Changing the rules - again Changing the rules - again
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,326

    Default Changing the rules - again

    Securing the tax base: affirming the legislative framework for HMRC to use automated processes - GOV.UK

    I like to think that whilst I show some passion around certain issues, I've tried to see both sides of the equation, contractor and HMRC.

    The above however has so unbalanced the equation that I'm beginning to think that I've been foolish. Perhaps balance and reasonableness have packed their bags and gone home.

    This notice says that HMRC has persuaded Government to change the law so that their many errors caused by relying on a system designed to issue penalties and surcharges via computer and which will cover up HMRC actually obeying the law.

    This makes me furious.

    I'm astounded that Parliament - already deceived by HMRC over the loan charge - has now slipped through a pernicious and simply wrong piece of legislation.

    I'll add more once I've calmed dow,
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  2. #2

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    437

    Default

    This paragraph is beautifully ironic.

    This measure will have effect both prospectively and retrospectively. There will be no adverse impacts on taxpayers.

  3. #3

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    The above however has so unbalanced the equation
    How so?

  4. #4

    I Am Legend


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    104,707

    Default

    In 2008 my MPs was one of those on the finance committee that approved BN66/S58. I went to see him. He had no idea what HMRC were putting in front of him.

    Nothing changes. Still tail wagging the dog.

    If you vote against HMRC changes(finance act) you vote down the government. So changing HMRC will need revolution.

  5. #5

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    19,656

    Default

    "We have done nothing wrong in the past, we will do nothing wrong in the future."

    I guess that this makes HMRC untouchable??

  6. #6

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iliketax View Post
    How so?
    Taxpayers and their advisers look at the law and if honest will attempt to follow the law. They can see only what the law says and how this is interpreted by the Courts.

    The law clearly said that HMRC had to follow certain steps in order to properly open enquiries etc.

    HMRC decided that some form of automation was required if they were to "do more with less".

    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.

    They did not. They were arrogant enough to think that they could step outside the law and apply processes and decisions that were in the eyes of many, more about collecting money than being fair or obeying the laws that taxpayers and advisers were obliged to.

    Then the Courts recognised that HMRC was operating outside the law and collecting money unlawfully.

    HMRC response?

    Retrospective law.

    If one party is obeying the law and one is ignoring it, knowing that they can persuade Parliament to make retrospective changes, I'll be bold and say that to me and many advisers and almost all taxpayers, that is an unbalanced equation.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  7. #7

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    Taxpayers and their advisers look at the law and if honest will attempt to follow the law. They can see only what the law says and how this is interpreted by the Courts.

    The law clearly said that HMRC had to follow certain steps in order to properly open enquiries etc.

    HMRC decided that some form of automation was required if they were to "do more with less".

    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.

    They did not. They were arrogant enough to think that they could step outside the law and apply processes and decisions that were in the eyes of many, more about collecting money than being fair or obeying the laws that taxpayers and advisers were obliged to.

    Then the Courts recognised that HMRC was operating outside the law and collecting money unlawfully.

    HMRC response?

    Retrospective law.

    If one party is obeying the law and one is ignoring it, knowing that they can persuade Parliament to make retrospective changes, I'll be bold and say that to me and many advisers and almost all taxpayers, that is an unbalanced equation.

    So much for democracy.

  8. #8

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I saw something about this new law posted by on twitter by Mr Gordon last night. Has this actually been made law or is this what is being put up in front of MPs

    So I guess I mean can this be challenged.

    For a humble person like me it says HMRC are suddenly realising they have been acting shall we say a little naughty. By passing this law is says you cannot take us or any of the senior HMRC people to court. If I were a little more pragmatic it says heck we could be in trouble here lets start protecting ourselves as we are in deep here.
    Last edited by lowpaidworker; 1st November 2019 at 12:20.

  9. #9

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,326

    Default

    This announcement and the promise of legislation to back it, is unfortunately a symptom of a decline in HMRC in pretty much every way imaginable. We will see worse than this before Government wakes up to the fact that HMRC is dangerously out of control and unaccountable and has some sort of root and branch review of that department of Government.

    Sadly for all of us, HMG chooses, via unquestioning MP's willing to believe the lies, to ignore the fact that their revenue gathering branch has lost all respect and is instead feared.

    Taxation should be based on a covenant. We all want to live in a society that has standards and codes. We all accept that providing those standards costs money. We all accept that HMRC is a vehicle collecting that money. We are all entitled to believe that the rules HMG enacts to limit HMRC's ability to take your money are respected by all parties.

    In my view, this sort of activity from HMRC is breaching that covenant.

    This is HMRC saying that even though they got it wrong and either did not understand the law or worse - chose to ignore it - they can still operate without restriction.

    This is HMRC saying that the protection they have from HMG is so strong that they are unaccountable.

    We should therefore be terrified of this situation because seemingly the Judiciary is incapable of tempering this attitude (because HMRC will simply persuade the legislators to write laws reversing any case they lose) and the Executive is largely complicit.

    An extreme example of this can be seen in Jesse Norman's response to questioning over the loan charge. It was put to him that people had committed suicide over the loan charge. He argues that it may be 3 or 4 rather than the 7 claimed - what! He also argues that the expected tax to be collected - a figure that has had NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY AND NO HMRC EXPLANATION worth the name or capable of objective audit - justifies the mental torment of the victims and their families. WHAT!

    I'm not an advocate of revolution. I have always considered that ultimately the rule of law will prevail and that HMRC would be forced to obey the law.

    My faith in that is badly damaged.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  10. #10

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    This announcement and the promise of legislation to back it, is unfortunately a symptom of a decline in HMRC in pretty much every way imaginable. We will see worse than this before Government wakes up to the fact that HMRC is dangerously out of control and unaccountable and has some sort of root and branch review of that department of Government.

    Sadly for all of us, HMG chooses, via unquestioning MP's willing to believe the lies, to ignore the fact that their revenue gathering branch has lost all respect and is instead feared.

    Taxation should be based on a covenant. We all want to live in a society that has standards and codes. We all accept that providing those standards costs money. We all accept that HMRC is a vehicle collecting that money. We are all entitled to believe that the rules HMG enacts to limit HMRC's ability to take your money are respected by all parties.

    In my view, this sort of activity from HMRC is breaching that covenant.

    This is HMRC saying that even though they got it wrong and either did not understand the law or worse - chose to ignore it - they can still operate without restriction.

    This is HMRC saying that the protection they have from HMG is so strong that they are unaccountable.

    We should therefore be terrified of this situation because seemingly the Judiciary is incapable of tempering this attitude (because HMRC will simply persuade the legislators to write laws reversing any case they lose) and the Executive is largely complicit.

    An extreme example of this can be seen in Jesse Norman's response to questioning over the loan charge. It was put to him that people had committed suicide over the loan charge. He argues that it may be 3 or 4 rather than the 7 claimed - what! He also argues that the expected tax to be collected - a figure that has had NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY AND NO HMRC EXPLANATION worth the name or capable of objective audit - justifies the mental torment of the victims and their families. WHAT!

    I'm not an advocate of revolution. I have always considered that ultimately the rule of law will prevail and that HMRC would be forced to obey the law.

    My faith in that is badly damaged.
    That statement above should make its was to APPG. Surely they can't just pass laws like this. Someone or some committee must have some sort of scrutiny. If we are saying this is MPs job but they don't understand it then they need to understand it. Someone should just explain it and what it will mean to pass this law.

    Everyone and I mean everyone has to be accountable surely ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •