GS dodging £20 million tax eh?

Interesting that the NAO said this morning that it was £10 million. In interest. And that partly it was because the taxmen did not know the law.

And that while not a perfect result, it was still reasonable.

And of course I really really enjoyed the NAO on the Vodafone case. Turns out it really was like I described in the comments on this very blog.

1 – It’s good isn’t it? In fact, *ahem*, go back to this piece and read the comments, and then read the NAO analysis. Do we think that it’s Sunny’s OP or the comments that understood the situation better?

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/01/why-are-there-protests-against-vodafone-a-simple-guide/

Of course, NostraSunny predicted all of this last year.

This is big news. The National Audit Office has announced that it will appoint its own people to look into the HRMC’s tax avoidance deals with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.

The judge is expected to be given the power to examine the private accounts of Goldman Sachs and Vodafone to establish whether senior inspectors wrongly “let them off” multi-million-pound tax bills.

The National Audit Office, which is supervising the inquiry, is also considering whether to examine the tax affairs of other big companies to establish whether HMRC officials routinely signed off deals which underestimated the true liabilities of the companies.

Say goodbye to HMRC chief Dave Hartnett.

The investigation signals there is little faith left in how the HMRC conducted the deals itself and let both companies off millions of taxpayers’ money.

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/22/hmrc-loses-all-credibility-on-goldman-sachs-vodafone-deals/

Uncanny powers of prediction there.

So let’s see the scoreboard here.

Dave Hartnett forced to leave, in disgrace.

Goldman Sachs deal with HMRC now under a legal challenge, and Select committee of Public Accounts thinks it stinks.

I think that 3 points to UKuncut.

Tim Worstall and Tim J whining that this was all hoo-haa over nothing and would amount to nothing. Turns out that didn’t turn out to be true.

Carry on Trollin’!

Voda was the big case, wasn’t it? And it really has turned out like Tim J and I said. A reasonable deal given the legal problems over the CFC and EU rules.

Just like we said.

You know, just like I said in that paper for the IEA?

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage/tim-worstall-exposes-the-flawed-and-contradictory-claims-of-uk-uncut-for

@Sunny Hundal #4:

What Tim W says at 5; and:

Goldman Sachs deal with HMRC now under a legal challenge

only becomes a point for UKUncut if/when the legal challenge succeeds. As yet, all they’ve demonstrated is an arguable case; which simply means that HMRC didn’t land a knockout blow at the permission stage.

4 – I’m prepared to wait for the result of the judicial review into HMRC/Goldman Sachs before calling that one, but the Vodafone case? I think we can agree who got that one right can’t we?

Also, in the great battle between the righteous state and the evil market that you revel in so much, I’m not sure that revealing the incompetence of a state organ is quite such a great victory as you seem to think…