Tax cheat sent down for tax and child support dodging
Hamauon Khan, an IT consultant from Crawley received a prison term of four years for avoiding paying tax of more than £170K.
Khan aka Billy Khan and Billy Love, aged 46, claimed he was unemployed for at least six years in an attempt to avoid paying the tax and NIC but a HMRC investigation revealed that he had actually been working as a self-employed IT consultant since 2004.
Joint investigations with the Child Support Agency revealed that Khan also failed to pay child maintenance payments for which he was also jailed.
Instead of paying tax and child support, he spent the money to fund his lifestyle and purchased two properties, one of which was his Sussex home.
Khan was arrested in 2013 and pleaded guilty to the offences in September 2015. He was sentenced last month; two years for tax fraud and two years for the child support offences. Sentencing Khan, Her Honour Judge Laing QC said:
“For a period of nine years through sheer greed you failed to pay tax. Cheating the Revenue is a very serious offence. There has been sheer greed for a substantial period and you have used that money for your own benefit for a lavish lifestyle and foreign holidays.”
Colin Spinks, Assistant Director of HMRC Fraud Investigation Service commented:
“Khan has to pay the price for his deliberate attempts to steal money from UK taxpayers – money that could have been used to fund vital public services.”
Given what you report in, don’t you think it’s important to use the correct terminology? He’s not gone to prison for avoiding paying tax, he’s. Gone for evading. It’s a significant and very important difference,
As MarkC said: the offence is tax EVASION not tax avoidance. We have a right to expect far better quality journalism than this. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference needs educating before reporting incorrect “facts”.
I’d like to think most of the audience for this article understand the difference between avoidance and evasion without the pedant chorus.
Oh – and what gives you a right to anything here Andrew? Do you pay for this news feed? If so, thank you, I quite enjoy it. 🙂
What about vital ‘public services’ being denied due to the billions of pounds being wasted on illegal bombing and invasions of other poor middle east countries by war criminals in no.10 downing st ???
Not the “Billy Khan” who worked at BNR Europe at the New Southgate site in the early 1990s, is it (the age would be about right) ?? 🙂
That aside, the fact the guy is/was a contractor is moot, as he wasn’t doing anything relating to the legislation (IR35, s660 etc) that affects us on a regular basis.
“Khan”…now that’s a surprise, considering his forefathers country only collects tax from 0.5% of the population.
[quote name=”The Q”]Not the “Billy Khan” who worked at BNR Europe at the New Southgate site in the early 1990s, is it (the age would be about right) ?? 🙂
Yep 😉
[quote name=”D”]Not the “Billy Khan” who worked at BNR Europe at the New Southgate site in the early 1990s, is it (the age would be about right) ?? 🙂
Yep ;-)[/quote]
Really, D ?? 😀
If so, he was quite the flashy creature to the un-initiated observer (so perhaps no big surprise as to his fate) .
A cautionary tale indeed.
[quote name=”Geoff”]I’d like to think most of the audience for this article understand the difference between avoidance and evasion without the pedant chorus.
Oh – and what gives you a right to anything here Andrew? Do you pay for this news feed? If so, thank you, I quite enjoy it. :-)[/quote]
Everybody reading this pays to do so with their time, the most valuable thing they have. Regardless of that, there is no excuse for any professional journalist (by which I mean one who is getting paid for it) publishing anything which is factually incorrect.
All readers have a right to be treated with respect, and that must include any journo taking the time and trouble to understand what he is reporting on, and getting simple things like evasion v. avoidance correct as many readers increasingly rely on the accuracy of what they read on sites like this. If he cannot be bothered in this instance, then how can readers trust his reporting accuracy in situations where the error is less blatantly obvious either?