37 
Here’s an odd fact. HMRC has the right to monitor what websites you use, see where and when phone calls were placed and know the date and time of your emails. And it made over 14,000 of these snooping requests last year.
The authorisation to spy on taxpayers is granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which lets the UK’s tax inspectors monitor the digital lives of UK taxpayers — but only during tax evasion investigations.
The Act doesn’t go so far as actually allowing HMRC to read our emails and SMS messages when it suspects us of fiddling taxes, with separate authorisation from the Home Secretary required to actually intercept and read personal correspondence. [Telegraph]
Image credit: Surveillance from Shutterstock
Is Skype Snooping on Your Conversations?
Snoop Lion's Reincarnated, Plasma Sky, and More
Snoop Dogg's Got His Own Instagram Now
I’m not really surprised.
I take it they were allowed to see our digital life as computers evolved.
Why can’t they snoop on me and figure out that I am being taxed too much for the FOURTH year in a row now!
I think the big question is: What is Chris Moyles doing hiding in the bushes with a camera?
Looks like Alexei Sayle here!
Is this another one of those news article that gets people angry but when you actually think about it – isn’t actually a problem at all?
Or is actually a benefit. I’m very happy for tax-dodgers to get inspected with a microscope.
I’m not.
The HMRC have far too much power at the moment. I recently read a story about how they shut down a company and brought in administrators based on absolutely no evidence. The people who owned the company were nearly ruined by it, and barely managed to get it to/through court so that they could be found innocent.
I’ve witnessed their underhand tactics myself. Someone I know was undergoing a tax investigation and HMRC sent someone into their shop to buy something. They then asked for all the books to see if it had been put down or if the cash had been pocketed. They claimed their item wasn’t there, therefore a crime had been committed. If it weren’t for a VERY vigilant accountant that would have been the end of it, but they discovered the tax people had lied about which item they’d bought!
I’d say at that point the person under investigation should be able to turn around and at least ask for a new investigator, maybe make a complaint about them, ensure they’re punished so it won’t happen again, but no. You have no discourse to protect yourself against them. They’re judge jury and executioner. A law unto themselves.
I agree we need to cut down on tax dodging, but the way to do it is to instigate robust tax laws, not leave millions of loopholes open that the large companies can exploit then spend tons of money bullying and chasing the little guys who, if they are committing crimes, barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.
I’m with you, nothing to hide here and as for Cloudfire’s example, yes, sadly things do go wrong for various reasons.
Personally if I was in charge I’d make the UK the first cashless society with everything going through electronic wallets and bank accounts, thus making transactions in the black market and drug market a lot more apparent. Sure they’d be problems but people who complained would get free accommodation on the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Man (my two new penal colonies (every dictator needs them).
I agree – If you think about it pragmatically as opposed to on principle then it has no effects on the average taxpayer and is by no means a step in direction of an Orwellian future.