Going after the economically disadvantaged!

Regardless of who is committing fraud, it's wrong. Equal time and money should be spent on prosecuting benefit and tax fraud. Either is unacceptable.

OP seems to be suggesting that benefit fraud should be ignored in favour of prosecuting tax fraud. ‘Fewer cases … fewer families destroyed’. Fraud is fraud, whoever commits it, and all fraudsters should be punished. I suspect that benefit fraud is far easier to detect than tax fraud, which is often very sophisticated.

Fraud is fraud of course, irrespective of how much or who commits it, but people who make fraudulent benefit claims are 'low hanging fruit' and easier to find and prosecute to deter others. Certain newspapers of course, love to print stories of 'benefit cheats' who are robbing 'hard working taxpayers'.

Different authorities investigate benefit and tax fraud so it’s not a question of focus. DWP and HMRC. Proving tax fraud usually involves vast amounts of work by forensic accountants.

Proving tax fraud usually involves vast amounts of work by forensic accountants.

So?

In terms of what is recovered it's probably far more cost effective than chasing benefit fraud.

I think the truth is that HMRC is, thanks to tory cuts in public spending, understaffed and don't have the required staffing levels to carry out much investigation work.

That sort of specialist work is usually outsourced. Benefit fraud can be detected and prosecuted at lower cost. Both will be prosecuted if detected.

That sort of specialist work is usually outsourced.

Still has to be paid for out of departmental budgets.

Of course. But much more difficult, expensive and time consuming than detecting and proving benefit fraud.

I think there was a commisions or something that was disbanded about 8 years ago?
Because trying to collect money from the super wealthy did not work at all well because their lawyers were better than the HMRC ones?
Something like that.

I have tried to find a link but could not.

Fraud is fraud. Take the easy low hanging fruit where it's found.

The system is so complicated and shot full of loopholes that there are tax accountants who make a very good living helping people (legitimately) pay less tax. There are many who regard tax as simply a legalised form of theft and see it as their duty to pay as little as possible.

Tax avoidance is not a crime.

Tax avoidance is very much a crime, carries stiff penalties and imprisonment.

Germanshepherdsmum

Tax avoidance is not a crime.

Indeed. Thus good tax accountants.

Allsorts

Tax avoidance is very much a crime, carries stiff penalties and imprisonment.

Tax fraud is a crime. Legally avoiding taxes, through the system of laws in place is not a crime.

Tax evasion is a crime Allsorts. Tax avoidance is not. A judge said many years ago that, within the law, everyone is entitled to arrange their affairs in the most tax-advantageous way they can. That still holds true today.

Quote: "Some examples of legitimate tax avoidance include putting your money into an Individual Savings Account (ISA) to avoid paying income tax on the interest earned by your cash savings, investing money into a pension scheme, or claiming capital allowances on things used for business purposes."

Perfectly normal avoidance, follow the rules and all is well.

Norah

Quote: "Some examples of legitimate tax avoidance include putting your money into an Individual Savings Account (ISA) to avoid paying income tax on the interest earned by your cash savings, investing money into a pension scheme, or claiming capital allowances on things used for business purposes."

Perfectly normal avoidance, follow the rules and all is well.

I have heard that silly argument before; being sensible and putting savings in an ISA is hardly the same level as Nadim Zahawi's performance. HMRC would do well to employ more investigative staff, I am certain they would pay for themselves over and over.

Is anyone suggesting that NZ simply put money into an ISA? No.

Wrong fraud focus has nothing to do with it. Fraud is fraud and is wrong.
People know right from wrong no matter what income bracket they are in. I have never reported benefit fraud, I was a single parent for a time and worked, I found it quite hard, but I did not resort to fraud. I have to say at the time, I was very angry with those who did.
Tax fraud and benefit fraud are equally as bad.

I don't think they're equal, at least, not the type of benefit fraud committed by the poor. It's different when it's someone financially comfortable, taking advantage of loopholes/claiming benefits they're not entitled to.

But the average, unemployed person, making a bit extra that they don't declare? No where near the same as a wealthy person committing tax fraud.

One is born of desperation, one of greed. But I'm not surprised at all that our greedy, immoral government and those who support them would see them as equal.

Well said rafichagran. Sorry GagaJo, fraud is fraud and has to be rooted out and punished. I have been desperate. I have not committed fraud.

HousePlantQueen

Norah

Quote: "Some examples of legitimate tax avoidance include putting your money into an Individual Savings Account (ISA) to avoid paying income tax on the interest earned by your cash savings, investing money into a pension scheme, or claiming capital allowances on things used for business purposes."

Perfectly normal avoidance, follow the rules and all is well.

I have heard that silly argument before; being sensible and putting savings in an ISA is hardly the same level as Nadim Zahawi's performance. HMRC would do well to employ more investigative staff, I am certain they would pay for themselves over and over.

I didn't think he was accused of just saving in an ISA.

Yes GSM fraud is fraud regardless of who commits it.