cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

How much?

Community Veteran
Posts: 1,770
Thanks: 33
Fixes: 1
Registered: 08-10-2010

How much?

http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/228776a2-bbfb-11e3-a31c-00144feabdc0.html
Reading the story it seems that these measures will "only affect a tiny minority of people" and is expected to bring in £65M"...
Not sure how many people but either megawealthy few or most of the working community owe money.  Huh
5 REPLIES
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,674
Thanks: 109
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: How much?

any chance you could copy m paste the article what with the FT wanting people to sign up in order to read the article ....
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,770
Thanks: 33
Fixes: 1
Registered: 08-10-2010

Re: How much?

FT articles are only available to registered users and subscribers. Click here to sign in or open an account.
Masthead
m.ft.com/financials

Home >  Companies >  Financials
Osborne in row over plans to seize tax
By Vanessa Houlder
George Osborne is facing a backlash over plans to give HM Revenue & Customs unprecedented powers to dip into taxpayers’ bank accounts to seize unpaid tax debts.
MPs, banks and charities want robust safeguards over powers that will allow the Revenue to order banks to pay outstanding debts from taxpayers’ bank accounts, following fears that the measure could be used inappropriately and cause hardship.
Andrew Tyrie, who chairs the Treasury select committee, said the MPs intended to hold further hearings into the new powers, which he said could set a worrying precedent. “It has concerned the committee,” he said.
Many banks want judicial oversight to apply to the new powers, as they worry about being caught between irate customers and the tax authorities. “HMRC doesn’t have the best record of getting things right,” said a banking source.
Mr Osborne defended the measure at a meeting of MPs on Thursday, saying it would be targeted at deliberate defaulters with “very substantial” incomes and would bring the UK into line with other countries. France and the US have similar powers.
“This is about an individual who has exhausted all their appeals, who owes tax and who is deliberately refusing to pay their tax,” he said.
Mr Osborne said similar powers were already available to the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to child maintenance payments.
HMRC said in a statement that the new power was aimed at a minority “who simply dodge their obligations”.
The new measure would have appropriate safeguards and tackle those who could afford to pay, it added. “These are people who have, on average, over £20,000 in their accounts but are refusing to pay their debts. This will only affect a tiny number of debtors whom we have contacted a minimum of four times to ask for payment.”
The measure is due to be introduced in 2015-16 when it is expected to bring in £65m, rising to just over £100m the following year.
The idea was previously floated in a 2007 consultation, but it was dropped after widespread criticism over the adequacy of the safeguards, the possibility of creating hardship and the risk of HMRC error.
John Thurso, a Liberal Democrat MP on the Treasury select committee, criticised Mr Osborne for slipping the measure out in the Budget in just two paragraphs. “Any advance of powers by the state needs to be resisted unless they can justify it,” he said. “The victims will be people with just enough money to go after but not enough to hire lawyers to fend it off.”
Patrick Stevens, director of tax policy at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was sceptical that the legislation could be drafted in a way that would apply only to the wealthy. He said: “There are lots of very unsophisticated people out there with more than £5,000 in a bank account. We are truly worried about the vulnerable.”
The move appeared to herald a return to the era before 2003 when liquidators were forced to pay money due to the tax authority ahead of other creditors, under an ancient prerogative known as “Crown preference”, he said. Its removal in the 2002 Enterprise Act put other creditors in a more secure position.
Robin Williamson, of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group charity, said he was very concerned about the risk of hardship: “As always the financially savvy ones will find ways around this. The ones that will be caught are the vulnerable.”
Back to Financials
Next story in Financials

Leave feedback
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Back to top
Back to home page

Markets Data: © Thomson Reuters
Market data delayed by at least 20 minutes.
©The Financial Times Ltd 2014
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,674
Thanks: 109
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: How much?

its sounding more like people such as celebrities who declare bankruptcy when they still have a few hundred thousand in cash assets because they owe all of it to HMRC so assign the accounts to another person to avoid paying taxes wait for 12 months until the bankruptcy order is discharged and then regain control of their cash ......
or the likes of yodafone /swagbucks who don't pay there corporation taxes on the grounds that they don't want to and if the UK doesn't like it they will "end business in the UK" and still not pay, actually they owe something in the region of 1 billion so this could be a fantastic way of grabbing the cash Smiley
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,770
Thanks: 33
Fixes: 1
Registered: 08-10-2010

Re: How much?

What worries me is two things, firstly they say“This is about an individual who has exhausted all their appeals, who owes tax and who is deliberately refusing to pay their tax,”. Fair enough, but there had to be some control so HMRC cannot use this without ensuring all other avenues and procedures have been tried.
And secondly, take the self employed guy who owes£5000, they go to his bank and try to take it, but there is only £500 in there. Will they keep going back each week, potentially depriving the guy of any income whatever for ten weeks? 
They already have access to an attachment of earnings, which has controls etc and works very well. It is the weapon of choice by councils to recover council tax.
I'm all for getting it off the big boys, but so many times thing are brought in four one purpose but the people they are meant to curb, have the legal clout to swing it round to their advantage and it's the little guy who suffers. An example is the minimum wage. Brought on to protect the little guy, but now used as a standard wage by many big firms. Another is zero hours contracts, brought in to provide flexibility for staff and employers to work together for mutual benefit.
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,850
Registered: 11-08-2007

Re: How much?

the mattress is looking ever more attractive as secure storage.