NAO report should allay taxpayer fears, say experts

by Calum Fuller

More from this author

15 Jun 2012

  • Comments
National Audit Office

THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE'S two-tiered conclusions on HMRC's tax settlements in five long-running disputes should be a source of comfort to taxpayers, according to experts.

The report found the Revenue had reached "reasonable" settlements in five so-called sweetheart deals, which included investment bank Goldman Sachs and telecoms giant Vodafone.

It also queried the process by which the deals were struck. It cited poor communication and the exclusion of specialist staff from meetings regarding the settlements as issues of particular concern.

The report compared the deals with how much the taxman could have expected to glean if it had engaged in litigation against the five parties. In each case, it was found the outcome for the Exchequer was good.

The report came just days after UK Uncut activists won the right to challenge the taxman over its deal with Goldman Sachs in the High Court. UK Uncut said the deal cost the public purse some £20m.

Chris Oates, head of tax controversy and dispute resolution at Ernst & Young, said the ruling should reassure taxpayers there was nothing sinister about the deals.

"This independent assessment gives comfort and greater certainty to taxpayers that agreed settlements will not be revisited," he said.

"We also welcome the recognition that there are, in most tax cases, a range of ‘right answers' and that collaborative resolution of disputes is a useful tool for settling long running and complex issues."

Mike Truman, editor of Taxation, added he felt the NAO's report into the matter was the most credible to date and noted it absolved tax commissioner Dave Hartnett of any wrongdoing in his role in the deals, after he had been roundly criticised in a report by the Public Accounts Committee.

He said: "While agreeing that there were governance issues to be addressed, the NAO report is in marked contrast to the report of the Public Accounts Committee on HMRC's 2010/11 activities, which personally criticised Hartnett for getting too 'cosy' with the companies HMRC was pursuing.

"Overall, it is the Public Accounts Committee which comes out of this looking as if they were pursuing a personal vendetta against Hartnett, and lacking in the expertise necessary to understand the issues concerned."

Visitor comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
display:none

Add your comment

We won't publish your address


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

Submit
  • Send

Financial Planning and Performance AnalystCabinet Office-Greater London-Competitive

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Newsletters

Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials

Careers

Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you

Briefings

budget-management

Why budgeting fails: One management system is not enough

If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.

cchcover

iXBRL: Taking stock. Looking forward

In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.