Re Eastern Power Networks Plc and others v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 494 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ordered HMRC to issue closure notices even though there were a number of outstanding information notices.
I draw your attention to this comment on the decision by RPC:
"It is not uncommon for HMRC to seek to continue with its enquiries notwithstanding the fact that it has been supplied with sufficient information and documentation to enable it to form a view on the underlying facts and close its enquiries."With reference to the above, my question is "naive" but relevant:
Why is it not uncommon for HMRC to continue with its enquiries when it already has sufficient information?
Tax does have to be taxing.
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations
Insurance to protect you against the cost of enquiry or dispute with HMRC is available from several sources including Solar Tax Investigation Insurance.
Ken Frost has negotiated a 10% discount on any polices that may suit your needs.
However, neither Ken Frost nor HMRCISSHITE either endorses or recommends their services.
What is Solar Tax Investigation Insurance?
Solar Tax Investigation Insurance 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 Solar Tax Investigation Insurance
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"
HMRC incompetence (and they're too busy bullying all those staff and creating false evidence to cover up law breaking against employees whose lives they've already destroyed with their cowardly corruption).
ReplyDeleteJust the answer I was expecting.
DeleteThis bunch do have a habit of 'not receiving' correspondence when that correspondence contains uncomfortable truths countering whatever cynical or psychopathic false agenda they are pursuing at the time. As is often said on here, HMRC cannot be trusted.
ReplyDeleteSack the overpaid HMRC senior management.
ReplyDeleteI think the author of article was wanting some constructive comments. The usual anti HMRC diatribe is not helpful. While I may agree with some of the sentiment, let's try and be constructive and keep this website relevant.
ReplyDeleteConstructive comments? Such as;
DeleteDo your job!
What's so difficult about engagement with your staff?
I know a good computer salesman.
Only 2 discs...?
Lean, how many pages of guidance?
The relevance of this website is in the name, you will find few supporters of HMRC posting herein.
If you are Excom and want more 'attabuoys', best enrol on another Common Porpoise evangelical meeting.
Trip trap, trip trap!
I am more than happy to read genuine constructive comments and suggestions. I generally don't censor comments, unless they are spam or OTT abuse, sadly there have been very few genuine constructive comments over the years on this site.
DeleteSomehow don't believe you will be kept up late reading many genuine constructive comments.
DeleteIf I may quote from an article in todays Daily Mail by J Burton;
" A HMRC spokesman said 'tax under consideration is not tax owed or unpaid, its an estimate ofwhat might be at stake if we didn't investigate.
By effectively enforcing the rules, HMRC has since 2010 brought in £53billion that would otherwise have gone unpaid and collected over £8billion from large business last year alone".
Is that is what is referred to as doing one's job?
Owed/Unpaid = Not Paid = Not in the Treasury Coffers, whatever you call it = not doing your job.
The majority of tax ending up in the Treasury Coffers comes from declared sources/returns where the job of HMRC (protecting, calculating and collecting revenue) is aleady done.
Sorry, what was your job again?
The answer must lie in all that Lean crap and wasted customer money on IT etc!
There We Are Then, See!
I'm puzzled. The comment that HMRC not uncommonly seek to keep enquiries is not one made by the Tribunal but by RPC which may well have a vested interest in the issue. In my experience it was not uncommon, particularly in avoidance cases for there to be a dispute between the sides whether more information was needed. Avoiders frequently try to close enquiries before HMRC gets to the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case it appears that the earlier issue of information notices was done to get the case resolved at tribunal with both sides able to present their case.The alternative was a 3rd party notice with no right of taxpayer representation. As such it is of limited application, but does show that the tribunal does try to level the playing field.
One of my clients will be pushing for a similar result from the FTT. The facts in their case are perfectly clear: HMRC have all information requested.
ReplyDeleteIt is just the same information being requested over and over again. Last letter to HMRC contained responses to over 20 questions, each and every one being a cross reference to information and documents provided over 2 1/2 years ago.
Highlight of most recent meeting was the obvious and abject fear of having to go through the "Governance Process" required to close out a long running enquiry that should never have been started.
Thus the can is being endlessly kicked down the road, presumably in the hope that someone else will have to do it.
Speaking to other advusers, quite clear there are a lot of hopeless Zombie Enquiries being run by HMRC because nobody has the guts to say so.
Not my field but I am told that when it comes to VAT disputes around partial exemption recovery methods, there is near total paralysis with confused and contrary positions being taken by HMRC.
There used to be such a thing as a PELO in HMC&E days, this was a Partial Exemption Liaison Officer who was the Local VAT Office or Vat Sub-office appointed and trained "expert with established links to the VAT HQ Partial Exemption technical/legal experts. Basically if they didn't know the answer, they knew somone that did.
DeleteSo what has changed? Oh yes, all gone now including local offices and staff.
There was a PELO system for a reason...which escapes me, oh yes, very specialist high risk area with £billions at stake, one way or another!
Must be an answer herein somewhere..."A3 is a structured problem solving and continuous improvement approach, first employed at Toyota and typically used by lean manufacturing practitioners. It provides a simple and strict approach systematically leading towards problem solving over structured approaches."
...surely?
{courtesy - a Wikipedia search ;] )