Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

It seems Mr Hartnett knows the UK Govt retirement rules well

CTA says: it seems Mr Hartnett knows the UK Govt retirement rules well, as the listed letters on the Acoba site show-

However Acoba has no record of Mr Hartnett joining ITIC as a director in 2013, well within the 2 years-after-retirement-need-permission regulation.

Did he just forget, or was it to do with the fact that ITIC is funded by Big Tobacco, Big Beverage, Big Energy and a litany of  lawyers and accountancy firm ?

‘Dave Hartnett’ David Anthony “Dave” Hartnett CB, is a former British civil servant who served as the Permanent Secretary for Tax at HM Revenue and Customs until his retirement in July 2012

Whitehall’s Most Wined and Dined – Mr Hartnett, who is in charge of the Britain’s tax system, was entertained 107 times, mostly at breakfasts, lunches and dinners, by some of the UK’s biggest banks, law firms and accountancy firms, among others. Companies that entertained him included Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and Deloitte

14/08/2014 New Board Member Mr D.A. Hartnett appointed
St Mary’s University Twickenham

Registered Details Short name David Hartnett

Date of Birth: 25/02/1951

Director ID: 919008755 Registered Address Waldegrave Road, Strawberry Hill Twickenham LondonTW1 4SX

Read more at:


Dave Hartnett, permanent secretary for tax at HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), was forced to defend revelations that he supervised and signed off a deal that saved Goldman £10m of tax – when he told MPs just a month ago that he did “not deal with Goldman’s tax affairs”.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), said to him: “It seems to me you lied when you told the Treasury Select Committee on 12th September that, and I quote, ‘I do not deal with Goldman’s tax affairs’… we had access to a meeting on 8th December in the offices of your lawyers where it is stated that you had settled and had in fact shaken hands on a deal on their tax affairs.”

“I did not lie,” Mr Hartnett said. “I did not deal with Goldman Sachs tax affairs in the normal sense.”

Ms Hodge said that Mr Hartnett was “playing with words” and his denials were “laughable.” She told him: “It appears that £10m was lost to the taxpayer because of a deal you did with Goldman Sachs. We were ripped off.”

HMRC has been accused of forgiving Goldman for millions of pounds of tax that should have been paid on remuneration and bonus payments that were paid through an off-shore company in the British Virgin Islands.

After a clamp-down on the loop-hole by Gordon Brown, 21 firms settled with HMRC. Goldman held out because HMRC had made a technical mistake in its handling of Goldman’s case by assessing its UK company rather than the off-shore one.

It is the latest in a line of embarrassing errors made by HMRC which include a £1.25bn settlement with Vodafone over a £6bn dispute and the PAYE fiasco last year.

Mr Hartnett told MPs he had been asked by colleagues working on Goldman case to “assist in a very difficult relationship issue” between HMRC and the bank. He said the deal had been reached because a “mistake had been made” for which he was “very sorry.” Asked if there had been a “problem” in the way the settlement was reached, Mr Hartnett admitted there had been a “lack of objective assurance” in the process.

Asked if there had been any disciplinary procedure for the mistake he said: “None. We learned from that mistake as an organisation.” He said new procedures were being introduced to ensure that the mistake “can’t happen again.”

Mr Hartnett said he was often brought in on disputed cases because he was the only one of HMRC’s four commissioners “with deep tax knowledge.” MPs said they were “staggered” to hear that the other commissioners were not tax experts. He said two more commissioners were being hired.

He added that in future any case that a commissioner negotiated would be reviewed by two other commissioners “before the case can be settled.” He also suggested a new system, including the Finnish model of inserting an independent body between the revenue and the tax payer to resolve disputes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>