Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.HM Revenue & Customs officials were criticised yesterday for allowing Vodafone to pay just £1.25bn in a tax dispute with the Government, despite a potential tax bill of what could be as much as £8bn.
MPs from the Commons Public Accounts Committee quizzed tax officials over deals made with Vodafone and investment bank Goldman Sachs. HMRC branded reports earlier this year that Vodafone escaped paying £6bn in tax "absurd".
But Stephen Barclay, an MP on the committee, put the possible sum even higher. "We are looking at potentially £8bn of tax lost," he said. "We're looking at a company that was given five years to pay even though it was sitting on a cash pile."
HMRC officials were also questioned about a debt deal with Goldman Sachs, which is believed could have cost the taxpayer a potential £10m.
Tax chief Dave Hartnett said an error that slashed Goldman Sachs' debt was dealt with through a staff member's annual appraisal. HMRC has been accused of giving Goldman a "sweetheart" deal that waived £10m of interest on a £30m bill from a failed tax avoidance scheme on bankers' bonuses. Mr Hartnett is said to have personally sealed the agreement with a Goldman executive last November, after being advised by an official that there was a "legal impediment" to charging interest.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments