How could that have happened? How could HMRC have reached the point where it cannot chase that much tax? How limited are resources is this is the case?
By Richard Murphy, founder of the Tax Justice Network
“A TEMPORARY employment agency has gone into liquidation owing HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) £58 million in unpaid tax.
“Edinburgh-based Employ-E, a division of Legitas Group which is also in liquidation, is owned by lawyer David Allen, who is reported to own a golf course and mansion house in the Borders.
“Employ-E had about 60,000 low-paid temporary workers on its books, who it supplied to recruitment agencies throughout the UK.”
The real question here is, how could that have happened? How could HMRC have reached the point where it cannot chase that much tax? How limited are resources is this is the case?
There is also another question, which is, of course, where is the money? An agency should have been reimbursed all costs including tax. How could it lose that much money?
In the case of both questions surely HMRC should have been on top of this? If not I can only put it down to under-resourcing.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
71 Responses to “How can a company go bust owing £58 million in tax?”
Alec
I am not an intelligenceist. I don’t think that not being overly blessed with intellectual skills is a sign of being a tosser. I do, however, think you are both.
You lack of said skills has crossed the line to being as thick as mince in the neck of a bottle.
I said they hadn’t dodged tax because they didn’t receive the money. The money went into the pockets of Allen et al. and a handful of named employment agencies.
Is. That. Clear?
This means of tax avoidance was devised to benefit the low or irregularly paid who’d see their meagre incomes eaten into by sundry expenses required in the actions of their work.
It would take a particularly high level of spite and malevolence to begrudge an ad hoc dishwasher or shelf-stacker a few extra quid a week which helps them get to the work place or not to faint with hunger during it. Just as it would take a disingenuous, untrustworthy debater to pursue this non-point to avoid admitting to a complete failure to parse a simple sentence.
This means of tax avoidance was not devised to line the pockets of tea-leafs like Allen et al. and the handful of companies which the article says have claimed money under false pretences.
~alec
LB
Such as its entirely legitimate.
Doesn’t make for a good argument.
Just as its legal for MPs not to pay tax on their expenses, whether or not its wholly and necessary. They passed a law for that.
Ditto for Starbucks to pay royalties.
Ditto for Amazon to be in Luxembourg.
What we really have, is as I’ve been pointing out to you. A government that’s desperate for cash because of the debts.
For these workers, they are getting their expenses back. It comes off their pay before tax. For the admin, this company is making a fee. There is no evasion, its legal. It’s business.
If you want to help the poorer workers, stop taxing them. Taxing those on min wage is the real evil.
Alec
Yadda yadda yadda. In the context of this thread, Starbucks or Amazon or your MP’s expenses are of precisely zero naffing relevance. I couldn’t care less about them here.
In the pantheon of dishonest debaters, there are common liars and there are bullshitters. Common liars, at least, have a passing acquaintance with the truth ‘cos they’re seeking to deny it. As such, they’ll stick to one false story and stick to it… no matter how implausible it is.
Bullshitters, on the other hand, don’t care. They pile lie on top of contradictory lie on top of irrelevant garbage.
You are a bullshitter.
And a reactionary bullshitter who’s trying to present the victims of this – low-paid PAYE employees fleeced out of their dues by the hideously wealthy Allen et al. – as culpable. That, if nothing else, stands in contrast to your claim to be worried about the demise of pensions and the welfare state.
In fact, I would go as far as saying I don’t think you give a hoot about pensions.
~alec
LB
They aren’t being fleeced. They are going home with more money. I can’t see how that’s being fleeced.
However, given that a huge percentage of their earnings goes in tax and NI, its the state that’s making them poor.
Look at the tax rates on a living wage, including the employer’s contributions. Huge.
If you want to do something about it. Here’s a suggestion.
Set up a rival organisation, and offer the service cheaper. If there’s so much money to make, you can under cut them, driving down the price. More money for those on low wages, plus because their expenses go down, more tax.
There’s a win win for you.
Mean while, I don’t notice you making any factual arguments, just the usual strategy of hurling abuse at someone whose standing up to you, in favour of getting more money to the poor.
Alec
Going home with more money? For someone who claims to have read the article, it beggars belief that you believe a poxy three or four quid extra (with maybe well over 90% of what they were entitled to being fleeced by the tea-leafs of Allen et al.) is judicious.
Honestly, you are thick and spiteful and callous. Not a pleasant combination.
This coming from the poster who thinks the low-paid should be grateful for £3.24 extra a week when they could have clawed back £67.
You are easily the most unpleasant poster I’ve encountered on this blog for a long time. No consistent argument, no attempt to check claims being made. Just a constant stream of bile.
Meanwhile, you get all prissy about a few howwid words. Boo-hoo-fucking-boo. Manners and civility is so much more than the words used.
~alec