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
Boring!
Now, get typing and put together that piece on pensions. First try submitting it here… failing that, go here.
This line of conversation is over.
~alec
SadButMadLad
Yep, it’s an abuse of the tax system. Tweaking the rules to the limit and a little bit beyond.
Murphy implies its a debt when he says “How could HMRC have reached the point where it cannot chase that much tax?” He wonders how a company can build up such a debt in tax when it was the HMRC saying that the company’s working practises itself was the cause of the bankruptcy. It was the success of the HMRC which brought about the closure of the business not the failure that Murphy is grandstanding about.
The liability for £58m is not a debt in the traditional sense, it HMRC claiming it and the company being insolvent in not being able to pay it.
Not matter my lack of arguing the case, the point is that Murphy asks why HMRC is a failure to chase £58m when in actual fact it was the success of HMRC in closing the abuse of the tax that brought about the charge for £58m.
LB
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/08/we-put-legal-es-tax-dodge-for.html
Puts the number dodging tax at 15,000 people
LB
Doesn’t change a thing. If you’re a public sector worker, its your pension that won’t be paid in full.
What’s the electorate going to do? Pay your pension or have the NHS?
You’re going to lose. No amount of 54 million is going to get you a pension.
Evil in my opinion,
Alec
No it doesn’t. Are you a liar or semi-literate thicko?
~alec