header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 August 2014 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7618 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
commercial_tax_vaines

Peter Vaines on strict liability criminal offences from Mars, punitive penalties & disguised salaries

HMRC has published a guidance note entitled No Safe Havens 2014. It has caused a lot of trouble. However, the substantive document looks wholly uncontroversial—indeed it seems to be an excellent summary of how HMRC gains access to information on offshore accounts, making it pretty clear that if you have an offshore account, they will find it—and when they do, there will be serious consequences with penalties up to 200% of the tax evaded.

Of course, there should be criminal penalties for people who evade taxes; that is a crime and should be appropriately punished. So why has it caused trouble? It is because in the foreword there is a sentence which says that the government will introduce a new strict liability criminal offence that could mean jail for those who do not declare taxable offshore income.

The two offending words are “strict liability” so that you are guilty even if there was no intention to commit

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll