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.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

Troops In Afghanistan Fined For Late Tax Returns


The Tax Office says that troops in Afghanistan will be fined if they are late with there tax returns Bloody Crazy, Pls RT

Source BBC

"Members of the armed forces serving in Afghanistan could be fined if they fail to submit their tax returns by the January 31st deadline.

There have been calls for them to be given more time, but the tax office says if the paperwork is late, they must impose a £100 fine."

Evidently serving your country does not constitute a "reasonable excuse" for late submission!

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 (, also available via the domain, is brought to you by "The Living Brand"


  1. There is a place in Hell reserved for the chief executive of HMRC. Or perhaps a place in Helmand Province

  2. Not everyone has to complete a Return. And I expect that a member of the Armed Forces, being stationed in Afghanistan for a large part of the year will have reasonable grounds for appeal. This is really just scaremongering and ridiculous. The penalty issues are computerised - everyone whose Return hasn't been logged to their records - electronically - as we are talking about the online filing date - will get an automatic penalty and then need to take appropriate action. Higher rate taxpayers, income from self employment, people who have ceased self employment but didn't advise HMRC before the cut off date for electonic selection of Return issue have to complete them. Ther's probably not many higher rate/self empoyed soldiers in our Armed Forces!

    The Return to be completed by 31 January 2012 shows income people received up to 5 April 2011. Why are people getting so worked up over penalties? There has been 9 months to get it submitted - if you haven't and left it to the last minute its not HMRCs fault. It is down to the individual. As a PAYE taxpayer - I refuse to call myself a customer - I don't have the right to estimate what tax I'm due to pay - why should the self employed? My tax is taken off me each month and I have to live on what's left. Why should self employed/higher rate taxpayers be allowed to get away with being allowed not to account for their income - 9 months after they've received it? THERE'S A RECESSION ON - PAYE taxpayers are paying their dues, on time, so should everyone.

    The Government makes the laws - penalty legislation is laid down in the Taxes Acts - HMRC is, in this instance doing exactly whet the elected representatives of this country have told them to.

    You have had 9 months to collate the information - if you chose not to, pay the price - and pay your fine. If only I could decide what not to pay my tax (or put money aside to pay it at a later date) this month I might be able to pay by mortgage. STOP BLEATING ABOUT PENALTIES

  3. Will you please stop this tabloid nonsense Ken?

    You know full well the issue of a penalty is automatic (old or new), no HMRC staff member is involved in the issue of a penalty. A computer doesn't know whether a member of the armed forces happens to be serving in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. In fact no one in HMRC would know whether someone was serving in Afghanistan unless the MOD shared the whereabouts of all the armed forces with HMRC and I can't imagine anyone in the army or even outside the army being happy with that.

    The reasonable excuse must cover the period of default (Ministry of Justice's tribunals words, not HMRC's), so if someone who is currently serving in Afghanistan files the return after 31 January because they were otherwise occupied, then the fine would be cancelled, usually on the strength of a letter sent with the return or other correspondence.

    If this is such a huge issue then why has it not been highlighted in the 14 years since self assessment was introduced by John Majors government?

    You would have thought that at least one of the types of people who are in the army who had extra tax to pay (and so still faced a penalty e.g. it wasn't reduced) would have gone to the Special Commissioners/Tribunal Service by now.

    I'm also secretly giggling at the fact that to collect the money, IQOR and whoever the other company is that HMRC has outsourced debt collection to wouldn't even dare send one of their representatives out to Helmand in order to sieze their assets.

    1. I agree with others that this is to a certain extent a non story but I just wanted to add that IQOR would not worry about going to where the person is serving. They would just harass the family back here in the UK.

      And yes I speak from experience.

    2. I imagine you do. I've had dealings with similar companies in the past who have all sorts of ways of weaselling out of things.

      They aren't accountable to anyone because they can hide behind the fact that they are 1. a private company only accountable to the people that employ them and b. they are a private company employed by the government so they can just point back to the government.

      It must be great being a private company on the state payroll, they can fellate themselves in public and no one can do a thing about it.

  4. That's not good, two people who are HMRC staff happen to agree with eachother. That means that HMRC staff are acting consistently,

    Which in the eyes of most commenters on this site is not a good thing.

    Despite those same commenter’s wanting HMRC staff to act consistently.

    Despite those same commenter’s NOT wanting HMRC staff to act consistently when it suits them.

    Despite those same commenter’s wanting HMRC staff to act consistently.

    Despite those same commenter’s NOT wanting HMRC staff to act consistently when it suits them.

    I'm sure I've had this sense of Déjà vu before.

    Hello, my name is Erwin Schrödinger. I have placed a cat named Lesley Strathie in a box and I'm not sure if the cat is in fact dead or alive, perhaps I'd better check wikipedia and find out.

  5. And I suspect loads of people will flood in to say that the penalty issue is "bureaucracy gone mad".

    Well here's the thing....

    No HMRC staff actually issue a penalty. It's all done by a computer

    The computer is programmed by someone who doesn't work for HMRC, they work for a company that HMRC has been forced to outsource to by the Brown Asterisk

    and yet you people want more HMRC staff to disappear once RTI gets off the ground because you trust computers more than human beings?

  6. Absolutely ridiculous news item, will only cause more abusive for the contact centre staff, I was astounded to see this on BBC this morning. Of course the penalties would be quashed, HMRC would not penalize a taxpayer for being away fighting for Queen and country (so long as it can be proven)! I know HMRC are despised but c'mon people some common sense here!

    I think we should implement the same rules and time restraints as in the USA, we have become a nanny state and should not be leading people by the hand at every turn, after all these tax returns were issued on 6th April 2011, the majority of the taxpayers have and will complete them on time. Its generally the same people every year who are late and feign ignorance!

    1. Because it grabs headlines. It gets the 'something must be done' brigade all riled up to fight against a problem that doesn't even exist.

      I've worked for HMRC for several years and I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times I've had a query from someone in the currently serving armed forces about unpaid/undeclared tax.

    2. Of course it would be withdrawn it is just another slag off HMRC staff headline. If these 'journalists' dug a little deeper they would discover that themselves. With the pension talks fiasco the tory press has to make joe public think HMRC staff all a bunch of heartless bastards who don't deserve to live never mind get the pensions they have worked for. Where were the headlines when Jack ripped off the country via his deals with goldman suchs and avoidaphone? I am surprised to see the headline here. I thought this site had a little more intelligence.

    3. I posted the orig comment, I have worked for them for some time too and see penalties cancelled for a lot less, I suspect the headline maybe as noted above to make the public detest HMRC even more than they do, especially with further union action swiftly approaching - may I add at this point that its NOT to do with the pensions fiasco but with the possible privatisation of the contact centres.

      The intelligence on the site has been lacking for some time, this site is no longer for HMRC employees too, its just a whipping board for the public and sites like this make our job 100 times harder than it already is, as the majority of our contact with the public is now abusive and its only going to get worse. If there were other jobs in the private sector in my region I would be gone and will be as soon as find another position, am looking as we speak!

    4. @10:12 AM

      It will get worse before it gets better. It's such a vast organisation that the senior staff can act slopey-shouldered when things go wrong at the arse-end of the work HMRC staff do.

      They don't have to listen to the telephone calls, or face the enquiry centre customers or or respond to the letters that are written in. If members of the public have an image of those in whitehall sitting in ivory towers, civil servants actually get to see the image with their own eyes!

      What's worse is more often than not, they aren't in whitehall, they are sitting about 75 feet away from me, telling me that I'm useless because I didn't hit the arbitrary target they set for me a week ago without them actually understanding the work, just sitting there in front of a graph.

    5. @Tonk

      The person who updates the computer is not an HMRC employee. They are a Fujitsu employee.

  7. In other news....


    A special report compiled by News International, Associated Newspapers and Express Newspapers

  8. We constantly hear about penalties and fines being issued by every body and their mother and often, record fines. These fines tend to be issued by so called authorities desparate for cash because far too many public services are running out of money, now that rules and business practices that are applied in the productive or private sector, are, to some degree, starting to be applied to the non productive or public sector.
    I would hope that the inland revenue or what ever they're called this week, whose flag used to be a fist squeezing blood from a stone, would cancel these penalties if they were appealed. I know the so called fines are issued by a computer but, a computer can only do what it is told to do, so it has been instructed to issue these fines at some point in time.

    I do feel that all too often, businesses and organisations in all sectors, try to hide behind the "it was the computer's fault" coverall as if the computer was some sort of separate alien life form completely detatched from that business or organisation that acts alone.

    1. I know it's tempting to say it's a case of "Computer says no" here.

      Unfortunately the penalty has already been issued. The only thing an HMRC staff member can do is cancel the penalty using common sense or not cancel the penalty if a lack of common sense has been demonstrated.

      The amount of letters received that have a sentence that begins with "Surely/Clearly you should...." and usually end with a conclusion where the assumption is made that HMRC should 'do something' that would require extensive personal knowledge of that person (what with the UK suffering very sudden population explosion of 61 million adults according to one of the adults who post here). Well surely we should, as long as surely we are told!

    2. Productive private sector? Give me a break. That red-haired woman got rid of that several years ago.

      If they are so productive why do they need to rely on fines to generate income?

      Examples of private sector firms that are non-productive:

      Debt Collection Agencies


      Ambulance-chasing insurance companies


      Debt Collection Agencies

      Tourism Companies that sell you a flight to somewhere that isn't the UK.


      The conservative party.


      Electric Companies who charge you based on a meter reading. They don't produce the electric, the power stations are still in public ownership in fact in the 1980's the Tory Government succeeded in selling you something you already own!

      Gas Companies who charge you based on a meter reading. They don't produce the Gas, the power stations are still in public ownership, in fact in the 1980's the Tory Government succeeded in selling you something you already own!

      Water companies. You get to charge me nearly £500 a year for some arbitrary reason I cannot fathom.

      Capita or ATOS (Crapatos). They have several large government contracts and none of them are productive. Unless you count self-fellating as productive.

    3. And anyway Tonk shouldn't you get back to studying witchcraft or something?

    4. @Tonk
      The person who updates the computer is not an HMRC employee. They are a Fujitsu employee.

      HMRC employee = public sector

      Fujitsu employee = private sector

      "now that rules and business practices that are applied in the productive or private sector, are, to some degree, starting to be applied to the non productive or public sector."

      No, it's private sector rules being applied to the non productive private sector and it's going to increase in this manner until the conservative party leadership reaches the point of orgasm.

      HMRC employees are going out on strike against increasing privatisation. It's not about our pockets. SITEL and Teleperformance don't employ us, but will employ those who are paid £3000 less than us to do a worse job than us because they will receive no training.

      If the advisers on the agency contract do a bad job then it will be used as an excuse get rid of more 'useless public sector staff' whilst hiding the fact that none of the staff were in fact public sector staff.

      Cunservatos Party own goal unless you let this happen.

    5. @Tonk

      "We constantly hear about penalties and fines being issued by every body and their mother and often, record fines."

      Please name some...

      Or is that a case of some kind of newsbite that you cannot back up with anything?

    6. Morning all,

      Thanks for you kind comments. Lol

      Sorry it took a while to reply; I've been perfecting my witchcraft techniques; we Warlocks must keep our skills up to date.
      Firstly, I must apologise for having an opinion; something not allowed in Nanny's brave new world and of course, expressing said opinion is an even greater sin.

      Whilst I accept ambulance chasing firms and other examples of dodgy businesses mentioned above may well be morally or ethically wrong, they are productive in the sense they generate cash.
      All public services cost us all money and, in general terms, tend to be inefficient compared to private businesses which have no bottomless pit of capital.

      My comments, if you read them carefully, were general comments about our nation today; many businesses and agencies etc do issue so called fines.....Examples for the person that asked;
      Banking regulator
      Railway regulator
      Many trade bodies
      Car Park owners
      Local Authorities
      Civil enforcement officers.

      HMRC may well use penalties as an incentive to get quicker payment's etc but, sometimes, for those of us outside of the HMRC village, they appear to be little more than a cash generating scheme.
      I don't often contribute to these pages as I am usually abused by those inside of HMRC that post on here. It is sad that some of those that do so, don't use comments by people like me as feedback and take from it an idea of how many people feel about the services offered by HMRC and other public bodies.
      I think that commitment to ones employer's organisation is a fine thing but, at some point, commitment and loyalty becomes brown nosing or delusional. There is a generally accepted concept that politicians are out of touch with the people they serve and have little grasp of what happens in the real world, outside of the Westminster village; looking at some of the comments on here, perhaps the same applies to those inside the HMRC village.

      Wrt The Computer says no; I stated that I was talking in general terms about all sectors. The really frustrating thing for those of us that use those businesses and organisations, is that the person one usually gets through to, is not able to use commonsense and is not permitted to over rule the computer; I don't know whether that applies to HMRC or not but, as previously stated, I was talking in general terms.

      Wrt public sector updating public sector computers; again, these companies can only do what they're told to do by that public body.....I accept that public body may well have its hands tied by Parliament.

      If I can be of any further assistance and assuming I can be bothered, please feel free to post again and I shall do my best to furnish you with a reply.

      Kindest regards

      Tonk. (retired witch)

    7. How can anonymously commenting on a website be considered brown nosing? Do you think the people here go back to work on Mondays and say "Hey, look at these comments I left on HMRCisShite".

      That would truly be delusional.

  9. Twisting words much?

    No one has suggested that it was the computers fault. Only that increasing automation will also bring increasing problems such as those highlighted all over this blog. I completely agree. A computer can only act on information fed in to it.

    If "businesses and organisations in all sectors, try to hide behind the "it was the computer's fault"". Does that not indicate something to you? i.e. that you cannot replace a human with a computer?

    Why didn't you register this protest several years ago when HMRC staff were reduced by 50% over 5 years and the decision making was made by a computer? you (not being a computer) should have seen this coming.

    The reason it's being seen as a coverall is because you accepted it at the time. You accepted this automation because it achieved the goal of cutting jobs. You didn't take a stand then so why should you pretend you are acting on behalf of the public now?

    There has been absolutely no argument here on this site that the penalties would be cancelled.

    1. I agree with many of your points.
      Organisations have in many cases, dumbed down their customer service section. They have taken the decision making out of the hands of the operator and put it into the hands of the computer; this allows the organisation to employ less able staff....Supermarket check outs are a prime example.
      I stated at the time that I did not support the culling of front line staff that deal with the "customer"(sic) through human contact but, I did and still do, support the reduction of the many levels of management that infest so many of our public bodies.
      Whilst it is possible to replace humans with machines and robots in many field, it is my opinion that computer technology is still not well enoughed advanced to allow machines to replace humans that interact with other humans on a one to one basis; we all get frustrated by automated phone systems etc.
      At the time, I stated that I thought the merger of the IR with HMC was a crazy idea and nothing has changed my mind so far.

      I don't want to cut jobs, but I do wish to see publically funded organisations working efficiently and giving value for money.....Mr Brown used to proudly boast that he had thrown a pile of money at this or than, but never looked at whether value for money was being given. If I can buy a Mars bar for fifty pence, I would expect to be able to buy two for a Pound not just one and a little bit; this is what appeared to happen in many of our public services, including the one I worked in until I retired. More and more money was swallowed up but, productivity went down. More and more non jobs appeared and more and more managers and consultants appeared.

      I don't doubt that the penalties in the situation described would be cancelled, I am however sad that they would have been issued in the first place, our troops and their families, whom I support, if not their mission, have enough to worry about whilst fighting overeas without the additional worry of a brown envelope from HMRC.

      In general terms, there are many persons of the left that are employed in our public services and they still don't grasp that savings need to be made.

      It may come as a shock to many readers on here that I actually support public sector staff in their battle with the government for the pensions they signed up to in good faith; I think if the government just tear up contract law, which is what they're proposing to do in relation to the pensions, that is a bad thing.

      I must add that I don't think we have a real Conservative government; I think we have only Progressive Marxism on offer with a choice of which face overseas it for us; Cameron, Clegg or Milliband and this same choice has been the only one on offer for the last twenty years with just the faces changing.

    2. Penalties have been automatically issued for late returns since 1997. The difference between now and today is that the penalty is charged regardless of whether someone owes less than £100.

      It's probably better value for money to issue a penalty automatically and take the human element out of it. Otherwise you are employing a whole team to sit there deciding whether to issue £100 to about a hundred thousand people in February.

      The team that would issue a penalty would require further intrusions in to peoples private lives in order to assess whether that person should be charged a late penalty or not. Which, for one thing is not cost effective and for another is completely Orwellian.

      Charging the penalty and inviting an appeal is actually putting people on a level playing field.

      I am slightly confused about some of your other comments if I'm honest. It seems to imply that if a business is public sector then it doesn't generate cash, but as soon as it becomes a private sector institution it does.

      Not so long ago, the following industries were nationalised:

      The entire railway network

      Gas Companies

      Electric Companies

      Ever since those companies went out of public ownership and in to PLC's the cost of those services has been at the whim of shareholder meetings made of of those who want to increase their own dividend.

      As a result prices have increased through the roof for these services and there is nothing that can be done about it. To renationalise these baboons would cost the taxpayer millions because the profits have been artificially inflated over the past 25 or so years.

      These companies haven't produced a single thing. They have just piggybacked a ride from the consumer who has to use these services.

    3. Hi,

      Just to make it clear; I do not think private good, public bad; there are rotton eggs in both sectors.
      I feel that the only companies that should have been privatised were those that were not essential to life so, I was not in favour of the privatisation of water, gas and electric but was happy to see telephones and railways taken out of the public sector. I think the breaking of the state monopoly in relation to telecommunications has been a good thing, I am not so sure about the railways.

      All public sector organisations do not produce a product that the public need to buy in order for that organisation to survive; most only produce cash because the law says they will do so and that people must obey that law; HMRC being a good example.
      All I am saying is that publically funded bodies rely on funding from taxation to fund them and, at some point, people feel the level of taxation is too high and then attempt to avoid paying some or all of the tax. Studies by various organisations, including government, have shown that as tax levels are taken up, so the yield goes down.

      There is no justifiable reason to privatise HMRC; this is a business that exists solely for the convenience of the state to take money from the public and businesses to fund government spending. There is no reason why private individuals should profit from such a monopoly.

      I still think we need to look at value for money in all areas of the public sector. We got into the view that the more money we spend on the public sector, the better it is, this is what Brown left us with. We need to ask whether a position is needed, what it is needed for and whether it is good value for money. We need to look at ways of saving money and put political ideologies aside; once public employees come to terms with this, then we can move on and it will help improve their long term prospects because, once its lean and getting the job down at sensible cost, so taxation can come down and the public sector bashing in the press will be less justified.

  10. off HMRC staff headline. If these 'journalists' dug a little deeper they would discover that themselves. With the pension talks fiasco the tory press has to make joe public think HMRC staff all a bunch of heartless bastards who don't deserve to live never mind get the pensions they have worked for. Where were the headlines when Jack ripped off the country via his deals with goldman suchs and avoidaphone? I am surprised to see the headline here. I thought this site had a little more intelligence.

    1. Obviously not.

      If Ken wants to continue receiving input from HMRC staff then he's going the wrong way about it. Staff risk their employment by posting here, People assume staff are arse licking their superiors and nothing could be further from the truth.

      Posts like this are obviously an attack on HMRC staff as a whole, labouring some tabloid notion that there is a section of them out there printing and individually signing such letters.

    2. Before anyone jumps on a bandwagon, HMRC staff who post here "don't expect a medal" for anonymously keyboard-warrioring either, it's just a statement.

  11. i know of an Iraq war veteran that committed suicide after 'contact with HMRC' on this very matter. what's more, it turned out HMRC officials were hounding him over HMRC's error!

    1. No you don't.

    2. well there's nothing on a Google search on this subject.....and if it happened I'm sure there would have been

    3. Perhaps because no one has actually committed suicide over a penalty of £100 or £200.

      If they did (having almost been there myself), it would be at the end of a very long list of things that had already gone wrong.

      Don't use suicide to trivialise and gloat. You are doing your acquaintance a great disservice by making such a comment here. The straw that breaks the camels back is never the actual cause.

  12. I doubt very much if there are many squaddies who fall within the self assessment regime;- they are paid a pittance

    this is merely black propaganda

    1. They are paid worse than HMRC staff. They may have various allowances and other benefits but that won't compensate them later in life when they find their pension is linked to what they earned at the start of their career.

      The treatment of those who work for the armed forces in this country is terrible. The government of the time always act as if it's not their problem and seem to think that a short mention at PMQ's of a list of those killed in combat will placate any distress the family is suffering.

      The payroll of the armed forces is now under a privately owned company called 'JPAC' who insist on an automated telephone system.

      If you keep supporting privatisation of government services then you - as the innocent human being who happens to be a citizen of the UK - will be next.

      It isn't HMRC's job to keep an eye on the government.

      Big Brother isn't watching you, BB 2012 UK PLC probably is though.

    2. HMRC Officer grade, 25 years service = 25414
      Corporal in Army,typically 4 years service, starting pay = 26404

  13. Ken,

    What the F*CK were YOU thinking?

    MASSIVE own goal on your part,

    Perhaps Daily Mail euphemisms don't always work out to your benefit. sorry about that.

  14. 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.

    Only if you've already paid a much higher sum to cover this apparent insurance that doesn't actually exist in UK law.

    1. It's also telling that as an employee of HMRC I've never had to deal with TAXWISE or its other trading names.

      Full of their own hype maybe?

    2. "It's also telling that as an employee of HMRC I've never had to deal with TAXWISE or its other trading names."

      As an employee of HMRC you would not have to deal with them.

  15. Maybe this site served a purpose at one point. With desperate threads like this it's just clutching at straws.....

    Everone who's required to complete a return by 31/1/12 is served notice of this at least 3 months and a week beforehand-and in most cases are aware a return is required at the start of the financial year.

    Anyone-armed forces or others- who wished to exercise their right to file a paper copy had from April to October to do so. If they chose not to, a further 3 months was given to complete it on line.

    Is this not long enough??

    1. No.

      Surely you must realise that '61 million adults' (see earlier threads) who are perfectly capable of filling out tax credit forms by July for the purpose of receiving tax credits cannot also be expected to fill out similar information in October or January?

  16. Well, that went well,Ken...............

    1. I'd like to call that the understatement of the year.

      But it's only January, Ken has 11 more months to spout nonsense like this.

      Although that's probably not enough time for an accountant now is it? Perhaps he's saving it all for 31 December and will complain to Google when blogger won't accept all of his submissions in one go.

  17. Best stick to sharing recipes Ken. This was a disaster.

    1. Ken knows his milkshake brings all the boys to the yard. If he taught it, he'd have to charge.

      It's another jumping the shark moment for Ken.

  18. As with any other self-assessment tax payer they have NINE MONTHS!!!!!!! to complete their return. I did mine back in September.

    1. Unlike other self assessment taxpayers they face considerably more "distractions", eg daily risk of being maimed/killed by ieds etc!

    2. Some of them do, Ken. Most don't. Speaking from a postion of some authority, as it happens, as an ex infantryman.

    3. Ken,

      You haven't thought this through at all have you? You're just using this as a soapbox to rile people against those civil servants that keep you in a job.

      To be able to proactively cancel the penalty, you would need the following information from the MOD about every single person who was in active combat in Afghanistan on 31st October and January.

      * The persons name
      * The persons 10 digit UTR (which the MOD won't have).

      Even if they DID have that information, what makes you think that the MOD would happily agree to share this information with HMRC? For the purposes of not issuing a penalty that can be cancelled, that is really f****ing sensitive data you are talking about. What right do HMRC actually have to request this information in the first place? Squaddies would absolutely love you if you suggested that Ken.

      Or perhaps they could telephone the tax office from the middle of nowhere? Equally ludicrous for the same reason.

      The other solution would be to ensure that no one employed in the forces, (or employed by those that go out with them who may not have a gun in their hand but may still still on the front line) by virtue of the fact that their PAYE reference will show them to be employed by the armed forces/MOD

      But then you would also have to accept that those you consider to be less deserving because they aren't on the front line would also be given the same benefit because HMRC has no way of using the information supplied to it for PAYE purposes between someone who works for MOD who is providing vital services to the front line or someone who is sat behind a desk in Whitehall. It can't use the persons address, how many soldiers do you think would be happy with mail going out to Helmand Province?

      Yes maybe HMRC should do that, because that wouldn't be another headline now would it?

    4. Ken, if you carry on like this, you are in danger of losing your status as an ICAEW member or member of any other chartered accountants organisation as you don't seem to be able to carry out the function of a professional chartered accountant.

  19. I once dealt with a client who was in hospital from the month of May onwards, various physical and mental issues from an accident, yet the Revenue refused his appeal and so did the GC's. Advance warning to the Revenue counted for nothing, two Doctors' letters meant nothing, GC's swallowed the Revenue's “reasonable” claim that the client could have done the return and accounts during April or early May.

    That mentality used to be common in the Revenue, box tickers without a brain, but now it is worse.

    1. Yes, box tickers without a brain. Clearly what they should be doing is asking for operational data from the MOD giving the names and 10 digit tax references (which the MOD payroll won't even know because they don't need to know it because it has fark all to do with them!!!) of all of those soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan,

      That's reasonable isn't it? Threatening the safety of all soldiers abroad to save them the bother of writing a letter when they get back home saying 'please cancel my penalty - HM Government sent me out in combat'.

    2. How can you say that you 'dealt with' the client by the way? The client is your customer, not the other way around.

      Or has the ego of accountants gotten so great that they now think they are indispensable?

    3. I was part of a team, one of 3 people, dealing with person's affairs. The person/taxpayer was the client of the firm, I was an employee of the firm.

  20. So that'll be the big Revenue / General Commisioners conspiracy at work, then, eh?

  21. Aren't these decisions available for public record?

    Won't these records show the evidence put forward in the case for your client?

  22. My compliments to the one anon commentator here who is so clearly keen to make a point about this BBC news item, that he has posted 14 separate comments on this one article in the space of the last 24 hours (even in the wee small hours) and many more in previous days.

    I am flattered:)

    However, I would make a small observation.

    My site, when compared to the BBC, is but a gnat's bite in the pool that one would refer to as "media impact" on the public.

    The BBC News, on which the story was first broadcast, and the BBC website to which I linked, has been seen/visited by millions (my site isn't).

    Feel free to continue posting here as many times as you like, but the millions of people who would have seen the news item on the BBC won't hear you (because they don't visit this site).