,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Back in 2017, I issued a claim against Uber to establish that it had avoided, I believe, around £1 billion of VAT (you can read about it here ft.com/content/7ca2f8…). THREAD
There are many alarming things about the claim. One is that hundreds of millions of pounds of tax are becoming 'time barred' - impossible to collect from Uber - because HMRC won't raise assessments to protect the public purse (I wrote about that here waitingfortax.com/2017/10/27/som…). /1
Shortly after I made this point HMRC was asked in Public Accounts Committee why it wasn't taking steps to protect the public purse in case I was right (see from question 88 here data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc…). /2
HMRC said it couldn't raise so-called 'protective assessments' unless it concluded that the tax was due. That was a striking proposition because it offends against commonsense, its own practice, and, I believe, the law. (I wrote about that here waitingfortax.com/2017/12/21/ube…). /3 
This morning there passed across my desk this paragraph - written by HMRC in a multimillion dispute - which seems to directly contradict what HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee. (I have my client's authority to publish this paragraph). /4
Early next month we have a preliminary hearing in the Uber case (you can read my witness statement evidence for that hearing here jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/uber-j…). /5
But what I want to know, from @HMRCpressoffice, is why its second Permanent Secretary is telling @CommonsPAC something which directly and demonstrably contradicts its practice? /ENDS
