.png)
.png)
I am not sure what to think about HMRC’s press release about the ten outrageous excuses employers have given for not paying the national minimum wage (tinyurl.com/hmrctennmwex). At one level it makes a good story and shows that HMRC does have a sense of humour. It also draws attention to some real problems in a light-hearted way. But something does jar with me, in particular when contrasted with the publication of the list of employers ‘named and shamed’ for breaking the minimum wage law (tinyurl.com/hmrcnmwempns). While nobody would condone deliberately underpaying staff many of the instances in this, and previous lists, are clearly minor technical failures. Given how complex the rules are, anyone in any doubt should look at the guidance (tinyurl.com/hmrcctnmw). In many ways it is surprising that there are not more names on the list.
There is a broader issue here. When is publication of the names of those who have defaulted on their tax liabilities justified? We have seen various initiatives over recent years, including the serial tax avoiders and promoters regimes. The safeguards built into those systems are, quite rightly, rigorous and will mean that publication is rare and only the most serious cases will enter the public domain. The national minimum wage naming and shaming regime by contrast has very few of those protections. I appreciate that the issues are different, because they concern money not going directly into employees’ pockets, but does that justify such a huge divergence in the policy surrounding publication?
Let’s have a proper discussion about the role of naming and shaming in our tax system as part of the debate over the plans for reform of tax administration.
