the slow game of chess that is tax justice

As we've all said, our economy is a game of Monopoly.
Well, I've got another metaphor which helps to explain
the difficulty in getting justice when the criminals are
friends with the government.

And we're talking the biggest mafia in the world, Banksters.

But riding on their coattails are big retailers that also want
to offshore their profits to avoid contributing to the
society that allows them to do business and pay
minimum wage to its employees.

So, when the government's crime fighters do not want to
prosecute financial crime, it's up to UK Uncut to take
the government to court.
This time it was for the deal the HMRC cut with Goldman
Sachs where they saved £20 million in tax that they should
have paid. And this was largely due to bullying from GS.

UK Uncut lost the court case because HMRC can indeed
do whatever the f$%^&ck it pleases. But, in dragging the
HMRC out from under a rock, UK Uncut have shown
the world how HMRC runs it's corrupt little shop.

And that is a small but necessary victory on the way to
bigger victories for tax justice.

Checkit:  Press Association

Campaigners lose tax deal challenge

1 hour 31 minutes ago.

Campaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its High Court challenge over the legality of the "sweetheart" tax deal between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Goldman Sachs.

A judge was told the 2010 deal, worth up to £20 million, was allowed to proceed to avoid "major embarrassment" to Chancellor George Osborne and the tax authorities after the bank became "aggressive" and allegedly made threats.

UK Uncut asked Mr Justice Nicol, sitting in London, to declare that HMRC's decision to let the deal go through was legally flawed and involved a breach of statutory duty. The judge ruled the deal was "not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue" but it was not unlawful.

Tax authority lawyers defended the settlement, saying it was among five big business deals declared "reasonable" by a 2012 report of the National Audit Office (NAO) .

 UK Uncut says it is wrong to allow rich companies to avoid paying millions in tax while the Government imposes tough austerity measures on the poor and ordinary taxpayers are pursued for every penny.

 Murray Worthy, a director of UK Uncut Legal Action, said after Wednesday's hearing that he was disappointed with the ruling. But he added: "This case has shown that the Government's tough talk on tax is just that - talk not substance."

 HMRC said in a press statement: "Large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain's public finances would be seriously damaged."

 Anna Walker, campaigns director of UK Uncut Legal Action, said: "Obviously, while we are deeply disappointed that this deal has not been declared unlawful, the judge's ruling that top HMRC officials played politics with major tax deals to protect (Mr) Osborne's reputation is a major victory in exposing the truth behind these secret deals.

 "Despite not having won the case today, we still feel that this judgment has demonstrated that the Government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare system, rather than take action to make corporate giants... pay their fair share of tax."

 Solicitor Rosa Curling, of law firm Leigh Day, which represented UK Uncut Legal Action, said: "This is a disappointing decision but it has been an extremely important case to fight. It has forced HMRC to reveal the process by which it reached a deal with Goldman Sachs, a settlement which let the bank off an estimated £20 million tax owed."

God's work: UKUncut keeps Goldman honest

UPDATE: UK Uncut lost the case because UK tax
law is as squigie and uncomfortable as projectile
diarrhea.

It's so amazing that the little people who started
UKUncut not so long ago were motivated by
the well-kept secret that big international
companies were getting sweetheart deals from
HMRC, the UK taxman- paper scarecrows, as it
turns out.

I was blissfully unaware and yet they were
motivated and quickly scared the establishment.
Cops were deployed to save Vodafone, for ex.

Now, we are so aware. Nick Shaxson is on the case
and Richard Murphy and one day , somebody who
knows how to get things done, will actually do
something.

But, we owe it all to UKUncut. I came close to
joining them at Fortnum and Masons, but I was
too frugal to have  a 3G phone.
I was on the public service march that day, and
passed right in front.
They went in, did a sit in and were lassooed by
the immoral London cops.
As Gandhi said: First they ignore you, then the
ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

checkit:  The Guardian

Revealed: 'Sweetheart' tax deals each worth over £1bn

Exclusive: Four corporations that reached settlements worth £4.5bn between them are among those let off lightly

    Rajeev Syal          

   Monday 29 April 2013 22.00 BST         

    Jump to comments (960)

Dave Hartnett

A document sent by Dave Hartnett, the ex-head of tax at HMRC, to the exchequer secretary at the Treasury, describes the tax deals. Photograph: Sarah Lee/Guardian

The scale of the government's "sweetheart" tax deals – individual secret agreements drawn up between tax officials and corporations to settle disputes – can be revealed for the first time after previously unseen documents showed that just four settlements were worth £4.5bn between them.

A leaked document sent by Dave Hartnett, the former head of tax at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), to David Gauke, the exchequer secretary at the Treasury, discloses the figure, which has not been released by HMRC before on the grounds of preserving "taxpayer confidentiality".[LISTED CORPorations have to reveal their books anyway, so I call "bullshit" - Costick67]

The document describes deals in excess of £1bn as "not uncommon". The size of the figure has been seized upon by MPs and tax campaigners who want HMRC to release details of how much tax was owed by each of the four unnamed companies before the deals were struck.

Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "If we got £4.5bn in, how much did we not get? That is what taxpayers will want to know, and I'll be raising this with HMRC through the committee.

"Whilst it is in the interest of the government to collect monies, these are huge sums. If there were deals involved, we need to know that the companies paid a fair amount on the profits they made from their businesses in the UK."

The revelation comes as separate documents disclosed in the Guardian show that tax officials used intrusive investigative powers designed to help them catch serious criminals to try to prove that the whistleblower who uncovered one of the first sweetheart deals, involving Goldman Sachs, had spoken to the Guardian.

The belongings, emails, internet search records and telephone calls of HMRC solicitor Osita Mba and the mobile phone records of his wife, Claudia, were examined by HMRC investigators using powers to investigate criminals, the previously undisclosed documents reveal. In 2011 Mba disclosed the existence of the Goldman Sachs deal by passing information to two parliamentary committees and the National Audit Office (NAO) under whistleblowing legislation.

The disclosures about the multibillion-pound scale of the government's deals come from a seven-page memo sent by Hartnett in December 2011 as he asked for public support from Gauke in the face of growing criticism in the media and parliament.

He wrote: "In 2006, HMRC adopted a new approach to reaching tax settlements with large business through building constructive relationships and encouraging mutual openness and transparency, increasing certainty for business and reducing the time taken to resolve issues.

"Settlements of above £1bn are now not uncommon and £4.5bn … has come from just four settlements with bespoke governance."

A 2011 NAO inquiry into the four settlements found that they were made outside the high risk corporates programme set up in 2006 to ensure proper governance of deals with corporations.

Hartnett claimed in his submission to Gauke that the programme had allowed the government to bring in an extra £9bn in revenue in total – a figure previously disclosed to parliament. MPs on two select committees have claimed that the deals are secretive and allow corporations to develop a cosy relationship with tax officials.

The £4.5bn figure is believed to include a previously reported Vodafone deal which ended when the telecoms giant paid £1.25bn.

A committee of MPs was told that the Vodafone tax bill should have been £6bn or more. That figure is disputed by Vodafone.

The £4.5bn does not include, however, the relatively small Goldman Sachs agreement when the bank was let off paying up to £20m.

The revelations will be of interest to solicitors for the anti-tax avoidance organisation UK Uncut who on Thursday are taking HMRC to the high court, claiming that the deal which let off Goldman Sachs from paying up to £20m in interest charges was unlawful.

Anna Walker, a spokesperson for UK Uncut Legal Action, which campaigns on tax issues, said: "It is not legally, politically or morally acceptable to let big business off paying the tax that they owe. David Cameron and George Osborne's government's claims that they are leading the world in clamping down on tax ring hollow as these backroom 'sweetheart' deals come to light and no real action is taken."

The high court will hear UK Uncut's claims that Goldman tried to funnel employees' bonuses through an offshore tax scheme based in the British Virgin Islands, avoiding paying national insurance contributions.

HMRC admits it made a mistake in reaching a deal with Goldman, resulting in underpayment of interest on the tax due. But it argues that it acted lawfully in doing so. The hearing is expected to last for one day.

Don't hate foreigners, hate the non-domiciled

Problem: the Oligarchy in our countries
GoverBusineMedia are all in support
of globalisation because it kills off good unionised jobs.
They export our jobs, make billions, hide the money
in tax havens, and we sit around wondering whom to blame.
Then, in come the foreign workers dropping your wages even further.
They give you an extreme Right-Wing party,

(the BNP in the UK)
so that you can focus your rage on the foreigners.
The real culprits are the oligarchy and their hangers-on.

like the so-called non-domiciled
They aren't many, but they're rich and pay no taxes.

[the real Fascist leader is revealed]
"government + business= fascism" Mussolini

[Wikipedia]
Someone with non-domiciled status, sometimes called a 'non-dom', is a person living in the United Kingdom yet registered as a foreign national, who doesn't pay income tax or capital gains tax on earnings abroad. It is a form of tax avoidance. Prominent examples include:

* Lord Paul
* Lord Ashcroft
* Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere
* Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green[1]
* Irvine Laidlaw, Baron Laidlaw[2]
* Sir Ronald Cohen
* Sir Christopher Ondaatje[3]
* Lakshmi Mittal[4]
* David Potter[5]
* Doug Richard[6]
* James Cann[7]
* Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri[8]
* Lydia Dunn[9]

Costick67 ~(8^P

checkitout: 2 things
from taxresearch.org.uk

Non doms and tax
February 15th, 2011

The following is a parliamentary answer on tax paid in the UK by non-doms.

Of course what it does not say is what tax was not paid in the UK by non-doms, but the sums involved (£48,000 of tax a head on average in 2008/09) suggest some must be doing very well out of the new arrangement, and that not surprisingly others are simply now paying their taxes in full and giving up the arrangement.

Nothing suggests that I’m wrong to believe that billions might be a lost a year to H M Revenue & Customs as a result of the domicile rule - not least because I have estimated that up to 7 million people qualify to claim each year - and only a tiny proportion put it on a tax return. The rest, I suspect, simply don’t declare their earnings or status on the basis of the fact they’re outside the UK tax system, in their opinion.

Harriett Baldwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many non-domiciled UK taxpayers filed tax returns with HM Revenue and Customs in each of the last five tax years; [39455]

(2) how many non-domiciled taxpayers have paid the flat annual charge to the Exchequer since its introduction; [39456]

(3) how much tax non-domiciled taxpayers paid to the Exchequer in each of the last five tax years. [39457]

Mr Gauke: The number of individuals who filed a self-assessment (SA) tax return and indicated that they were non-domiciled was as follows:
Number
2004-05 110,000
2005-06 111,000
2006-07 117,000
2007-08 140,000
2008-09 123,000

2008-09 is the most recent tax year for which data are available.

The figures above include both individuals who were UK resident and individuals who were not UK resident.

Individuals who complete a SA return are only required to indicate that they are non-domiciled if this affects their tax liability. Therefore the actual number of non-domiciled individuals who complete a return will be greater than the number who indicate their non-domicile status on their SA return.

The annual £30,000 remittance basis charge was introduced with effect from the 2008-09 tax year. The number of non-domiciled individuals who paid the charge in 2008-09 was 5,400. This is a provisional figure rounded to the nearest hundred and may be updated once all returns for the tax year have been received and analysed.

Figures are not available for the total amount of UK tax paid by non domiciled individuals. However, it is possible to calculate the total amount of UK income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) paid by individuals who completed an SA return and indicated that they were non-domiciled. These amounts for the past five tax years were as follows:
£ billion
2004-05 3.3
2005-06 4.0
2006-07 5.0
2007-08 6.9
2008-09 5.9

2

Letter on ZeroHedge
by rich_wicks
on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 23:47
The government - such as it is - carries out of the orders given by the Capitalists who own it.
Capitalists don't own the government.
Fascists do. That's the economic system of fascism - it's when corporations own the government. They aren't capitalists anymore - they don't compete on an even playing field. They are fascists now, because they can't compete one on one, they get the Federal government to pass regulations to protect them from competition, to give them money to help them when they screw up so that the competition that didn't screw up doesn't take over their market share.
They aren't capitalists.
Understand the difference. Capitalists will never control the government, but it's the fault of people like you that has allowed this government to go fascist. You gave it too much power.
Take away the power of the government to regulate and bail out private corporations, and there won't be any point for companies to control the government, because all the FEDERAL government will be able to do then is protect the nation, enforce the constitution, and aribtrate disputes between the states. They won't be able to bail out GM or Goldman Sachs, and they won't be able to keep a natural gas powered cars off the road, like they do now.
You think regulations are there to protect you, they are there to protect corporations and if it has the side effect of protecting you, well, that's just an accident.

Treasure Islands

[Lord Mayor of London. Isn't that quaint? not, if you read this article]

I went to a talk at the London School of Economics and nobody was killed, or pepper-sprayed.
That's strange, because if an important person in the City of London knew what was being said there he would not have been pleased.
Nevertheless, it was told to a small audience of 300, and we don't have any friends.

who spoke? Nick Shaxson
What did he write? Treasure Islands, a book about tax havens
what did we learn? The City of London is an offshore tax haven.

You know how I say that I'm living in London? Well, all of us Londoners are bullshitters.
We live in other jurisdictions that happen to be linked geographically to the
Square Mile, the City of London.
That City has not residents, just financial business, banks, insurers, etc.
The FIRE economy (Finance, insurance and real estate)
The City has a Lord Mayor, who goes around the world drumming up
business for the FIRE.

Illegal business? No problem.
Mafia? No problemo
Despot fleecing your own country? Welcome to London.

The Lord Mayor doesn't have a 'people', he has a 'money'. He's the mayor of money.

You'da thought that the entire country of England, being as the UK is in the EU,
would also be under the laws of the UK and the EU. But it isn't.
Rich people can send their money to London, and it just goes off the tax radar.

It's an official offshore, within, or right under the nose of, the EU,
as are

Lichtenshite,
Luxemberk,
Monacle,
Have-a-cow Jersey,
Isle o' Maneaters,
Dead Man on a Gurny Geurnsey

and many of the former island colonies in the Caribbean.

of the 66 tax havens, 31 are British, in some way. 15 of the top 30 are British.
The biggest offshore is the US. Then it's Switzerland and then the UK.

Private individuals have 10 trillion stashed away, and companies have ???who knows. This costs about 250-500 billion in lost revenue to the governments of the world, every year.
This money-hiding service doesn't come cheap, but we're not talking about the postman stashing his paycheck.

His thoughts?
Something has to be done, because this undermines democracy.
He's surprised nobody had ever written such a book, ever.
The LSE is a training ground for banksters.

He had some Lord guy there, Glasman, who had stuff to say about
using our right of association to stop this. Pretty funny stuff.
He was 'mr cool'.

My thoughts, tying together old strands:
1. One reason Cyprus was put into the EU, with its hands tied, is that it was also an offshore, and Britain wanted to stop the shenanigans... from leaving its shores.

2. I now know why the US has been working so hard with the IMF, the ratings agencies and the Wall Street banksters to rob the world. They want to keep their position as top pirate on the high seas of finance. They are advertising themselves as the

baddest offshore mafia-country,

to drum up more laundering business from all the corrupt despots in the world.

-Costick67 ~(8^P

checkitout
from LSE calendar:

Speakers: Dr Maurice Glasman, Nicholas Shaxson
The City of London is an offshore island inside the British nation state, floating partly free from the democratic rules and restraints that bind the rest of us and fed by a network of tax havens around the world. Nicholas Shaxson and Maurice Glasman look at how this secretive network emerged and came to underpin the City's fearsome political and economic powers today.
Maurice Glasman, recently appointed Labour Peer and Reader in Political Theory at London Metropolitan University. He is the author of Unnecessary Suffering.
Nicholas Shaxson is the author of Poisoned Wells, the Dirty Politics of African Oil, an associate fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and an experienced journalist.