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.

Friday, 11 October 2019

Junior Tax Facts



HMRC's introduction to tax for 8 to 11 year olds, in order to ensure that when they become adults they happily hand their money over to the state ;).

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"

21 comments:

  1. Indoctrinating school children now...how low do the HMRC scumbags sink???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grow up. This is a perfectly reasonable young person's guide to taxation and the reasons for it.
      Only a bigoted, paranoid buffoon could describe it as indoctrination.
      And as for "how low do the HMRC scumbags sink" - let me guess, Jon Thompson lied to your MP, etc, etc, etc, yawn.
      You utter pillock.

      Delete
  2. Gosh that's a bit strong .What happened to civil servant impartiality , sounds like a reply from a Chinese government official.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Civil servant impartiality lasts from 9 to 5,Monday to Friday.

      Delete
  3. There is no impartiality, ever, from the majority of HMRC personnel; most are like well-behaved sheep, thinking as the likes of Serwotka tells them to!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, so Serwotka's in charge of HMRC now!
      I suppose he's the one who is indoctrinating school children.
      I don't think you've thought this one out very well.

      Delete
    2. Serwotka in charge? B.S.!
      The sheeple in HMRC are doing very well without his assistance. "Hub time" is a bit like watching the patients in 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' gathering for their medication.
      The clever ones however nod in agreement and shout out at the correct moment and get top performer marks and promotion.
      The real clever one's make it hell for the others so they don't get top marks and promotion.
      The best of the rest get the fark out of Dodge before its too late.
      I left Dodge a long time ago!
      My psych' says it was a wise decision...

      Delete
  4. Its sad the level of debate on this site - I worked as a tax inspector for 11 years for HMRC and 20 years prior to that for C and E -yes there are hordes of "scumbags " , usually in higher management but often just people trying to earn a living .People given the choice will pay nothing (and I have seen this from the other side running a business reducing tax bills with rates a third of the top 4 accountants and still people try to stiff you on charges !) If this site is directed at people who regard tax as legalised theft, tax officials as scum and anybody having to pay arrears on blatant avoidance as "victims " (see the loan charge debate ad nauseum ) then why not start a movement and petition the government for a system where you pay what you wish , perhaps using Greece as a model .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry mate, but you're talking sense. That'll never catch on here.

      Delete
  5. All very well but focusing on little fish whilst the big boys pay a pittance will obviously be regarded as an unfair playing field in the general public eyes I'm afraid

    ReplyDelete
  6. I work for HMRC and genuinely believe some of those affected by Loan Charge are victims. It wasn't deliberste Avoidance for some and also HMRC had the Powers to tackle but inertia set in so how is retrospective legislation fair? Efforts to tackle Promotors is failing and we are not learning from previous mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The idea that tax dodgers should be allowed an amnesty because large corporations shift revenues to low tax juristictions is nonsense -presumably I should be allowed to stick up my local bank because the CEO is overpaid ? Working for HMRC and swallowing the bs on the loan charge is great -presumably you don't mind coughing up under Schedule D while others use services they gladly do not pay for ? Those involved in the loan charge ( the clue is in the title , "disguised remuneration " ) knew exactly what they were getting in to or were victims of their own stupidity/ greed /naivity -there is no retrospective action the "loans " are still outstanding , want to avoid a tax bill pay it back ! Perhaps you should realise the reason why you had a 3 year pay freeze , increased pension contributions and planned lay offs under Building our future was to reduce a deficit caused by blatant scams such as this

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry but Building our Future was a cloak in which to shrink a workforce due to increased digital services and has zero to do with tax revenues. In fact it was sold as a success as revenues had never been higher during its rollout. The mistake in BoF was the number of sites was too ambitious and their distribution was incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the stats revenue was high.
      However, take away Future Revenue Benefit and the non-sticking tax which VAT staff are forced to assess and the actual money coming into the Treasury is significantly less impressive.

      Delete
  9. Non sticking Vat is still worth assessing -the whole Vat system ( I worked in it for over 31 years ) works on a net cashflow gain because of the gap in paying and reclaiming , the problem is FRB , using ludicrous estimates for accruals which are never reversed - I personally saw one case of a one off disallowance of third party input tax converted from fom 150k to 6 million , plus of course non sticking reverse charges and acquisition tax . BOF was introduced because having flogged off the estate to Mapeleys and leases coming to and end the govt did not want to spend on leases , hence sexy new buildings and constructive dismissal for staff who didn't fancy commuting for example from Hull to Leeds , no one when I was there argued it was to increase revenue just cut costs on rent and staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The latest wheeze is that as VAT on purchases is legally only input tax in the tax period in which it is incurred, then any VAT claimed retrospectively is disallowed and the taxpayer instructed to reclaim via Voluntary Disclosure.
      This does not bring in a penny in revenue but causes the taxpayer huge inconvenience.
      Anyway the stats show gazillions in revenue so the compliance team leaders can get a nice performance bonus.
      Nice little fiddle.

      Delete
  10. yeah they tried that crap when I was there, utter bullshit as there is no tax point for purchases and that would mean every taxpayer that did not accrue would have to make quarterly or even monthly vol discs -one appeal would finish the whole farce

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, along with this and e.g. future revenue loss prevented/collected how many other ethereal forms of tax do HMRC 'utilise' to support performance 'effectiveness'?!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's a better one.
    VAT officer
    visit business which imports goods. Checks imports for last VAT period and finds that VAT import form (C79) has not arrived for, say, 25% of transactions.
    Instead of then checking previous tax periods, as would have been normal in the past, it is assumed that the same 25% of input tax relating to imports can be disallowed in each previous period.
    Of course, FRB is applied to future years.
    An assessment is issued on return to the office and a huge amount of revenue goes on the stats.
    A couple of weeks later the 'missing' C79s arrive from the taxpayer along with an irate letter.
    The assessment is withdrawn and the stats reduced.
    Right?
    Wrong!
    The assessment is withdrawn but the stats NOT reduced.
    Why?
    Because legal advice says that the assessment was correct at the time it was made as the evidence of import was not readily available!
    So not a penny of revenue of revenue is collected but literally £100ks recorded on the stats for a couple of hours work.
    In the past VAT officers would have refused to engage in this subterfuge but the young kids coming in are under massive pressure to get results and probably think that this is normal behaviour.
    I know it's a cliche but you really couldn't have made this up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Regarding the above posts can anyone currently employed by HMRC tell us what figures HM Treasury actually use when formulating economic policy. Is it actual £sd collected and 'in the bank' or do they take notice of the fiddled statistics including the absurd FRB.
    If the former then limited damage, only the irritation of incompetent management lying about their performance and taking credit they do not deserve. If the latter then potentially serious damage to the national economy.
    Any clarification would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete