Pictured: Iain Macleod
As the recent controversy about leaks from HM Revenue &
Customs (HMRC) and taxpayer confidentiality looks likely to rumble
on, Iain Macleod of East Midlands-based EDF Tax calls for powers to
be extended to the National Audit Office to scrutinise tax deals
rather than breach or relax rules on taxpayer confidentiality.
Commenting, Iain, a former tax inspector for 26 years and now
head of Tax Investigations at EDF Tax says: "The rules of taxpayer
confidentiality are, rightly, strict. You wouldn't expect tax
inspectors to reveal confidential details about the people and
businesses they investigate.
"HMRC have a policy (The Litigation and Settlements Strategy)
which says they will not settle for anything less than all the tax
where they think they are legally right. This has led to backlogs
and delays. Officers who want to reach a settlement which may, for
special reasons, involve less than all the tax and interest have to
get it approved by senior people. The bigger the sums, the more
senior the person, so the very biggest cases will often end up in
front of Dave Hartnett.
"The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) believes it is being
stonewalled and has accused Mr Hartnett of hiding behind taxpayer
confidentiality when defending the Goldman Sachs deal. There lies
the problem. How does the Committee know if Mr Hartnett and his
staff are following their own policies if it can't see the detail?
Yet it doesn't want to encourage breaches of confidentiality under
the guise of whistleblowing. On the other hand, how can Mr Hartnett
prove his integrity if he might go to prison for breach of
confidentiality?
"I suggest that to restore trust, some provision or power be
established so that the National Audit Office, or perhaps a trusted
wise man or woman of the tax community, be allowed to review HMRC's
operation of the Litigation and Settlements Strategy on behalf of
Parliament and in sufficient depth to give the PAC the assurances
it needs."
According to Iain, it is very unusual for leaks from HMRC to
occur and when caught leaking confidential details, an employee
might well face imprisonment. Why then did someone run the risk of
prison on the deal done with investment bank Goldman
Sachs?
He says: "What underlies these leaks seems to be some resentment
within HMRC about the extent to which inspectors can do deals.
Clearly some inspectors feel that while they aren't allowed to do
horse-trading deals anymore, the people at the top are doing such
deals, some of which these inspectors regard as pretty poor value.
However, I suspect the leaker was less motivated by a desire for
good governance than by old fashioned resentment and spite."