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, 20 December 2011

The State Displays Self Loathing



When it comes to self loathing, no one and nothing does it better than politicians and the State; especially when they viciously turn on one of their own departments.

Therefore it should come as no surprise whatever to read the "public damnation" of HMRC by the Public Accounts Committee.

PAC Chairman, Margaret Hodge, expresses "righteous anger" at how HMRC handles tax disputes with large corporations and the specific and "systemic failures" within HMRC.

PAC, ever mindful that the government is skint (and desperately needs money in order to keep itslef in the style to which it has become accustomed), expresses outrage at the £25BN of uncollected tax.

For good measure, PAC also lambaste HMRC for trying to maintain confidentiality and for not being transparent.

Well, all of these criticisms may well be valid. However, may I make a few observations from my humble perspective of being a "mere citizen" and not a politician:

1 HMRC is the product of the politicians, in terms of its structure, budget and how it is managed (eg politicians appoint the senior mandarins etc). Therefore the "buck" stops at the feet of the politicians, when it comes to apportioning blame for the failure of HMRC.

2 Has HMRC only just now started "doing deals" with major corporations?

I think not!

This has always been standard practice, the corporations and HMRC "negotiate" a settlement in order to minimise the costs and time spent in a protracted legal battle that neither side is certain who will win.

Why now are politicians (some of whom serve on the boards of large companies) expressing surprise at this and becoming excised over this?

3 To hear politicians bemoan the lack of transparency in an organisation is akin to watching a dog trying to walk on its hind legs.

Hypocrisy writ large!

4 The failings of HMRC are the product of a botched restructuring, poorly skilled senior managers, poor quality training, misdirection of resources, the politicisation of HMRC and an unduly complex and cumbersome tax system etc etc. All of these issues come firmly back to roost in the crow's nest of the government (Labour and Tory administrations alike).

Until the politicians "fess up" to the fact that they are responsible for this failed state "enterprise", nothing will improve.

Here is the summary of the report:

"The Commons Public Accounts Committee publishes its 61st Report of the Session which, on the basis of evidence from the Cabinet Office and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), examined tax disputes. The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, today said:

"This report is a damning indictment of HMRC and the way its senior officials handle tax disputes with large corporations. We uncovered both specific and systemic failures which must be addressed.

There is more than £25 billion outstanding in unresolved tax bills and it is essential that there should be proper accountability to Parliament for the settlements reached by HMRC.

Having looked at the two cases in the public domain, we are concerned that many millions of pounds may be lost to the public purse.

It is extremely disappointing that senior HMRC officials were not prepared to cooperate with our inquiry in a spirit of openness. We accept that there is a need for confidentiality to protect individual taxpayers, but this must not be used as a cloak to protect the Department from scrutiny.

It is absurd that we had to rely on the media and the actions of a whistleblower to find out about the details of individual settlements. Parliament and the public have legitimate concerns that large companies are being treated more favourably than ordinary taxpayers, whether they be small businesses or hard-working families.

The Department's working practices must be seen by the taxpaying public to be absolutely impartial. The impression being given at the moment is quite the opposite, of far too cosy a relationship between HMRC and large companies.

In several cases, HMRC chose to depart from its normal governance procedures. It is extraordinary that the same officials who negotiated deals also approved them. In one instance, a mistake led to a potential £20 million of interest on a tax liability not being collected. Parliament and the public must be assured that settlements do not short-change the Exchequer."

Margaret Hodge was speaking as the committee published its 61st Report of this Session which, on the basis of evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and HM Revenue & Customs (the Department), examined tax disputes.

At 31 March 2011 HM Revenue & Customs (the Department) was seeking to resolve tax issues valued at over £25 billion with large companies, some of which included disputes over outstanding tax. The Department must collect as much outstanding tax as possible and be held properly to account for how it resolves tax disputes. We have serious concerns about how the Department handled some cases involving large settlements, where governance arrangements were bypassed or overlooked until it was too late. In some cases the same officials negotiated and approved the settlements, which is clearly unacceptable.

Investigation of these specific cases has led to serious concern about systemic issues which must be addressed with the utmost urgency. There needs to be proper separation between the negotiation of tax settlements and the authorization of such settlements. And the Department must address issues of accountability so that Parliament and the public can be satisfied that best value is secured.

The Department has made matters worse by trying to avoid scrutiny of these settlements and has consistently failed to give straight answers to our questions about specific cases, which has severely hampered our ability to hold it to account for the settlements reached.

The Department has insisted on keeping confidential the details of specific settlements with large companies, even where there have been legitimate concerns about the handling of cases. Details of some cases only reached the public domain because the press secured the details. We recognise the general intention of the legislation is to keep taxpayers' details confidential, but there is a provision which allows the Commissioners to authorise disclosure in certain circumstances. Furthermore, HMRC has a clear duty to assist Parliament in its work to establish value for money and detailed information can be necessary if Parliament is to properly meet its obligations. Given the public interest in these very large settlements, it is not unreasonable that they should be subject to more specific scrutiny. As it stands, the Department’s decision to withhold details from us reduces transparency and makes it impossible for Parliament to hold Commissioners to account. This situation is entirely unacceptable.

We discovered that the Department's governance processes for large settlements were not applied consistently. In one case, a mistake was not picked up until too late because the Department failed to follow its own governance procedures. The C&AG told us that this resulted in a loss of up to £8 million in interest forgone. We have since received evidence from a whistleblower that the total value of interest payable in respect of this particular settlement could be as high as £20 million. Our understanding of how this case was settled is inhibited by the imprecise, inconsistent and potentially misleading answers given to us by senior departmental officials, including the Permanent Secretary for Tax. In particular, his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on his relationship with Goldman Sachs is less than clear given his evidence to us that he facilitated a settlement with the company over their tax dispute. We expect far greater candour from public officials involved in administering such an important area of government, especially when there is a question about whether HMRC acted within the law and within its protocols. We are concerned that whistleblowers using the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 face threats of dismissal for providing important and relevant information.
 
The Department accepts that its governance arrangements have not provided sufficient assurance and that independent scrutiny of large settlements is needed. It has appointed two new Commissioners with tax expertise, and plans to introduce a new assessor role to permit independent review of large settlements before they are finalised. The Cabinet Secretary assured us that proposals would be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee by Christmas. We welcome these measures, but they will not by themselves guarantee proper accountability. In future, the Department needs to ensure it follows its own governance procedures and checks without exception. In particular, it needs to make sure that in all cases there is a clear separation between the roles of those negotiating and those signing off settlements.
We saw little evidence of a culture of personal accountability within the Department. We were told that one individual was held accountable for the mistake which led to a loss of the interest due to the Department. However, those at the top of the Department also need to take responsibility for how the overall system has been designed and operated, since that is the context in which mistakes have occurred.

We have serious concerns that large companies are treated more favourably by the Department than other taxpayers. We were told by the Cabinet Secretary that the relationship management approach adopted for large companies had been very successful in terms of tax collection. But for the public to have confidence in this approach, the Department's working practices must be seen to be absolutely impartial. The Department has left itself open to suspicion that its relationships with large companies are too cosy. We are also concerned that large companies appear to receive preferential treatment compared to small businesses and individuals – for example, in settling the totals due at less than the sum claimed by HMRC and in the time they are allowed to pay their tax liabilities without incurring interest charges. In order to maintain public confidence, the Department must ensure it avoids any perception of undue leniency in its dealings with large companies and must be seen to treat every taxpayer equally before the law.

We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's proposal to conduct further work to consider the reasonableness of the settlements reached in the specific cases where normal governance processes were not followed, and to report on whether proper legal advice was secured in a timely manner and that HMRC complied with its own published procedures and protocols. The Department has agreed to co-operate fully with this inquiry and with any subsequent hearings we hold."

Here is HMRC's response:


HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has today responded to the report of the Public Accounts Committee into tax disputes. An HMRC spokesman said:

“HM Revenue & Customs rejects the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee that there are systemic failures in the management of tax disputes. The report is based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts.

HMRC's internal processes are robust and this was confirmed by a recent review by the National Audit Office of large business settlements. We agree that public confidence in our processes is important, and as we have already informed the Public Accounts Committee we propose to make further improvements to our governance and to increase transparency about our work with large business. We also welcome the further review that the National Audit Office is to carry out as an opportunity to confirm this and clear up the concerns about foregone millions.”

In response to the specific criticisms, the spokesman said:

1. “specific and systemic failures”
“We acknowledge that a mistake was made in one settlement and explained how this arose. We reject the suggestion that this is evidence of systemic failure. This assertion, based on untested, leaked information, is without foundation. ”

2. “more than £25 billion outstanding in unresolved tax bills”
“We explained to the Committee and again in a letter to the Committee Chair in November that this figure is a ballpark estimate of maximum potential tax liabilities, before a full investigation of the specific facts has taken place, and before applying any reliefs or allowances. It is not actual tax either owed or unpaid. In many cases, when HMRC has looked at the full facts it becomes clear that there is no further liability at all. Tax under consideration is an administrative tool to help us to focus our resources on cases where potential tax liabilities appear to be greatest. It is not tax owed.”

3. “many millions of pounds may be lost to the public purse”
“HMRC’s job is to bring in the tax that’s owed and that’s what we’re doing. We collected a record £468 billion in taxes last year, including more than £13 billion extra from our compliance work. We drew the NAO’s attention to an error in a single case which they then estimated to be between £5 and £8 million.

4. “a mistake led to a potential £20 million of interest on a tax liability not being collected”
“We do not agree this figure. We drew the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General to an error, which he then estimated as between £5 million and £8 million.

5. “it is extremely disappointing that senior HMRC officials were not prepared to cooperate with our inquiry in a spirit of openness. We accept that there is a need for confidentiality to protect individual taxpayers, but this must not be used as a cloak to protect the Department from scrutiny…It is absurd that we had to rely on the media and the actions of a whistleblower to find out about the details of individual settlements.”

“Senior HMRC officials sought to be co-operative by providing as much information as possible within the legal constraints of taxpayer confidentiality under which they work. Taxpayer confidentiality is a legal requirement, fundamental to tax administration in the UK and across the world. Parliamentary scrutiny is delivered via the NAO to whom HMRC provide unfettered access to all their papers.”

6. “Parliament and the public have legitimate concerns that large companies are being treated more favourably than ordinary taxpayers… “
“HMRC treats all taxpayers even-handedly, supporting the majority who comply with their duty to pay their taxes, and cracking down hard on evaders, avoiders and fraudsters.
“It is wrong to suggest that HMRC officials are too lenient on large businesses. Large businesses pay around 60 per cent of total UK tax receipts, and account for more than half of the £13.9 billion additional compliance revenues that we brought in last year.
“Large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain’s public finances would be seriously damaged. HMRC's large business strategy is now being adopted by other tax administrations around the world.

7. “in several cases, HMRC chose to depart from its normal governance procedures. It is extraordinary that the same officials who negotiated deals also approved them.”

“We have already informed the Committee of the action we have taken to ensure that in any case where an HMRC Commissioner has been involved in negotiations, the settlement decision is made under a ‘dual key’ approach by two different Commissioners. We have also written to the Committee with proposals to further strengthen our internal governance. These further changes will be agreed with our new Chief Executive in the New Year.


Tax does have to be taxing.

UK EXPATS: Reduce tax on UK Pensions
HMRC QROPS provider. Unlock your UK pension and access a 25% lump sum today.

Quote ID code "ABC" when contacting a QROPS specialist.

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"

33 comments:

  1. Ken, I agree with the hypocracy of politicians who you rightly say drew up the tax system in the first place. However HMRC are as arrogant as ever in failing to fess up to clear failings (or should i say sheer incompitence). Responsibility should be at the top but clearly this shower at EXCOM as clearly still in denial that they have done nothing wrong. This PAC should not be the end of the matter I am hoping that more whistleblowers come forward with irrefutable evidence and the have the full protection of the law to blow HMRC out of the water and in an ideal Capt Jack with it. I also hope that the press keep this in the public eye like the MP expenses scandal so it doesnt get lost in the mists of time. HMRC isn't rotten to the core..its rotten at the core.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although the tax system was drawn up by politicians is it safe to assume that the likes of Straithie, Hartnett and Inglese had a hand or two in there.

    I expect the spin will be good what ever happens as if there is one thing HMRC are good at it is spin. I remember listening to my partners boss waffling on about things when I challenged them about why my partner was being bullied. They had lots to say but the outcome was the same, they are now not my partners boss.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who are the two tax experts who will be coming onto EXCOM i'm pretty sure Hartnetts replacement Lin Homer isnt one. Also i didnt realise that weasel clasper was going too, whats his excuse, retirement, shuffled of to some other department???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like the prime minister is defending HMRC's position. Either he is a twat or the top guys at HMRC are about to be Foxed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 11:45 Yes David Gauke has stated "The government has full confidence in HMRC and its current leadership. I welcome the fact that the department is already taking steps to strengthen its governance further, including the appointment of two new commissioners with tax and financial expertise" is this prick blind or something, its obvious they dont want to get involved too much would be a hornets nest eg MP's on executive boards of big companies etc. why havent the government forced HMRC to be more transparent and lift the confidentiality (as much as they legally can).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do you think a government e-petiton would be worth starting demanding that HMRC's actions should be debated and why they were not forced to openly answer the PAC's questions and instead hide behind percieved customer confidentiality?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @20 December 2011 12:02

    No, the e-petition system is for getting parliament to hold debates. In case you have not noticed HMRC are not answerable to parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 12:02 Of course you are right, it would seem only the NAO have the power to oversee HMRC (and only indirectly and after the event). This is clearly outrageous, heres hoping if there are any reforms which there must be then this is top of the list. Otherwise its business as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  9. i wonder what bollocks will be on the HMRC intranet today trying to justify the top brasses actions and the fallout, to its staff today. Should be good for a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The report is based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts."

    This is a funny one when you think about how hard it was to get a straight answer out of Straithie Harnett and Inglese.

    ReplyDelete
  11. HMRC – "We collected a record £468 billion in taxes last year"

    NAO – "HMRC collected £469 billion in revenue."
    11Source: HMRC Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11

    taxes, revenue, what's the difference... just the odd billion between friends (who cares).

    And in case you can't work it out, £469 billion minus £468 billion = £1billion.

    Statistics, statistics and damn lies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The two new tax commisioners are Stephen Banyard and Simon Bowles.

    Banyard has been acting up as Bernadette Kenny's replacement for over a year. So hasn't even got a permanent post on the board (which is v odd).

    Banyard has tax experience.

    They were announced just before it was announced that two commisioners were leaving (Strathie and Hartnett).

    So as usual, two steps forward, two steps back.

    ReplyDelete
  13. it is probably worth remembering HMRC doesn't just collect income tax from the poor...

    Income Tax: £157.2bn
    National Insurance Contributions: £96.9bn
    VAT: £90.3bn
    Excise Duties: £46.0bn
    Corporation Tax: £45.9bn
    Other taxes and duties: £32.6bn

    and spends just £264m on Business Tax out of £4.1billion

    Sickness absence levels remain high, with on average 9.65 working days lost per full time employee in 2010-11.

    Source: HMRC Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11
    10121595es.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  14. HMRC –
    2. “more than £25 billion outstanding in unresolved tax bills”
    “We explained to the Committee and again in a letter to the Committee Chair in November that this figure is a ballpark estimate of maximum potential tax liabilities, before a full investigation of the specific facts has taken place, and before applying any reliefs or allowances. It is not actual tax either owed or unpaid. In many cases, when HMRC has looked at the full facts it becomes clear that there is no further liability at all. Tax under consideration is an administrative tool to help us to focus our resources on cases where potential tax liabilities appear to be greatest. It is not tax owed.”

    NAO –
    At 31 March 2011, the Department was investigating over 2,700 issues with the largest companies, with estimated tax under consideration of £25.5 billion.

    Source: HMRC Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11

    NOW if I was to submit HMRC's statement as part of my tax return I think I might be legally liable for misleading and fraudulent behaviour. Shame these people receive special treatment.

    LYING BASTRADS

    ReplyDelete
  15. In March 2011, 2007 issues pursuing 25.5 billion but by December ALL issues have been resolved and no liability whatsoever... excellent.

    what were they doing pursuing 2007 issues for £25.5billion if not a single amount was recoverable?

    sounds like somebody doesn't know what the f*kc they were doing – wasting more taxpayers money?

    and HMRC expects 'respect'?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Can HMRC arrange for the "Spokesperson" to be moved to a call centre. They seem to be able to respond quicker than the current staff.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Excellent article Ken. For your amusement here is David Gaukes message (Bollocks) to staff.

    Exchequer Secretary writes to staff
    following Public Accounts Committee
    criticism of HMRC

    20 December 2011

    Dear colleagues

    I know that the publicity about the Public Accounts Committee report into HMRC's
    large business tax settlements will have concerned many of you, and I want to assure
    you of my continuing support for HMRC and for all of you working with such
    commitment and professionalism to secure the tax revenues for the country. I have
    full confidence in HMRC and its current leadership.

    While I agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the public needs confidence
    in the way that HMRC carries out its functions, I am disappointed that the committee
    has failed to acknowledge the valuable contribution that HMRC’s current approach
    to large business makes to the Exchequer and to reducing the national deficit. It
    is a shame that the controversy over a couple of cases has eclipsed the great work
    happening generally with large businesses, which together account for around 60 per
    cent of UK tax receipts.

    In my view, HMRC is taking positive steps to strengthen its governance, including
    with the recent appointment of two new Commissioners with tax and financial
    expertise.

    Last year, the Department brought in record revenues of £468 billion for the UK,
    including £13.9 billion that would otherwise have been lost to tax avoidance, evasion
    and fraud. More than half of this was secured directly from large business. HMRC
    could not have achieved this success without the hard work of all its people.

    It is clear that HMRC’s strategy for large business is working. Revenues collected
    from large businesses continue to grow, while HMRC’s approach provides
    greater certainty for business. HMRC's strategy is now being adopted by other tax
    administrations around the world.

    I hope that during the coming weeks there will be some clarity and closure on
    the recent issues, so that we can all start to focus on the great work I know the
    Department will deliver in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @20 December 2011 17:18

    Buttering the staff up ready for the new pension deal coming in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If all tax payers are treated equally then why are the records of judges and mp's for example only accessible by tax inspectors?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @12:32 the internal spin machine at HMRC has been on full cycle today!

    With gems such as "20 things the PAC report got wrong"!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "6. ...Large businesses pay around 60 per cent of total UK tax receipts..."

    Utter bullshit!!

    How much of this was extracted from their employees in the form of PAYE & NIC? Just check out the figures on @13:16 post

    ReplyDelete
  22. @20 December 2011 18:58

    If you say so.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Open issues – 'it does not represent tax owed or unpaid'

    Quote – 1 The value of an open issue is the amount of ‘tax under consideration’. The tax under consideration in an enquiry is an estimate before any consideration of the specific facts has taken place and before any reliefs or allowances are applied. It does not represent tax owed or unpaid. The tax under consideration for a given risk is updated when the Department’s view on the possible outcome of the enquiry changes, for example, because new facts are established or legal adviceis obtained.

    2 The value of open issues is a snapshot as at 31 March each year. It includes issues which were opened in previous years that have not been resolved.

    3 The amount of tax under consideration is normally entered by the relevant Tax Specialist under the supervision of the taxpayer’s Customer Relationship Manager, who is responsible for the quality and content of the data.

    Source: National Audit Office analysis of HM Revenue & Customs data

    source
    Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on HM Revenue & Customs 2010-11 Accounts Part Two R17

    What I still don't get is the HMRC declaration that there are now NO 'open issues' remaining and the £25.5 billion (how much) has been reduced to zero and 'open issues' are accounted for EVERY year in the HMRC Annual Report and Accounts.

    (In other words, between now and the end of the accounting year, magically new 'open issues' will arrive and be accounted for in the A&R but as of December 2011 there are none, according to a HMRC spokesperson).

    Magic...

    and these people (HMRC) are responsible for accounting at HMRC?

    Interestingly 'open issues' in the last five years were –
    2007 – 35,067 billion
    2008 – 33.975 billion
    2009 – 26.939 billion
    2010 – 33.429 billion
    2011 – 25.516 billion

    but now, according to HMRC spokesperson it is it's 0.00000

    well, we will just have to wait and see the next set of HMRC Annual Report and Accounts

    But it either sounds like HMRC guesswork, HMRC bullshit or HMRC creative accounting that the rest of us are not clever enough to understand. Oh sorry it's an 'estimate' (with no foundation?)

    HMRC Respect?

    and you wonder why people are 'angry'!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Does anybody bother to check the FACTS?

    20 December 2011 19:12

    (while acknowledging, not necessarily the same debate, and your comments are misleading, just for a change – HMRC staff obviously)

    they don't get off that easily –

    "The 770 largest companies are dealt with by the Department’s Large Business Service, and in aggregate accounted for over a third of all revenues from Corporation Tax, VAT, PAYE Income Tax and National Insurance contributions in 2010-11"

    source
    R16 Part Two Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on HM Revenue & Customs 2010-11 Accounts

    so add in the remaining 'large companies'

    TAKE THE TROUBLE TO CHECK YOUR FACTS

    Whoooaaahhh not HMRC... make it up as you go along.

    ReplyDelete
  25. settlement deals for big business?

    Litigation and Settlement Strategy
    The Department’s Litigation and Settlement Strategy2.10 5 sets out its framework for concluding tax disputes, whether by agreement with the taxpayer or by litigation (which includes referral to the Tribunals as well as referral to the courts). The Litigation and Settlement Strategy applies to all disputes involving tax, duties, or tax credits. It was introduced in May 2007 with the aim of bringing consistency to the way that the Department resolves disputes, and ending the practice of agreeing settlements for a proportion of the tax under dispute (‘compromise deals’) or settling several issues for a single sum (‘package deals’).

    source
    R20 Part Two Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on HM Revenue & Customs 2010-11 Accounts

    CLEARLY DEALS WERE BEING DONE –

    and ending the practice of agreeing settlements for a proportion of the tax under dispute

    (‘compromise deals’), (‘package deals’).

    Comptroller and Auditor General words, in PRINT not mine. (truth too hard to handle?)

    We were NOT all being treated fairly.

    Cameron – another lying bastard

    there's a surprise.

    'the truth is out there!'

    LOOK!

    ReplyDelete
  26. @20 December 2011 20:57

    Indeed I do say so.

    ReplyDelete
  27. what isn't stated anywhere is how long these 'open issues' or outstanding accounts actually go back (or the 'avoidance tactics' {as acknowledged by NAO] used by mega corps).

    why can't HMRC demand inital payment and then sort out reconcilliation as appropriate...

    you know a bit like the rest of us!

    i.e mega corps to prove they DON't have that liability.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I see HMRC congratulate themselves on the robustness of our tax system on the basis it is being adopted elsewhere

    there was once a time when half the world was under our influence, (adopting or having our policies hoisted upon them) so that's a credible valid qualification

    maybe we should be asking Emily Pankhurst and Alan Turing

    ReplyDelete
  29. @20 December 2011 21:21

    By this time next year HMRC will have been privatised entirely at the behest of the conservative government/the taxpayers alliance/HMRCisShite etc.

    I look forward to seeing the annual report then... What, only available to shareholders? No public scrutiny????


    why can't HMRC demand inital payment and then sort out reconcilliation as appropriate...

    you know a bit like the rest of us!

    i.e mega corps to prove they DON't have that liability.


    You mean you'd be happy with the fact when your tax code reflects the extra untaxed income you owe, the extra tax can be taken in one payment from your wages?

    So, let's say your salary is £13,000 and in March 2012 you tell HMRC you had a taxable benefit in the tax year of £3,000 for a company car for the year ending 5 April 2012.

    You would be happy for the tax on that benefit to be taken in one payment (some £600) from your salary, leaving you with about £300 in your march salary?

    Great. Here HMRC/Inland Revenue/HMIT thought they were being helpful for the past 40 odd years by spreading tax underpayments over a year. But, if it's a customer demand that HMRC take the tax all in one go then surely it's a customer service that HMRC takes the payment on the customers wishes.

    20 December 2011 21:54

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I look forward to seeing the annual report then... What, only available to shareholders? No public scrutiny????"

    No change there then.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "No change there then" - said a commentator on HMRC is shite.

    What the flying &&&& are you talking about? The annual report for 2011 is available publicly on the interweb thingy you are using now.


    Sorry I forget HMRC must do absolutely everything on behalf of a customer.

    Next you'll be saying HMRC didn't advise you against eating yellow snow and therefore they are responsible for any illness caused by ingesting such a concoction.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "What the flying &&&& are you talking about?"

    How do we know the annual report is a true reflection of what HMRC is actually doing/done.

    "Sorry I forget HMRC must do absolutely everything on behalf of a customer."

    My experience with HMRC shows me that they are not capable of doing much for me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. At the chance of looking like old fogeys from a technology previous, some of this technology of youth is repugnant to see.



    Tax forms

    ReplyDelete