HMRC withdraws hundreds of APN's after judicial review

[flamel]

HMRC always give everybody a fair and personal service, including contractors. After all, everyone is now nicely referred to as "customers". Just remember that in spite of the motto "the customer is always right", HMRC's motto is "HMRC is always right". They know this because they can change the law if they're not right and then bingo, they are right after all.

HMRC PR Machine

[DotasScandal]

Their modus operandi for the past few years is to treat everyone unfairly and make heavy use of lies and terror tactics. When caught red-handed, they get off the hook by invoking the proverbial "administrative error". Simples. Basic, brutish policies executed by borderline-cretin simpletons.
Most staff us mere mortals have to deal with don't even seem capable of cutting & pasting from templates competently.

[BrilloPad]

Ex-mrs-bp-1 works for HMRC. They are all power crazed.

[webberg]

I'll offer a personal perspective based on 40 years of dealing with HMRC.

Until perhaps 10 years ago, Inspectors were given considerable discretion as to what was acceptable on their "turf" and generally, although some took matters very personally, most discussions and meetings were conducted if not professionally, then at least with the view to arriving at a destination. That might be agreeing to disagree and seeing what the Judge had to say or a more balanced view.

That all changed when matters of agreements with "customers" had to be approved at a centralised unit. Inspectors were stripped of discretion and policy rules the kingdom. That policy is driven (in my opinion) by economists seeking pots to rob and not by any attention to whether legal/technical arguments are sensible or winnable and without any consideration for financial or emotional cost.

Prior to this, I may not have invited an Inspector for dinner, but I felt that I could trust his/her word. Post centralising, that is not the case. Twice in the past 2 years I've had HMRC renege (or try to) on a written proposal.

In both cases the excuse given is that the front line Inspector had not, despite his claims, been able to get approval, even after telling me he did.

Those I meet now are decent enough individuals. However they are puppets of the policy teams. They may express some sympathy but they are scared of making any decision that might not be approved higher up the line. That means that they come across as unhelpful, callous and inept. I'm sure they're not and that they are as much victims of the system as we are.

Getting the present system to change will make Sisyphus weep. For so long as there are pots of potential tax to identify and rob when viewed from a spreadsheet, we will get this treatment.

The route to redemption via the Courts is long and expensive.

The only other way is to make the people who tell the policy people what to do (the politicians) just what a maelstrom of misery, bankruptcy, health problems, tragedy, economic damage and gradually working the whole system to a standstill, their misguided and short term actions are having. That is also long but perhaps less expensive.

[davidhawk]

Independent authority

It has an independent authority and it has not done any special thing. Whatever it seems to it not legal, action will be taken likewise.

[piebaps]

It has an independent authority and it has not done any special thing. Whatever it seems to it not legal, action will be taken likewise.

Sorry David - I don't quite follow.

[Invisiblehand]

That all changed when matters of agreements with "customers" had to be approved at a centralised unit. Inspectors were stripped of discretion and policy rules the kingdom. That policy is driven (in my opinion) by economists seeking pots to rob and not by any attention to whether legal/technical arguments are sensible or winnable and without any consideration for financial or emotional cost.

That's an interesting point. What makes you think BG can re frame the argument? I'm speculating that's part of the strategy.

[webberg]

You would be correct in your assumption.

BG has no more power or access to influencers than the usual private citizen but we do perhaps have access to more of them and a will to drive the point home.

Beyond that, with BG now closed, I cannot comment.