HM Revenue and Customs response to further
supplementary questions from Mr Mitchell and Mr Touhig
1. Further clarification as to how a situation
arose in which J Sainsbury was owed so much in corporation tax
by HMRC that in March 2006 and March 2007 £3 million and
£9 million had to be paid to J Sainsbury by HMRC
Confidentiality rules preclude HMRC from providing
specific information about the corporation tax affairs of J Sainsbury
Plc. However, it is not unusual for HMRC to repay large corporate
groups any amounts they have overpaid at the end of the year.
This situation arises because large groups are obliged to pay
corporation tax in four instalments, three before the final taxable
profit figure is known. If a group over-estimates its liability
during the year, they may end the year having paid too much and
be due a repayment from HMRC. In addition, repayments made by
HMRC may reflect the final settlement of earlier years that may
have been the subject of HMRC enquiries or litigation.
2. A list of the Department's Business Dinners
the Department has hosted so far or plan to host in the future,
including the names of invited dinner guests, along with an explanation
as to why the Department is spending taxpayers' money in this
way, and the benefits gained
HMRC set up this series of dinners to bring
together UK business leaders and senior officials dealing with
business issues to discuss delivery of tax administration in the
UK and other topical issues. They are intended to foster dialogue
with business in the spirit of the Review of Links with Business
published in 2006.
You will see from the table below that HMRC
hosted four dinners between January 2007 and January 2008. These
dinners are an important opportunity for HMRC's key business directors
to meet with opinion-forming business leaders and we are presently
considering the development of the next series of events.
"Series of informal dinners with
business leaders to give them an opportunity to share with us
their views on the delivery of the UK tax system."
Date | Business leader
| Accepted the invitation |
15 Jan 07 | Richard Lapthorne
Chairman—Cable & Wireless
| Dave Hartnett, Director General, Business
Richard Alderman—Director, National Teams & Special Civil Investigations
Stephen Banyard—Director, Business Customer Unit
Melanie Dawes—Director, Large Business Service
Naomi Ferguson—Director, Local Compliance
Geoff Lloyd—Director, Corporation Tax & VAT
Chris Tailby—Director, Anti-Avoidance Group
|
| 17 April 07 | Mark Otty
Chairman—Ernst & Young
| Dave Hartnett, Director General, Business
Richard Alderman—Director, National Teams & Special Civil Investigations
Stephen Banyard—Director, Business Customer Unit
Melanie Dawes—Director, Large Business Service
Geoff Lloyd—Director, Corporation Tax & VAT
Chris Tailby—Director, Anti-Avoidance Group
|
| 18 Sept 07 | Hanif Lalani
Finance Director—British Telecom
| Dave Hartnett, Director General, Business
Stephen Banyard—Director, Business Customer Unit
Melanie Dawes—Director, Large Business Service
Geoff Lloyd—Director, Corporation Tax & VAT
Judith Knott—Deputy Director, Business Customer Unit
Ian Valentine—Deputy Director, Large Business Service
|
| 29 Jan 08 | Steve Lucas
Finance Director—National Grid
| Dave Hartnett, Acting Chairman
Stephen Banyard—Director, Business Customer Unit
Melanie Dawes—Acting Director General, Business Tax
Naomi Ferguson—Director, Local Compliance
Geoff Lloyd—Director, Corporation Tax & VAT
Chris Tailby—Director, Anti-Avoidance Group
Peter Michael—Director, Central Policy
Freda Chaloner—Director, Large Business Service
|
| | |
3. Further clarification as to how many major cases has
Mr Hartnett intervened in, in two years
Mr Hartnett stated at the hearing that he has intervened
in "half a dozen" major cases in the last two years
and he has no reason to change that view. Mr Hartnett can intervene
for a variety of reason but generally the focus in on resolving
difficult tax issues. Statutory rules of confidentiality prevent
the release of the names of the companies involved.
Mr Hartnett also meets representatives of a larger number
of businesses in board to board discussions of tax issues.
4. In relation to the ad hoc 2004-05 survey of case directors
into perceived levels of avoidance (ref question 11), what confidentiality
rule means no data whatsoever can be released and is it not possible
to say, for instance, that "x out of x companies" have
established levels of tax avoidance?
The Department is unable to provide the survey data to the
Committee under HMRC's statutory obligation of confidentiality
as set out in section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and
Customs Act 2005.
5. How many of the "approximately 150 staff"
previously mentioned as working on one particular High Risk Corporates
case were tax inspectors?
The Department no longer refers to the role of tax inspector,
however staff involved in this case were drawn from across the
Department and included people with a range of specialist skills.
This includes HMRC trained tax specialists, advisory accountants,
solicitors and avoidance consultants with recent experience of
working outside of HMRC. All 150 staff were deployed in some way
to accelerate and conclude the approximately 200 open tax enquiries
which made up this particular High Risk Corporate case.
27 June 2008
|
