tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post7035907877663243579..comments2023-12-20T08:15:03.651+00:00Comments on The Ranting Penguin: The Alice In Wonderland World Of Dave "Scoffer" HartnettUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post-84046911698644615752011-10-21T17:23:21.066+01:002011-10-21T17:23:21.066+01:00I run lots of companies and own many properties an...I run lots of companies and own many properties and I don't pay tax either.<br /><br />You should wise up and do as I doTony Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post-65118439808724269752011-10-18T15:23:56.188+01:002011-10-18T15:23:56.188+01:00Vodaphone didn't owe the money in the first pl...Vodaphone didn't owe the money in the first place. The Private Eye "source" got that wrong as well.Umbongonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post-63817667578865151902011-10-14T21:41:15.645+01:002011-10-14T21:41:15.645+01:00So were the same fuck ups made when he let Vodapho...So were the same fuck ups made when he let Vodaphone off, Umbongo?. I think Artco is making more senseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post-68258995135145891732011-10-14T21:03:42.255+01:002011-10-14T21:03:42.255+01:00Well im paying the taxman an awful lot of money ba...Well im paying the taxman an awful lot of money back that apparently I owe him. As soon as that last direct debit is paid in June, the taxman can kiss my arse. Close of business , no more from me, its just not worth it. The black economy and social security here I come.<br />After 35 years of paying in I want something back.ArtCohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161601578748770648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8246572545436649307.post-10559563790300660272011-10-13T15:20:10.487+01:002011-10-13T15:20:10.487+01:00As I understand these things, and as explained her...As I understand these things, and as explained <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/13/goldman-sachs-private-eye-and-tax-dodging/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, the £10 million was partial interest on the tax bill contested by Goldmans and, in line with all the other failed tax avoiders, never owed it at all. Another parallel explanation (not covered in the article cited) is that HMRC made a whopper in the first place by sending an assessment to the wrong Goldman Sachs company. <br /><br />Accordingly, it's probable that the interest never arose in the first place. Why? Because interest on tax owed only starts running from the day the tax liability was created (per the HMRC demand). If HMRC only issued a correct assessment on the correct entity much later on then Hartnett - still a liar, of course - was correct to remit the interest "owed" since it was probably never legally owed anyway.<br /><br />Complicated I know but - as Tim Worstall implies - the probable source of this Private Eye (non)story is not exactly known for accurate reporting (even if he is a former tax inspector) when there is a political point to be made (cf Vodaphone). But grist for the disgustingly ugly mill known as Margaret Hodge.Umbongonoreply@blogger.com