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, 3 September 2019

HMRC Plucks Figures From The Air To Terrorise People


The FT reports that HMRC has been accused of making up figures to terrorise people by Judge Geraint Jones QC, who said a six-figure bill had been “plucked from the air” to frighten a taxpayer receiving incapacity benefit.

Judge Geraint Jones QC ruled in favour of the taxpayer who had appealed against a tax bill and penalties of £342,000.

The First Tier Tribunal heard that in 2018 HMRC had issued income tax assessments worth £272,840 against Sebastian Cussens, based on its belief that he was a sole trader buying and selling cheap second-hand cars.

HMRC alleged Mr Cussens had failed to declare trading profits between 2005 and 2016 and also issued him with penalties of £70,102. However, the tribunal heard that Mr Cussens, who represented himself with help from his 81-year-old father, had been in receipt of enhanced employment and support allowance. This benefit is paid to people unfit to work because of physical or mental impairments.

The judgment added that, based on observations at the hearing, the tribunal believed Mr Cussens “lacked the skill, ability and perhaps the understanding to deal with this appeal properly”. The judge acknowledged that Mr Cussens had failed to co-operate with HMRC and had not mentioned his health condition to them before the hearing.  Nevertheless, the tribunal found fault with the basis on which HMRC calculated the bill issued to Mr Cussens, heavily criticising its assumption that he could have made a 50 per cent net profit margin as “wild, extravagant and unreasonable”.

The judgment noted that HMRC’s lawyer was unable to explain how the profit margin had been arrived at.

It smacks of being a situation where, because the appellant had been uncooperative and was sticking his head in the sand, the respondents [HMRC] decided to issue assessments almost “in terrorem in a bid to persuade the appellant to engage properly in the matters under review,” 

The judgment said:
We have seen nothing whatsoever in the documentary evidence to suggest that any thought, consideration or analysis whatsoever was undertaken by either the [HMRC] assessing officer and/or the [HMRC] review officer to decide whether taking a net profit figure of 50 per cent of supposed turnover was or was not a reasonable basis upon which to proceed. We are firmly of the view that figure was simply ‘plucked from the air’.” 
HMRC said in response to the ruling:
We are committed to treating all taxpayers with respect by taking individual circumstances into account. We are carefully considering the judgment.
Is HMRC pleasant plucker?

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"

39 comments:

  1. Only thing HMRC are good at is using the word"apology"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, well...HMRC are dishonest and corrupt, who knew?
    Read some of their staff reviews ( about how they have been treated) and their disrespect for us tax payers all becomes cleAr.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To understand the contempt shown by the management towards the staff in HMRC, look no further than the contempt for the electorate evidenced in the House of Commons yesterday by both sides.
    "Great" Britain?
    ROFL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I worked in an HMRC office in which 1 particular manager exhibited many of the characteristics and techniques used by Dominic Cummings.

      Delete
    2. Me too. Was their name Connolly??? Or do Hmrc tolerate a lot of narcistic, bullying, lawbreaking, scumbags...

      Delete
  4. Those characteristics being psychotic then? A purge is needed but a gong is more likely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes psychotic. The style included ambushing vulnerable women for intimidating 121's, foul language and temper tantrums. Guess what? I've left and that manager has since been promoted!

      Delete
    2. Ah, the 'vulnerable women' angle again.
      Haven't heard that one since 'Paul Garlick' got bored and went off to fantasise elsewhere.
      Don't tell me I can guess - none of the women complained because they thought it would be a waste of time? Thought so.

      Delete
    3. The women didn't complain because;
      1) They had learned that their complaints would not be investigated properly
      2) They would face repercussions from the perpetrator.
      3) They took redundancy to get out of the hell hole.

      Delete
    4. So:
      1) how had they learnt that there wouldn't be a proper investigation. Have you discussed it with all of them.
      2) what repercussions would there have been.
      3) so there just happened to be a nice redundancy package available.
      The poor dears, how my heart bleeds for them. Oh sorry, I almost forgot - they don't actually exist do they?

      Delete
    5. Surprised that for someone with such an insight you are apparently not familiar with the postings on this blog over the years.
      If you were, you would not be asking such questions.
      Recent fast track intake perhaps?
      Just completed basic CP training/mind control?

      Delete
    6. I can assure you they do exist.
      Ofcourse I spoke to them, despite the divide and rule plus fear tactics utilised by management, people talk.

      Anyone who was a lower grade was vulnerable but, in this individual manager's case, he alternated between abuse and "love bombing" the female staff. Different tactics with Male staff.

      You clearly have chosen to trivialise a very real problem. I suspect you are either a wannabe Grade 7,are undoubtedly a toadey... and the way HMRC has been you may well get there.

      The redundancy package wasnt available to everyone who had been poorly treated - so I feel very sorry for those that are still there.

      There are still a lot of very decent people who work for HMRC who are not served well by the management.

      Calling good,experienced, under valued and unprotected people "poor dears" sums up what is wrong with HMRC in particular and uk management in general.

      Delete
    7. I am very familiar with the postings on here which is why I think it is all made-up nonsense.
      All of 'Paul Garlick's' evidence of vile, organised criminality have ended in a lot of arrests and charges - not!
      Having a manager who is an unpleasant individual is not a sign of a conspiracy to kill you, it is an unfortunate part of life which most people have to deal with at some time or another.
      Just get over yourselves snowflakes.

      Delete
    8. I spelt toady incorrectly in my earlier post.

      It should have read "arse -hole"

      Delete
  5. Not surprised. HMRC values lucrative for the evil and selfish. Poison for the noble and honest. I think that about sums EXCOM and their management disciples up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At least an arse-hole has a useful function, which is more than can be said of some of the spineless fantasists and liars on here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Spineless lying fantasists on a Grade 7 fast track for being an arsehole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah right, yet another killer comment from 'not a full shilling staff member'.
      Not a single one of you can explain why all of these appalling acts have been committed against your colleagues without any action being done by anyone.
      Unless of course you are all willing to see your female colleagues being raped without saying anything - spineless, gutless scum!
      But not saying anything keeps you in a job - OK.
      Two-faced hypocritical, lying tossers.
      But keep on posting on here about what heroes you all are, everyone is going to believe you - hahaha haha!

      Delete
    2. In terms that this troll can understand.

      In an office - if someone senior calls someone junior a "c**t". The options of reply are limited.
      If by making an official complaint or taking out a grievance gets nowhere, the options are further limited.

      There is a power imbalance and poor behaviour has not only gone unpunished but often rewarded.

      If the junior person called the senior person a "c**t", it would be a different story.

      The foul mouthed middle manager knows this and would not, at a senior management meeting insult his peers or seniors in that manner.

      So - is it being a snowflake to put up with this?

      The normal standards of response are out of bounds because of the power imbalance and knowledge that senior management will sweep things under the carpet.

      Its academic - but if you were to call me a lying fantasist snowflake to my face in a non work situation, you would find out the hard way the primitive responses that are out there.

      But .....you wouldn't do that in real life would you Poor Dear!?

      Delete
    3. Sorry but I do think that somebody who puts up with being called a c**t by their line manager has something wrong with them.
      And you have conveniently avoided the complicity of people supposedly silently watching on as their vulnerable female colleagues were identified, drugged and raped.
      And lastly, but by no means least, my dad is bigger than your dad - so there.

      Delete
  8. I can see why you have aspirations of Senior Grade.

    You seem to have the necessary qualifications; cold hearted, self interested, no empathy and if you do get in charge, autocratic.

    I'm no longer an employee, thank God.

    I did over 30 years, have a nice pension and got an early release. So Im fine, thankyou very much.

    I did what I could when I was there, and still care that a public body that size should not be run the way it is.

    It is arseholes like yourself, that have ruined what was a decent place to work.

    I don't know what's happened to Paul Garlick. He's probably been silenced. Hopefully only temporarily.

    The lid will come off at some point & I will break from my anonymity to assist the judicial process.

    I sincerely hope you get what you deserve!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be silly.'Paul Garlick' hasn't been silenced.
      His bluff was called.
      He never had any files full of incriminating evidence.
      He was fantasist in chief.

      Delete
    2. If you are serious about helping judicial process can you get in touch with PCS and ARC and ask them to put you in touch with solicitors dealing with employment Tribunals or speak with Simon Murphy from Guardian?

      Delete
  9. Perhaps all these juvenile exchanges can take place somewhere else -the civil service is not the only place where bullying takes place , you either stand up for yourselves , which i did at the expense of my career or leave -i did 31 years in Customs and HMRC in 9 different offices and saw the lot , told the bullies , who were often women, to bugger off , did the best job i could (collecting £47 million in the process ) and took early retirement when i couldnt stand the fun any longer ! There will be no "judicial processes " after the event in terms of harrasement /illegal activities because unfortunately no one gives a shit , and if you have cast iron evidence post the names of yourself and the accused .In terms of the original posting , approx 60 % of the departments revenues reported is accruals, estimates on tax secured following litigation and "future revenue benefit " whereby you take a figure assessed and assume the same for the next 3 years (oddly the accruals are never reversed ! ) hence the higher the figure assessed the better even if you know the amount is spurious and will never be paid -i have seen such bills on taxpayers the department know have emigrated , attempts to backdate bills beyond time limits etc because its all a game of stats these days ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. The manipulation of statistics is getting seriously worse.
    Input tax is being disallowed if it is not claimed in the correct period, even if it is claimed retrospectively. Taxpayers are then instructed to submit a Voluntary Disclosure form to get their money back.
    Import VAT is disallowed if all evidence is not available at the time of inspection. When the evidence is then produced a week or two later the assessment is reduced but NOT on the stats as it was deemed to be legally correct at the time it was issued. Also it is assumed that the same error % occurred during the preceeding years and that also goes on the stats.
    In other words £100 millions of tax is being recorded as coming in, all management targets are being exceeded but not a brass farthing is actually being collected to help our schools, hospitals etc.
    If people concentrated on real scandals like this instead of the usual bleating about conspiracies to persecute them this blog might actually get somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Every aspect of HMRC is rotten to the core.
    The normal Civil Service standards began collapsing before it was formed and its all been downhill since then.
    No oversight, no accountability, no respect, in fact its total institutionalised fsilure.
    Back to Brexit!
    ROFL

    ReplyDelete
  12. It appears that some HMRC staff (current or former) who comment on here are either blissfully ignorant (good for them) or trolling, when it comes to their attitude to widespread bullying in HMRC.

    I was forced out of the Department a few years back now after a particularly nasty manager tried every trick in the book from plain bullying, to leaving me with no work or no role for months on end, to creating fake 'performance issues', to plain harassing me to the extent of sending her boyfriend round to my family home unannounced and unwanted. Her criminality was dishonestly and deliberately covered up by a Grade 6, Grade 7 and people in HR Casework. Her general misconduct in relation to her behaviour was also covered up. It left me on the verge of suicide. It was also brought to the personal attention of Charmaine De Souza, William Hague, Jon Thompson et al. They did nothing. As a fact, HMRC used correspondence from my me outlining my case to create fake 'evidence' to thwart, undermine and discredit my case. There are people in HMRC who have a case to answer for attempting to pervert the course of justice. These people are morally repugnant monsters, and cowards too.

    If HMRC are creating fake evidence, adopt a gang like attitude to victims and are able to organise enough people to lie, how the hell is an individual HMRC officer, on the verge of suicide from their bullying, supposed to proceed? (At the time the local PCS reps were working in cahoots with the corrupt manager to ensure justice could not prevail).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My M.P. got my case in front of the Public Accounts Committee twice - under Margaret Hodge as Chair with her previous knowledge and experience re. the Osita Mba case involving misuse of surveillance legislation/methods.
      Despite this and the evidence submitted via MP, the widespread issues were not investigated = PAC doesn't touch personal cases? WTF was Osita Mba's then?
      So, is it any wonder that despite exhaustive attempts failing then those with less determination get steam rollered.
      So, to the obvious troll - do us all a favour and Foxtrot Oscar, you do not have a clue as to the reality of HMRC lawbreaking as can be seen by your postings. Stick to Lean principles, you will progress nicely.
      There We Are Then!

      Delete
    2. What was the purpose of the boyfriend coming round to your family home. Was his behaviour threatening? Did your family feel intimidated? If so, what was the reaction of the police when you reported the matter to them?
      Attempting to pervert the course of justice is an offence potentially punishable by life imprisonment. What justice was actually perverted, i.e what evidence was destroyed or tampered with and which witnesses were threatened? What was the reaction of the police to this?

      Delete
    3. So then @17.05.
      Before I Foxtrot Oscar can you answer this?
      Do you think that all of the colleagues of Nelthorpe's victims who were aware of what was going on behaved reasonably by looking the other way?
      Just a simple yes or no will do.

      Delete
    4. No.

      Now F.O.

      From someone that despite the circumstances of own demise had stood up against the outright bullying of colleagues and that includes swearing, threats of violence, referring to disabilities in an objectionable way, threats against colleagues in earshot of self and sexual harrassment by a manager at Higher Officer level against a junior grade at a Xmas do.
      Others may be unable to confront the situations - for whatever reasons, including fear.



      Delete
    5. Not 17.05 but no. Chris Simpson should have been sacked for not speaking up. Instead they put him in charge of people issues arising from case! Fucktards.

      Delete
    6. @18.56
      Are you Nelthorpe?

      Delete
    7. @21.45.
      Damn. What was it that gave me away?

      Delete
    8. I think Nellthorp would know how to spell his own name.

      Someone said name names. Many have been mentioned on the original Nellthorp post repeatedly.

      Delete
  13. To troll boy. Equally do you think it reasonable for Senior grades to cover up his behaviour for years in a copy cesspit of fear. After all they no longer work for the department? Simple yes or no will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To 'not a full shilling staff member':
      No.
      So what's your point?
      Also, if and when they were covering up his behaviour (a big if) then presumably they were working for the department.

      Delete
  14. Troll on here seems a bit sharper and focussed than previous versions.
    Been getting some assistance from the professionals maybe?

    ReplyDelete