The Blog this week could be described as dark tales from the Brothers Grimm entitled “What happens to those who ignore HM Revenue and Customs…”
Do not be too scared! Whilst the Brothers Grimm tales tend to have awful endings – as do the stories of the poor souls in the cases described in the Blog – they are the ones who have ignored the warnings and neglected dealing with HMRC with due and proper respect. For years many seem to get away with it. However, the final conclusion seems inevitable to Observers. Neglect means ignoring that invariably the Mills of God (and HMRC) may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. It is prudent to take professional advice before the sack of corn representing your life is thrown down the hopper into the grinding wheel.
Looking at likely outcomes those who take advice from their properly qualified professional advisors generally come out far better. Prior neglect will cost – often significantly – but making disclosure and then negotiating a fair deal makes personal and economic sense. Just compare getting matters settled to being sent to jail or having your assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act, let alone the miserable anticipation of waiting for it to happen.
3 recently reported cases exemplify the lesson. Stephen Douce only declared a low household income, where in fact he was earning far more. The under-declarations resulted in a loss to HMRC of VAT, income tax, NIC and tax credits. He was sent to jail.
Mr Lynch was discovered to have failed to declare a particular source of income. The Courts held that the degree of suspicion was sufficient for there to be ‘discovery’ under S29 TMA 1970 and for procedures to be taken under the Proceeds of Crime Act, reflecting gains obtained illicitly over the preceding 20 year period. Unexplained deposits and credit card payments from unexplained sources amounted to sufficient evidence of undeclared income. The tax assessments stood.
The Hunt case shows financial irregularities can have other long term consequences. Again, taking proper advice regarding prompt disclosure may well have helped Mr Hunt, a Financial Advisor, avoid having his new business tainted because he was deemed not to be a ‘fit and proper person’ under FSMA regulations. He lost in court, even though he argued his original criminal conviction ought to be ‘spent’ because it took place in 1993 so was over 20 years ago.
The advice to clients is take proper advice and then act promptly. Ignore HM Revenue and Customs at your peril! The alternative consequences are likely to be costly and last most of a lifetime.
If you need further advice call us; 01704 548698 or 0113 2443502.