to carry that out.

I ceased operating as a ltdco about fourteen years later. For some reason every single piece of paperwork I sent them after that Faslane debacle was accepted by them without question. I wish I’d known, I’d have been much more creative about them.

Taxation is one of those areas that a particular personality type has has its claws in for a very long time.

One would have thought the people would have mounted a defence against its machinations many years ago. Something along the lines of this -

It is the government's responsibility to tell a citizen how much tax he owes them. After any challenges / appeals and the amount being paid in full, the matter is closed for eternity.

This would also force the tax system to change and simplify.

Complication also allows for selective enforcement, with all the avenues for corruption that entails. It also means everyone has to have a specialist 'expert' between themselves and the government

Well obviously he believes in it for himself. Does he really believe in it for the ordinary worker though ??

NOT in tax ‘law’

The principle was established well over a century ago that it is for the tax PAYER to prove to the tribunal that the ‘assessment’ made by the inland revenue is incorrect.

It was also established at the same time that when an ‘advisor’ makes your return or suggests a course of action, it is you, not they, who pay the penalty if you fail to persuade tbe tax tribunal that HMRC’s interpretation of ICTA 1988 is wrong as applied to your case.

So the fact is in all tax matters you the taxpayer are deemed by the lawful tribunal held to investigate your complaint that you are in fact guilty as charged until you produce, and argue, evidence to the contrary.

Amongst my various letters upstairs I have one from North West 5 Trusts and Settlements. It complained that I had accepted monies from my daughter still a child and paid her in dividends for work she did backing up my computer systems while I was away from home (I did say the bastards attack on my accommodation expenses made me both radicalised and much more creative and this was one such example)

After several YEARS of this the Inland Revenue complained.

They said, and I quote, that ‘if I agree to cancel the B shares in my daughters ownership and make no further payments in dividends against them, AND sign an agreement that no shares will ever again be issued to a person under 18, they will ignore the (£30,000) I have handed out but if I do not agree then I would be dragged before a tribunal and the maximum penalty sought.

This highlights the attitude these scum take.