Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please supply any emails to/from Mary Aiston that include the term 'disguised remuneration' for the calendar month of January 2019.
This should also provide emails where DR has been used as an abbrieviation.

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for your response and provision of the emails requested.

I note some redaction of email 34 from Mary Aiston to Nicole Newbury 21/1/2019 at 12:09
It seems unreasonable that this email has been redacted at all, save for protecting the names of none senior civil servants (Section 40(2).

It is difficult to see how the application of section 31(1)(d) would apply to an email that is discussing the content of a newspaper article compromises HMRC's ability to collect taxes.

I request that this email be provided in full and unredacted.

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Smith

Dear FOI Team,

Updated version
Thank you for your response and provision of the emails requested.

I note some redaction of email 34 from Mary Aiston to Nicole Newbury 21/1/2019 at 12:09
It seems unreasonable that this email has been redacted at all, save for protecting the names of none senior civil servants (Section 40(2).

It is difficult to see how the application of section 31(1)(d) would apply to an email that is discussing the content of a newspaper article compromises HMRC's ability to collect taxes.

I request that this email be provided in full and unredacted.

There is also an attachment referred to several times in Email 7. This attachment has not been provided. Please provide it.

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Thank you for the update stating that the information is not being supplied due to section 44(1)(a).

I do not need to know the publication but the words redacted do not reveal which publication it is. I am interested in what the missing words are which do not appear to reveal the which newspaper it was and frankly to invoke section 44(1)(a) for something that has been published in the national press seems an absurd use of this section of the FOIA.

Please also provide the missing attachment(s) referred to in EMAIL 7

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Thank you for the update stating that the information is not being supplied due to section 44(1)(a).

I do not need to know the publication but the words redacted do not reveal which publication it is. I am interested in what the missing words are which do not appear to reveal the which newspaper it was and frankly to invoke section 44(1)(a) for something that has been published in the national press seems an absurd use of this section of the FOIA.
On this basis please provide an unredacted version of this email.

Please also provide the missing attachment(s) referred to in EMAIL 7

Further examination has also identfied that an attachment from email 46 has not been supplied.
This is Briefing 2.15b on Tax Avoidance - Examples of litigation cases which demonstrate tax avoidance schemes do not work Jim comments.
Please provide the attachment.

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please acknowledge my request to complete this FOI request.
My previous email has identified that several pieces of data that you hold have not been provided

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

In your previous response you stated that you would provide a substantive reply by the 30 July at the latest.

Please can you provide the substantive reply.

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Another week and no response.
Please provide the substantive response .

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'Emails To/From Mary Aiston Containing key phrase - Disguised Remuneration'.

You have declined to provide a number of sections of this data (particularly further attachment of email 46 - attachment 1) page 218-224 of the response.

HMRC have quoted sections 44,18 of the FOIA and section 23 of the CRCA so as not to disclose the name of individuals or businesses. The use of the FOIA/CRCA legislation surely does not need to withhold the names of these publicly listed and historical court cases.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for your internal review in which you claim that you cannot release the information based on section 44 of the FOIA which I believe you have used inappropriately and disingenuously . I dispute that claim and request that you reconsider your refusal to supply the information. The alternative I believe will be to escalate this to the Information Commissioners Office.

You claim that, under section 44 of the FOIA, 'information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise that under this Act) by the public authority holding it -
a) is prohibited by or under any enactment,
b) is incompatible with any Community obligation, or
c) would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court.
By making use of (a), you continue by referencing section 18(1) of the CRCA, which states that HMRC officials may not disclose information which is held by HMRC in connection with one of its functions. You extend that by use of section 19, which makes it a criminal offence for any member of HMRC’s staff to disclose information relating to a person whose identity can be deduced from such information without a lawful basis for doing so.
It appears that you have conveniently decided to deliberately exclude those further clauses in section 18 (Confidentiality) of the CRCA, specifically those which quite clearly state the following:
(2) But subsection (1) does NOT apply to a disclosure -
(c) which is made for the purposes of civil proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions,
(d) which is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not within the United Kingdom) relating to a matter in respect of which the Revenue and Customs have functions.

It is therefore evident that the use of a claimed exemption under section 44 of the FOIA, when referencing section 18(1) of the CRCA, does NOT apply when the information sought is as stated in 18(2)(c) or (d). The information you are attempting to withhold would already have been disclosed in open court (either civil or criminal - it is clear that both are covered) by HMRC, and subsequently trying to utilise section 19 to somehow suggest that disclosure would constitute a criminal offence given the fact that these are past cases is simply nonsense - and also renders your attempted use of section 23 of the CRCA wholly redundant.

Based on the above I request that you reconsider your refusal to supply this information to avoid wasting further resources of yours, mine and the ICO
Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Smith

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Thank you for your rapid reponse

Unfortunately this will have to be escalated to the ICO and tribunal if necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Rosemary Smith