HMRC Is Shite

HMRC Is Shite
Dedicated to the taxpayers of Britain, and the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who have to endure the monumental shambles that is HMRC.

Tuesday, 16 February 2010

Porkies?

PorkiesThe Telegraph claims that HMRC have made a very small U turn wrt their policy on the electronic submission of the Employer Annual Return for businesses with under 50 employees.

HMRC has told employers they could be fined up to £3K if they break HMRC's "law" (I thought parliament made the law?) and submit data on paper.

However, following protests from hard pressed small businesses HMRC now say that employers with between 1 and 5 employees have one more year to comply.

The Telegraph claims that this is a U turn.

HMRC claim that the details were on the HMRC website all along.

The Telegraph cannot find them.

Is HMRC telling porkies here?

Tax does have to be taxing.

Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations

What is TAXWISE?

TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.

To find out more, please use this link Taxwise

Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.

Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies

HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

8 comments:

  1. "HMRC has told employers they could be fined up to £3K if they break HMRC's "law" (I thought parliament made the law?)"

    Where does it say it is HMRC's "law"? I thought it was part of Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations. Are you suggesting parliament was not involved with those regulations?

    In fact isn't this (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/pdf/uksi_20092029_en.pdf) the amendment to those regulations that deals with it and answers the Telegraphs question about emloyers with less than 5 employees. Apparently it went before the House of Commons last year - before the Telegraph asked the question. So (a)HMRC has access to time travel (b)the telegraph didn't do its research (c)the Telegraph "reporter" is lying to make a story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Parliament,s scrutiny of SIs is non-existent, and they would not want to upset the Revenue when an expenses scandal was brewing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous at 14.10

    1. If this article has upset someone within HMRC it has made my day.
    2. You too may be slightly less than frank, because as I see it there is no penalty for companies with 5 or less employees which is not the same as saying the regulations do not apply to those companies, and they will be penalised next year.
    3. I would welcome more input from you on this site - particularly re all the cock-ups previously identified by your shite organisation.

    Oh and by the way is it on HMRCs website?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Instead of St Edwards Crown within the Circle, HMRCs logo should be the Pork Pie or even better a large Turd.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is very useful information for the front line staff taking calls from small employers. It's not only the employers themselves that did not know about this slight u turn.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "This is very useful information for the front line staff taking calls from small employers. It's not only the employers themselves that did not know about this slight u turn."

    I agree, until today I did not know this, only yesterday I was advising employers to write in and appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John B Stryge

    I don't believe MPs worry about HMRC checking up on them or that HMRC has any interest in their expenses. The whole Pantomime with people pretending to repay capital gains tax proved that.

    Anonymous 16:33

    1. It hasn't upset me any more than any other poor quality journalism does. I do believe journalists have a responsibility to try to be accurate, maybe check their information, possibly even do a little research before printing, and not try to cause unnecessary distress/worry/panic for their own benefit.
    2. That may be true however my interpretation, based on reading it very quickly, was that without a threat of a penalty those affected would be under no obligation to comply. Do employers have to file online if they are able to submit on paper without any consequences?
    3. I regularly contribute to this site, criticising and defending HMRC, Ken’s comments or the other media quoted where I feel it is justified. And unfortunately it is not my organisation - I would love to be in charge of everything though :)

    Oh and by the way I have no idea. I haven't looked.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The whole Telegraph article has been re-jigged since I read it earlier. (0)

    ReplyDelete