• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Changing the rules - again

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    We've taken this argument to MPs and they say one of the following:

    We really don't believe that HMRC would lie to us.

    We cannot challenge economic policy by saying HMRC is out of control.

    So long as the money rolls in, we cannot complain.

    HMRC are taking proper action against tax avoiders.



    I'll be honest, after three years of that and getting nowhere we became convinced that we needed to spend our energy on our clients and we switched focus to litigation.

    Even so, instances like this remind me of just how far an organisation that I was proud to have worked for, has fallen.

    It seems that whoever is in charge of HMRC and their closest policy makers have left their morals and humanity behind them in an effort to ... what?

    Satisfy some political policy or instruction? No. The MPs tell us that HMRC has to be fair and take reasonable care and are "compassionate".

    Nope. Either the MPs are lying or HMRC is not understanding that they cannot "win" regardless of the cost. That is not how a civilised society wants its tax collectors to behave.

    So are they unaccountable because they choose to be?
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by webberg View Post
      They could - arguably should - have built into the law AT THE TIME THIS PROCESS STARTED the legislation required to recognise that certain functions - important functions that have a real cost - were to be via machine. Perhaps that law should also have permitted challenge.
      So let me understand this...

      At the moment, HMRC sends you a letter asking you to complete a tax return. This is prepared by a computer.

      If you claim you didn't get the letter you can, if you want to, go to a tax tribunal and say you didn't get a letter. The tax tribunal will then decide whether, on the balance of probability, you got the letter. HMRC will say that they have a pretty good computer and will show records to say it was sent to a particular address on a particular date. You can say that was not your address and that you moved three years ago and, by the way, you told HMRC your new address (and the tribunal will accept this or not).

      Or you can say that the system must be wrong, the letter was not sent dispite the records saying it was. In that case, if they get their act together, HMRC can provide reliable evidence of their system and the tribunal will use this and your arguments to decide whether the letter was sent. Or HMRC can say that they have some sort of "understanding" with the FTT about this sort of thing and ask the tribunal not to worry its pretty little head about evidence and stuff like that. In which case the tribunal will have a little laugh and then say there is no robust evidence to show that the letter was sent.

      I thought this proposed change was to do away with the need to show evidence of system every time. It doesn't stop people saying that they never received the notice to file. The proposal is just to prevent the need for HMRC to show every tribunal their evidence of system (not evidence of what the records of the system says in your case as that will still be needed). And without that, you can imagine a situation where everytime this issue comes up it will be raised (since it's worth the shot, HMRC may go off script?) and there will be a twenty minute discussion about what evidence there is that the system sends letters and updates records to say it has sent a letter.

      The proposal also looks like it is limited to a few key systems too. These look like they are quite common ones that seem to be regularly used. It does not cover all systems. So it doesn't for example, include the opening of an enquiry.

      As far democratic scrutiny etc, this is just a proposal at the moment. I'm not aware of any published draft legislation yet. When it is published then people will scrutinise it. People (Law Society, CIOT, ICAEW, anyone who fancies it etc) will brief MPs and MPs will be able to debate it, amend it, get rid of it or accept it. If enough of them accept it it becomes the law. If they want, they could change it to make it a prospective only, they can do so. Fine by me, I have no skin in this game.

      Comment


        #13
        To be honest, I'd trust HMRC's computer to do the right thing far more than I'd trust their compliance officers.

        Give me the computer any day!
        Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Iliketax View Post
          So let me understand this...

          At the moment, HMRC ...
          I've got to say that whilst I have found your contributions to these forums to be accurate, interesting and even occasionally amusing, I would regard the above as viewing things through rose tinted glasses.

          We can point to perhaps half a dozen cases recently where an HMRC officer tells as Tribunal - as part of their evidence - that so and so must have happened, because it always does. When put to proof however, there is none.

          For me this latest attempt to "do as we please rather than as the law requires" is a get out of jail free card for HMRC who, struggling to "prove" anything, now want to blame the computer.

          really?

          You don't think that is HMRC making law and suiting themselves?

          Really?
          Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

          (No, me neither).

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by webberg View Post
            So are they unaccountable because they choose to be?
            Because MPs let them. As long as the money comes in, MPs do not care about suicides.

            To bring HMRC to heel will require revolution.

            Comment


              #16
              good article and a chance to comment

              Tax community slams retrospective tax law change | AccountingWEB

              Well worth reading and responding to.
              Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

              (No, me neither).

              Comment

              Working...
              X