UKC

Anyone else notice that the name Dave Hartnett seems to appear like a bad smell whenever there are revelations of dodgy tax dealings?

In reply to MG:

I think he is the first HMRC head not to be knighted for some time. That shows how serious the gubmint is.

In reply to lowersharpnose:


He will be weeping all the way to the (off-shore) bank.

In reply to MG:


As head of HMRC wouldn't it be odd if his name didn't crop up?

In reply to Postmanpat:

He was only briefly head, holding various other roles. It's always him rather than other senior HMRC people, and, strangely, never because of job well done. Most odd.

In reply to MG:


Why would HSBC hire him after he left if they didnt think he had done the job well at HMRC?

In reply to dissonance:

Who can say? Curiouser and curiouser (said Alice).

In reply to MG:


He was in charge during a period when corporate tax treatment became a high profile political issue.

Having been famously aggressive in his approach to corporate tax throughout his career, when he got the top job he decided that a less confrontational attitude was a more efficient and less costly method of collecting tax. This is what he undertook and is is largely being blamed for. The media likes to see tumbrils and rolling heads so is obviously disappointed.

In reply to dissonance:

Are you being facetious/sarcastic or was that a genuine question?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Unless you happened to be one of 1.4 million people screwed by HMRC where he "saw no need to apologise" for the mistake!

A strange coincidence too that after his conversion to "less confrontational" methods just before retirement he subsquently ends up with jobs at HSBC and Deloitte. Can't see any link there at all.

In reply to MG:

Not heard his name before, but the fact that he took on a lucrative role at HSBC at the time his old department were slowly investigating them is very dubious.

Watched last nights panorama and it was very frustrating. A mere 30 mins long, padded out with repetition and showboating, but only brief interviews with important witnesses and little analysis.

The big omission was the fact that HSBC only acquired this bank in 1999. And as an ex-HSBC employee I know how "federated" the bank was. As much as I'd like to believe the claim that Stephen Green is Andy Coulson mark 2, I think it was a case of not looking, slow assimilation and lack of direction, rather than malicious intent. Still not suitable for government, but then that applies to most of them.

That said, the Tories defence that it happened under Labour is laughable - the crimes may have been, but the details didn't reach HMRC until 2010. How HMRC has handled it since then is their responsibility

In reply to Postmanpat:


= pay us your taxes, no, oh ok.

Still, as you say, it is less costly this way as you can lay off a lot of tax inspectors

In reply to MG:



Well you can't unless you simply subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" theory. It is equally reasonable to think that a high profile institution (HSBC) in the process of trying to reform and to rebuild its reputations wants a high profile name to underwrite that process. It happens all the time.

I don't know and neither do you but I've read enough such media stories which I know to be bollocks that I take them with a large dollop of salt.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I can well imagine that is correct. I am struggling more with HMRC knowing about this for 5 years and managing to prosecute a grand total of one person!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well I do subscribe. It's not one case but a whole sequence. He even admitted to a "mistake" with Goldman and there is the Private Eye evidence of the £2.5b Vodafone put aside for tax in their accounts that he managed to collect, umm 50% of. My guess is that he simply got too close and was effectively bought without knowing it - too many lunches etc. - but since he was employed to collect tax that doesn't really cut it.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Do you you mean it was the usual lightweight superficial Panorama smearfest?

Shock horror, Swiss bank acts like a Swiss bank!

Maybe the almost total failure of the media to try and understand how or why these things happen and how this might be stopped,as opposed to finding soundbites, scapegoats and make political capital should be investigated.

In reply to MG:


Private Eye isn't the bible. Vodaphone was part of a tripartite legal argument between themselves and the German and British tax authorities about about who owed what to whom. Their fiduciary responsibility was to put aside reserves for a worst outcome. That didn't mean they owed the money.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Anymore than the Vodafone party line is. Taken together the sequence of events make the "he was doing his best" argument difficult to swallow. Anyway, good to know his advice on financial crime helped HSBC.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you have some examples of this? I am interested in the particular case where the person they hired was in charge of an investigation into the company which ended favourably to that company.
Since I cant help but think any company that really gave a toss about rebuilding its reputation would have to disqualify that person just on those grounds regardless of how qualified they were. Since it fails the "appear in the sunday papers" test.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indeed, but HSBC isn't a swiss bank. The problem is Republic/HSBC Republic/HSBC Suisse was !
And it isn't clear whether HSBC Suisse staff broke Swiss law


To be fair, the reporting in the Guardian is far more detailed

In reply to Postmanpat:

Private Eye isn't the bible.

Indeed, Private Eye is way more trustworthy.

In reply to dissonance:


The obvious one is Hector Sants, ex head of the FSA , at Barclays, but no doubt there are others. And of course, being an avid Grauniad reader you'll be aware that Hartnett wasn't "in charge" of the HSBC investigation any more than the head of a hospital is "in charge" of a kidney transplant operation.


In so far as any senior civil servant moving into the private sector fails that test you are no doubt right.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes, I may have missed the part of the Panorama programme which examined this issue.

In reply to Tyler:


Well, I think the Goldman case had been fought over for nine years and the Vodafone one for ten. I suppose if one had no interest in the truth one could characterise that as "pay us your taxes, no, oh ok." Given the legal resources of the two companies was it an entirely irrational decision for HMRC to reach a compromise? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I was shocked at how bad the reporting in Panorama was. Stuffing a microphone in somebodys face as they walk down the street is hardly investigative journalism. good grief it was resaonably easy to foresee that well drilled people like Green would not say anything.

Nevertheless I am amazed that HSBC appear to have not to have foreseen that all this would not break out into the public domain later.There must have been alot of " crossed fingers" when this whistleblower did a deal with the French.

I do laugh at the thought of all these names now being in the public domain for their " undeclared dealings" .Nice to see the banks being very meticulous about recording all meetings etc .

In reply to Postmanpat:


I dont think the FSA investigation into Barclays counts as ending particularly favorably for the bank. Fairly unpleasant result for the bank both financially and reputationally.


you must be confusing me with someone else.


Not exactly the most relevant comparison there given he was the one who signed off the amnesty deal. Whilst the exact details are, as far as I am aware unclear (I might have missed an article in the guardian when i wasnt reading it), it doesnt appear quite as hands off as you seemingly would like to think.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's one interpretation. Interesting you think dragging things out is a reasonable method of avoiding tax and should be acquiesced to. The Uk state has quite a large legal capability too, you know. Do you apply that thinking to poll tax hold-outs too? Here's another interpretation.

http://treasureislands.org/the-curious-dave-hartnett-and-the-goldmans-sweet...

In reply to MG:



Which corroborates the argument that the whole thrust of Hartnett's policy was to end the long held and not very successful policy of confrontation. There was nothing secret about this. With hindsight it may have been a failure but that is not clear and in any case doesn't imply corruption except to those who wish to perceive it. Of course the whole HMRC approach was within an environment of both Nulabour and coalition governments of being "friendly to business" etc etc

It work in reverse. Companies often reach out of court settlements over legal suits in order to close a case and move on. I rather doubt poll tax hold outs have the legal resources of Goldman and Vodafone.

In reply to dissonance:


It was never my claim that an investigation had to have been made, let alone have ended well, simply that such moves are common. That a bank will employ somebody whose organisation's investigation ended badly for them rather undermines the theory that such moves imply corruption.


Well you should. It's full of useful information.


And the Head of the hospital tends to take responsibility for the failings of his staff.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Except we have an underling complaining he interfered in at best unorthodox ways. Was there any announcement of this change in policy by him or HMRC. Agreeing tax payments over dinner and wine!? Come on!

It's odd. You seem very keen to defend this guy yet normally are critical of the civil service, and to defend his approach that would be opposed by about 99% of the population while normally complaining government doesn't listen to people. At best he was serialy grossly incompetent at worst corrupt. Given his later career I'd go for effectively bought by the likes of Vodafone.

In reply to MG:


Yes. He even did an interview with the FT about it in 2010. He had introduced the concept earlier, in 2001, with the approval of Gordon Brown.

"In 2001 Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, asked Mr Hartnett to conduct a review of links with business. The conclusions heralded a big change in the Inland Revenue’s dealings with large companies. “It became clear that business wanted certainty and better understanding. It wanted more trust,” Mr Hartnett recalled recently.
He proposed a more mature relationship, based on risk assessment and a proportionate response from the Revenue. It was an attractive message for tax directors, recalled ICI’s Mr Gillett: “We started talking to each other and stopped playing games.” It also appealed to Gordon Brown, who in 2005 told the CBI, the business lobby group, that trust was the basis of the “correct modern model” for regulating financial services and administering tax. By offering “not just a light touch but a limited touch”, the government would focus attention where it should."

Regarding the views of his colleagues ,

"Mr Hartnett’s senior colleagues are vocal that they do not believe rules were bent to secure these deals. Graham Black, president of the union that represents senior tax officials, said neither he nor any of Mr Hartnett’s long-time colleagues saw the tax official as less than even-handed in his dealings. “I have absolutely no doubt about Dave Hartnett’s integrity and have not met people who have.”
This view is shared by tax directors. Will Morris, chairman of the CBI tax committee, said: “The idea that HMRC undertakes sweetheart deals is just plain bizarre to me. Anyone who has dealt with HMRC and in particular Dave Hartnett knows they hold most of the cards. They are not a soft touch.” "



99% of the population know next to sweet FA about tax law and given the uninformed and prejudiced attitude of much of the media they are unlikely to find out much so I'm not sure we should leave tax collection policy in their hands. Because I am deeply cynical about the competence of the civil service does not mean I think they are either institutionally corrupt or universally incompetent. Having read a bit more than the usual smears about Hartnett a much more nuanced picture emerges. Whether his policy of constructive engagement was effective neither of us are qualified to judge, but many in the "business" seem to think it was. If not, then one can accuse him of poor judgement but that is not corruption. It just makes him a normal civil servant :=)

In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't buy it. There is a difference between risk-based and private deals with a handshake with the odd dinner to oil the wheels. He's admitted losing £20m to Goldman. There is the testimony of junior colleagues. There are Private Eye's reports. There is his refusal to apologise air for obvious errors.

And business leaders would say he was a great chap, wouldn't they.

Haven't the bank and their clients suffered enough?

I think they should be apologised to and left alone.

In reply to MG:
>
Well maybe because you don't know much about it, frankly: for example that the judge's finding on the 2009 HMRC v GS case accused HMRC of "blustering intransigence and a determination to litigate everything to the bitter end" and encouraged both sides to pursue a settlement.
HMRC and Hartnett were therefore following the judge's recommendation, and by implication a compromise was necessary to do that. The failure to demand interest payments was on the basis that in previous such cases the law had ruled thus (as such it was a misunderstanding of why the law had ruled in the other cases). In 2013 the settlement was deemed to be "lawful".

Perhaps HMRC should have told the judge to get stuffed? I'm not sure how a settlement is reached unless people sit down and agree it?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You provided it as an counter example to my specific statement about how it would appear dubious when the investigation ends well.


Its lucky then no one is suggesting such a simple rule which borders on strawmannery.
Instead howabout we use a slightly more sophisticated theory that not all moves imply corruption but the better outcome for the company being investigated (or given with a juicy order) then the more dubious it looks when someone joins them a few months later.
Whether or not it was actually corruption and, as you hypothesise, the idea is to show they are taking action against past bad practices it comes across as a rather bad move really.


bunch of pinko liberal communists.


oh you are trolling now. Chances of a hospital manager taking responsibility for a single operation. Somewhere between zero and non existent, Hell you need the entire place to go into special measures for that and even then you would be lucky.
However lets go back to Hartnett and recap what we know of him. This is someone known to have a habit of arranging meetings with companies and on occasion going with decisions by himself.
Does that really sound like someone who just signed off the paperwork in this case?

In reply to dissonance:


Really, what time? I thought it was a response to your suggestion they must have thought he had done a good job. Either way, my point is simply that it i perfectly likely that they thought at the time that the appointment would add credibility to their attempts to clean up their act for the same reason that other banks made equivalent appointments.



Good, so we're agreed. It doesn't look brilliant, especially with hindsight, but aside from the PR concerns there is nothing necessarily wrong with the appointment.


Now you're talking


They appear to be the ones who sign the mea culpa letters, or so they tell me.



Quite possibly. I don't know. He can't have been involved in every investigation so he may well not have been. How does HMRC explain this? How did HMRC understand the basis on which the Swiss had abandoned their bank secrecy rules? How did HMRC understand the basis on which the secret disc had been passed to them? What proportion of unpaid tax from HSBC clients was subsequently collected? What proportion of the cases HMRC presented to the CPS related to HSBC were pursued? What was the general policy of HMRC to undisclosed overseas bank accounts in recent years?