Does anyone believe Nadhim Zahawi?

From the same source as previous post
"You may find it useful to see some examples of situations where HMRC say a penalty would not be due (found in their Compliance Handbook at CH81130 – we have copied their text and then tried to explain it more clearly in brackets after each point):

‘a reasonably arguable view of situations that is subsequently not upheld’ (this means where you had reasonably thought the rules meant one thing, but it turns out they actually mean something else)
‘an arithmetical or transposition inaccuracy that is not so large either in absolute terms or relative to overall liability, as to produce an obviously odd result or be picked up by a quality check’ (you made a mistake with your sums or you copied an amount wrongly that was so small or trivial it is likely you wouldn’t notice)
‘following advice from HMRC that later proves to be wrong, provided that all the details and circumstances were given when the advice was sought’ (this means you can rely on what HMRC tell you when you ask their advice – provided you were honest about the situation you are asking advice on)
* ‘acting on advice from a competent adviser which proves to be wrong despite the fact that the adviser was given a full set of accurate facts’ (this means you can rely on what a tax adviser or accountant tells you when you ask their advice – same as the above)*
‘accepting and using information from another person where it is not possible to check that the information is accurate and complete’ (for example your employer tells you the taxable ‘benefit’ amount you received from the medical insurance it arranged for you was X, when it was actually Y)."

I think the * comment is pertinent. If NZ was using accountants, disclosed everything correctly to them and followed their advice, he would not have been charged a penalty nor would he if he had asked for advice from HMRC.

According to a retired HMRC investigator (40 years in service) Zahawi's was for deliberate and concealed, not an error.

Apparently civil servants in the Cabinet Office alerted BJ to a flag over Zahawi's affairs before he was appointed Chancellor. Johnson chose to ignore it.

Link to the article about Zahawi's finances below. It's 6 months old but still relevant.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/09/revealed-officials-raised-flag-over-nadim-zahawis-tax-affairs-before-he-was-appointed-chancellor

Zahawi came to the UK aged 9 and not speaking a word of English. He was educated in the UK at the taxpayers' expense and this is how he treats the country. He should be ashamed but somehow I doubt that he will be.

As an aside.

Accountancy partnership, particularly the biggest ones, put huge resources into devising tax avoidance schemes that would be accepted by the revenue.

Once it is accepted they can flog this scheme to anyone who would benefit at enormous cost.

Oreo

I’m on the fence about it tbh as tax laws and claims are really complex so I’ll leave that up to the tax inspectors. Is it his accountant who advised him wrongly, his own mistakes or a deliberate avoiding? Who knows, but tax evasion ,if it’s that, is surely a resigning matter.

Don’t be fooled. Accountants spend their entire existence, dealing with tax avoidance, making up avoidance schemes (extremely lucrative), filling in tax returns etc etc and are paid massively well for their services.

Of course what they declare depends entirely on the business being completely transparent and assuming no hidden income.

However, the revenue is better placed to follow the money and does so.

Zahawi assumed, rather arrogantly that he was cleverer than the tax man.

I’m on the fence about it tbh as tax laws and claims are really complex so I’ll leave that up to the tax inspectors. Is it his accountant who advised him wrongly, his own mistakes or a deliberate avoiding? Who knows, but tax evasion ,if it’s that, is surely a resigning matter.

No

I found the following on the internet:
"The level of penalty is normally worked out as a percentage of the ‘potential lost revenue’ (PLR) – that is, the extra tax that you have to pay as a result of correcting the inaccuracy. The percentage depends on your behaviour and whether you told HMRC about the error or whether HMRC found it first.

Type of behaviour You told HMRC HMRC found the error
('unprompted disclosure') ('prompted behaviour')
Reasonable care No penalty No penalty
Careless 0% to 30% 15% to 30%
Deliberate 20% to 70% 35% to 70%
Deliberate and concealed 30% to 100% 50% to 100%

But to reiterate the basic rule: if you have made a genuine error despite taking reasonable care – that is, you did your best to complete your return accurately, but still got something wrong – no penalty is chargeable."
So he made a "careless mistake" rather than a "genuine error". this is the man who was thought to be suitable as Chancellor of the Exchequer and is Chairman of the Conservative party. Surely Tory MPs won't let go and I'm confident the Labour party won't. I think he's finished.

River walk you are right about investigations, whatever happened to the long awaited Sue Grey report.

No I don’t believe this fir a minute. He was the chancellor and in Charge of the tax department so obviously put pressure on them. If he had accepted his fault initially the additional fine woukd not have been implemented. He should be ashamed of himself, and given his P 45. To enable him to spend more time with his horses.

No doubt there'll be some sort of 'investigation' and everyone will be told that there'll be no further comment whilst the investigation is underway, as it wouldn't be right would it. And before you know it, another scandal will knock it off the headlines.

Geez, how much more of this can we take!

Even the most ardent Tory will have difficulty with this one!

That’s the key wheniwasyourage - these ministers/pm’s/mp’s should know they’re expected to uphold the law, not disregard it

What with this 'careless' mistake by a former Chancellor, and Sunak's 'careless' breaking of the seatbelt law, I have very little confidence in this crew's ability to run the country carefully.

I’m sure he has highly qualified accountants looking after his affairs so I don’t believe him at all! Doesn’t say much for Sunak either.

No, I don’t believe him.

Is it a resigning matter - it should be. I’m the not too distant past it would have been

Oh, right. I should have read it properly.
Not the first time he forgot, made a mistake, didn't check then.

It's rather a lot of money to overlook - it could pay for the salaries of several NHS staff!

That was the first time, about the horses. Not the current 3 million case.

He told Sky News’ Kay Burley it was a “genuine mistake” as he did not realise his stable heating and personal heating was coming in on a single bill

It sounds like a lot of hot air to me
(Sorru, couldn't resist)

But I'm confused about this excuse about heating? How did it incur a tax bill of £3 million?

No, not for one second!

From John Bradshaw

This isn't the first time his propriety has been under question.
To make one error over personal finances may be regarded as carelessness: to make two - including one in the millions of pounds - looks decidedly dodgy.
Spot the similarities.
Parliamentary expenses 2013
'Zahawi at first defended his claims but now admits he made a “mistake”.
He told Sky News’ Kay Burley it was a “genuine mistake” as he did not realise his stable heating and personal heating was coming in on a single bill.
“It was a complete error, a mistake, and of course I apologised and repaid,” he said.'
(Huffington Post, 11/07/2022)
Personal tax affairs, 2022.
The Tory party chair, Nadhim Zahawi, has said HMRC concluded his tax errors were “careless and not deliberate” after reports that he paid a penalty as part of a multimillion-pound settlement
“So that I could focus on my life as a public servant, I chose to settle the matter and pay what they said was due, which was the right thing to do,” ' he said. The Guardian, 21/01/2023.
Nadhim Zahawi is a long-term associate of Jeffrey Archer.

I don't believe it for one minute.