Zahawi

So if I was to 'carelessly' rob a bank but then repay it back when the bank/police/authorities investigated and find that I acted illegally, I would be let off with the error?
 
I’m not so sure you know.
There is a real danger of sleaze fatigue with jo public - it is becoming the norm and, in general, the anger is subsiding to a shrug of the shoulders.
I think that's definitely what they're relying on, that's why they rarely resign or get the sack. Ride it out and hope people lose interest. Probably modelled on the trump approach in the states.

One scandal is news. When it's happening on a weekly, or even daily, basis it becomes BAU.

However while apathy is definitely a risk and anger does subside, I'm not sure it's as effective an approach as they think it is. People may feel less strongly about it over time, but most right minded people still remember.

It cost Trump in the end. I'm pretty sure it will this lot.
 
Only the seriously deluded, deranged and those that really only care about themselves would even consider voting this shower in again. Im inclined to think there has been the sea change we saw withy the major govt in the 90's, there is no way back from this lot, not for a long time.
 
Only the seriously deluded, deranged and those that really only care about themselves would even consider voting this shower in again. Im inclined to think there has been the sea change we saw withy the major govt in the 90's, there is no way back from this lot, not for a long time.
Until the RWM start their smear campaigns against everything Labour. ANY skeletons, no matter how small, will be brought out and "enhanced". The gullible British public will do their "well, Boris wasn't perfect but I'm not voting for Labour ..." act and suddenly the Tories have a fighting chance.

The next two years will see the Daily Mail go into overdrive with -

* Immigration, living it up at the Dorchester while First World War veterans starve
* Labour being pro BrEXit, they'll take us back to the EU day after polls shut
* Strikes are fully backed by Labour and Nurses earning £50k year is shocking. Greedy gets.
* Labour will ruin the economy (remember "that" note in 2010 🤬), if it wasn't for Covid and Ukraine Britains debt wouldn't be £2tn + it would be in the black
* Starmer personally let off Jimmy Saville when head of the CPS......would YOU trust your children with him??😱😱
* War heroes living on the streets while immigrants get brand new 4 bed homes. And a car. And Sky TV and big TV
* Benefits scroungers are costing the country [insert random figure] billions while they are earning £40k week and having three foreign Holidays a year.
*Remember Boris gOt BrEXit dun, single handedly defeated Covid, and personally fought off Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Vote Labour and the Four Horseman will be here by Saturday tea time.
* Starmer plans to turn every Christian church/ chapel into a Mosque, and the 300ft minorettes will all have 6g masts fitted - that'll ruin ALL of your Sundays.
* Labour plan to open a Center Parcs esque holiday camp on the south east coast, with docking jetties and free money for the immigrants.

Etc etc etc

And it's already started, turning a blind eye to the corruption and putting the likes of Braverman on a pedestal "cOZ shE tELls iT lIKe iT Is"
 
a bit of a read but all here

However, ‘reasonable care’ is different for each client’s circumstances and abilities. For example, a client with relatively straightforward tax affairs may only need a simple system of record keeping that is regularly updated. A large business with complex tax affairs is expected to have a more sophisticated system that is well-managed.

For example, if:
  • a penalty arises because of a lack of reasonable care, the penalty will be between 0% and 30% of the extra tax due
  • the error is deliberate, the penalty will be between 20 and 70% of the extra tax due
  • the error is deliberate and concealed, the penalty will be between 30 and 100% of the extra tax due
 
a bit of a read but all here

However, ‘reasonable care’ is different for each client’s circumstances and abilities. For example, a client with relatively straightforward tax affairs may only need a simple system of record keeping that is regularly updated. A large business with complex tax affairs is expected to have a more sophisticated system that is well-managed.

For example, if:
  • a penalty arises because of a lack of reasonable care, the penalty will be between 0% and 30% of the extra tax due
  • the error is deliberate, the penalty will be between 20 and 70% of the extra tax due
  • the error is deliberate and concealed, the penalty will be between 30 and 100% of the extra tax due

Based on what has been reported (30% penalty) it could fall under any of those 3 criteria
 
Based on what has been reported (30% penalty) it could fall under any of those 3 criteria
As Zahawi is only citing "carelessness", I assume he is referring to #1. I would assume the wording from HMRC is pretty precise - it probably indicates clearly which of the 3 criteria applied.
 
As Zahawi is only citing "carelessness", I assume he is referring to #1. I would assume the wording from HMRC is pretty precise - it probably indicates clearly which of the 3 criteria applied.
Bottom line is he did not contest the penalty, which is tantamount to admitting tax evasion. Otherwise he would have taken HMRC to court and if he won, he would have been shown to have acted lawfully. Given that he is a money-grubbing tory who would sell his mother for a buffet lunch, he would have taken it to court if he thought he had any chance of winning.
 
L
Bottom line is he did not contest the penalty, which is tantamount to admitting tax evasion. Otherwise he would have taken HMRC to court and if he won, he would have been shown to have acted lawfully. Given that he is a money-grubbing tory who would sell his mother for a buffet lunch, he would have taken it to court if he thought he had any chance of winning.
The fact he hasn’t contested means he admits he was careless l, doesn’t mean he deliberately avoiding paying tax

He probably did but we don’t know that for sure
 
I think we do.
I agree.
The reason is the lengths he went to initially to try and suppress and intimidate (with threats of libel) to those investigating the position.

If I am "careless" around some statement and it is pointed out to me, and it is genuine mistake then I correct it. I don't use lawyers to threaten to sue the person for pointing out the "carelessness".

"Careless" has a particular meaning when linked to tax issues, which Zaharwi is ignoring.
He is using the none tax specific meaning of "careless" (as most of the population generally understand the word) to suggest it was not something pre-planned.

In my view it is blatant tax evasion. Anyone who disagrees is just not following the story close enough.
 
Back
Top