HMRC's Dave Hartnett is trying to place HMRC above the law, and remove the right to legal privilege (ie client/lawyer confidentiality).This is one of the key components of our legal system, and is there to stop corrupt police and dictatorial politicians from using the powers of the state against individuals and organisations.
Sadly the editorial team of Accountancy Age (page two) choose not to see the danger of the proposals put forward by Hartnett.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Sadly, HMRC do appear to be a law unto themselves...They appear to operate on the basis of guilty until proven innocent.
ReplyDeleteThere does appear to be a concerted effort by Nanny's media to get public backing for even more draconian powers for HMRC....The main tactic appears to be to fudge the boundaries of tax avoidance and tax evasion....The MPs expenses has illustrated this point perfectly....Flipping to avoid CGT was encouraged on an HMRC leaflet given to new MPs but now, the media are trying to promote public hostility to this legal practice by calling it theft or fraud....The public fall for this because so many are envious and bitter if they perceive someone gets something they themselves don't get.
Regarding MP's expenses, the ONLY prosecutions that should happen is against those that have committed blatent fraud; Phantom mortgages, phantom rent, claims for over night stays that didn't happen etc etc.....The other things may have been morally wrong but, were within the rules.....I think everyone has put in an expense claim on a suck it and see basis, sometimes they are paid, sometimes not....I blame the fees office because, after all, they were responsible for deciding whether a claim should be paid or not and, it appears to me, they failed in their duty at times.
Giving the state, via HMRC, further powers to ride roughshod over professional confidentiality is the tactic of police states and will make this country even more of an unpleasant place to live than it already is.....If I was young and healthy, I would leave while I still could.
Enjoy Stalinist powers responsibly
www.we'll'avyouaware.co.uk
Search on line for We're gonna get you.
Tonk,
ReplyDeleteWhere would you go?
Grant;
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say.....I like Maderia but it is part of the EUSSR.....I suspect New Zealand.
MP's expenses - sections 291 - 295 ITEPA 2003 should be repealed.
ReplyDelete