Showing posts with label stamp duty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stamp duty. Show all posts

Wednesday, 1 April 2026

HMRC Stamp Duty Investigations Take 35 Months on Average


 

As per Guido:

Figures from HMRC show that in the last four years the average length of time that Stamp Duty Land tax (SDLT) investigations have taken to complete is an average of 35 months. Rayner admitted she may have paid the wrong tax on 5 September last year, only seven months ago…

The best yearly performance is a whopping 27 months, posted in the 24/25 financial year:

Tax yearAverage length of time of closed cases had taken to complete (SDLT)
2021/2231 months
2022/2339 months
2023/2443 months
2024/2527 months

Since Rayner’s operation conceded that the investigation would have to be finished before she made any attempt at the Labour leadership, the former DPM’s annoyance at HMRC for taking so long (she ‘offered to help‘ at one point) has made frequent appearances in the press.

Oh dear, 

how sad, 

never mind! 

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"

Saturday, 28 March 2026

Rayner is Contesting Her Stamp Duty Charge


 

The Times has been told that she has subsequently taken new legal advice which argues that she did not need to pay the higher rate of stamp duty. The new advice has been submitted to HMRC. It is understood to highlight “complexities” surrounding the trust 

 

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"

Wednesday, 16 April 2025

Christian Candy’s £2m Stamp Duty Refund Exposes a Shambolic System




In a jaw-dropping display of incompetence, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has once again proven itself to be a bureaucratic behemoth that prioritises petty battles over fairness and efficiency. The latest embarrassment comes in the form of billionaire property developer Christian Candy’s £2 million stamp duty refund, awarded after a decade-long tax dispute over his £120 million London mansion. To add insult to injury, the British taxpayer is now on the hook for £270,000 in lost interest, a bitter pill to swallow at a time when public services are stretched thin and households are grappling with rising costs. This case isn’t just a victory for Candy—it’s a scathing indictment of HMRC’s systemic failures, from its aggressive overreach to its inability to get the basics right.
The Case: A Decade of HMRC’s Stubborn Ineptitude
Christian Candy, one half of the billionaire Candy brothers known for developing London’s ultra-luxury One Hyde Park, purchased a £120 million mansion in 2010. At the time, he paid £6.45 million in stamp duty land tax (SDLT), a tax on property purchases that funds public services like the NHS and schools. However, Candy argued that the property qualified for a relief because it was purchased through a corporate entity for development purposes—a legitimate exemption under SDLT rules at the time, often used by property developers to offset the tax burden on high-value transactions.
 
HMRC disagreed, claiming the relief didn’t apply, and demanded the full stamp duty. What followed was a 10-year legal battle that saw Candy take the case to the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, and finally the Court of Appeal. In 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled in Candy’s favour, ordering HMRC to refund £2 million of the stamp duty he had overpaid. Additionally, HMRC was ordered to pay £270,000 in interest to cover the decade-long delay, a cost that ultimately falls on the taxpayer.
 
This wasn’t a case of Candy exploiting a loophole—it was HMRC’s refusal to acknowledge a clear-cut application of its own rules. The relief Candy claimed was well-established, and similar cases had been upheld in the past. Yet HMRC dug in its heels, wasting years of court time and public money on a fight it was destined to lose. The result? A billionaire walks away with a £2 million windfall, while the public foots the bill for HMRC’s hubris.
HMRC’s Track Record: A Pattern of Failure
This isn’t an isolated incident—HMRC has a long history of mismanaging taxpayer funds and pursuing ill-advised battles that drain resources. Let’s look at the broader context:
  • Aggressive Overreach: HMRC has been criticised for years for its heavy-handed tactics, particularly against small businesses and individual taxpayers. The Loan Charge scandal, which saw HMRC retroactively pursue freelancers and contractors for taxes on “disguised employment” schemes from the early 2000s, led to widespread financial ruin, mental health crises, and even suicides. A 2020 parliamentary report slammed HMRC’s approach as “disproportionate,” yet the agency has shown little remorse or reform.
  • Inefficiency and Waste: HMRC’s operational inefficiencies are staggering. A 2024 National Audit Office (NAO) report revealed that HMRC spent £1.4 billion on legal disputes in the prior five years, with a success rate of less than 50% in high-value cases. The Candy case is just one example of HMRC pursuing a losing battle at immense cost. The £270,000 in interest alone could have funded 10 nurses’ salaries for a year, according to NHS pay scales, at a time when the health service is facing a staffing crisis.
  • Poor Service Levels: HMRC’s customer service is in tatters. The same NAO report highlighted that in 2024, taxpayers waited an average of 45 minutes to speak to an HMRC representative, with 30% of calls going unanswered. Meanwhile, the agency has been accused of prioritizing high-profile cases like Candy’s over the needs of ordinary citizens struggling with tax queries or incorrect assessments.
  • Failure to Tackle Tax Avoidance: While HMRC wastes resources on cases like Candy’s, it has consistently failed to crack down on large-scale tax avoidance by multinational corporations. A 2023 Public Accounts Committee report estimated that the UK loses £35 billion annually to tax avoidance and evasion, with tech giants like Amazon and Google paying a fraction of their fair share. HMRC’s obsession with individual cases, rather than systemic reform, allows the biggest culprits to slip through the net.
The Cost to the Taxpayer: A Slap in the Face
The £270,000 interest payment to Candy is a direct result of HMRC’s intransigence. Had the agency conceded the case earlier—or better yet, applied its own rules correctly from the start—this cost would have been avoided. Instead, the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab, a particularly galling outcome given the economic climate in April 2025.
 
As detailed in my previous article on UK inflation, households are already facing mounting pressures: National Insurance contributions for employers have risen to 15%, council tax bills are up by £106 on average, and water bills are set to increase by 36% over the next five years. Inflation, currently at 2.8%, is projected to hit 3.7% by Q3 2025, driven by these cost increases and global trade tensions, such as the U.S.’s 245% tariffs on Chinese imports. For the average family, this means tighter budgets and less disposable income. Yet HMRC seems content to squander public money on a billionaire’s tax refund, rather than investing in services that benefit the many.
HMRC’s Defense: A Hollow Excuse
HMRC’s response to the Candy ruling has been predictably tone-deaf. A spokesperson claimed that the agency has a “duty to ensure the correct tax is paid” and that it will “continue to challenge incorrect claims.” But this misses the point: the issue isn’t HMRC’s duty to enforce tax law—it’s the agency’s inability to do so competently. Candy’s claim wasn’t “incorrect”; it was upheld by three levels of the judiciary. HMRC’s refusal to back down earlier smacks of arrogance, not diligence.
 
Moreover, HMRC’s focus on high-profile cases like this one creates a perverse incentive. Billionaires like Candy can afford top-tier legal representation to fight HMRC in court, often emerging victorious. Meanwhile, ordinary taxpayers—lacking the resources for such battles—are left to endure HMRC’s errors, such as incorrect tax codes or delayed refunds, with little recourse. A 2024 survey by the Chartered Institute of Taxation found that 65% of UK taxpayers feel HMRC treats them unfairly compared to wealthy individuals, a sentiment that cases like Candy’s only reinforce.
The Bigger Picture: A System in Need of Reform
The Christian Candy case is a microcosm of everything wrong with HMRC: inefficiency, inequity, and a stubborn refusal to learn from its mistakes. It’s not just about the £2 million refund or the £270,000 in interest—it’s about what this says about an agency that seems more interested in flexing its muscle than serving the public.
 
What’s needed is a root-and-branch reform of HMRC:
  • Better Training and Accountability: HMRC staff need better training to interpret tax law correctly, avoiding unnecessary disputes like Candy’s. Senior officials should be held accountable for wasting public money on doomed legal battles.
  • Prioritise Systemic Issues: Instead of chasing individual cases, HMRC should focus on closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to avoid billions in taxes. A fairer tax system would generate far more revenue than nitpicking over stamp duty reliefs.
  • Improve Service for Ordinary Taxpayers: HMRC must redirect resources to improve customer service, ensuring that the average citizen isn’t left waiting on hold for hours while the agency pursues high-profile vendettas.
  • Learn from Losses: When HMRC loses a case, it should conduct a thorough review to understand why, rather than doubling down with appeals that waste even more time and money.
Conclusion: HMRC’s Failure Is Our Burden
Christian Candy’s £2 million stamp duty refund isn’t a victory for him—it’s a damning failure for HMRC, and by extension, for the British taxpayer. The £270,000 in interest, paid out of the public purse, is a stark reminder of the cost of HMRC’s incompetence at a time when every penny counts. While Candy celebrates his win, ordinary households are left to shoulder the burden of rising taxes, inflation, and a tax authority that seems incapable of getting its house in order.
 
HMRC needs to stop treating the tax system like a personal fiefdom and start acting like a public servant. Until it does, cases like this will continue to erode trust in the system, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for an agency that’s more hindrance than help. It’s time for HMRC to be held accountable—not just for Christian Candy, but for all of us.


Tax does have to be taxing.

Tax Investigation Insurance

Unlock Peace of Mind with Solar Protect Tax Fee Protection

Are You Ready for an HMRC Enquiry? Every year, thousands of businesses, sole traders, and individuals face the daunting prospect of an HMRC tax investigation. Don't let this be you without protection! 
 
Introducing Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance:
  • Market-Leading Coverage: Tailored for businesses, sole traders, and individuals, ensuring you're covered no matter your tax situation.
  • Zero Excess: No out-of-pocket expenses for you. We cover your accountant's fees in full.
  • Up to £100,000 Reimbursement: If HMRC knocks, rest assured your defence costs are taken care of up to £100,000.

What Solar Protect Does for You:

  • Robust Defence: Empower your accountant to handle all HMRC correspondence, meetings, and appeals without financial worry.
  • Full Support: From dealing with initial letters to attending tribunals, your tax return agent can focus on defending you, not on the cost.
  • Peace of Mind: With Solar Protect, sleep easy knowing your accountant can fight for your rights without hesitation, thanks to our comprehensive coverage.

Why Risk It? HMRC enquiries can be stressful and costly. With Solar Protect, you're not just buying insurance; you're securing your financial peace of mind.

Get Protected Today! Don’t wait for the letter to arrive. Secure your Solar Protect Tax Investigation Insurance now and ensure your accountant can robustly defend you against any HMRC scrutiny.
 

Please click here for details.

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"

Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Refund of Stamp Duty Erroneously Paid


HMRC has confirmed that first-time buyers who have accidentally paid stamp duty on property purchases completed since the Budget on 22 November will be able to claim refunds.

Anyone who buys their first home for less than £300,000 will not pay any tax, while those who buy property worth up to £500,000 will get partial relief.

HMRC said the stamp duty exemption applied to any purchase completed on or after Budget day. Anyone who may have paid too much stamp duty should go to gov.uk and go to this link.
 
Alternatively address your request to BT  Stamp Duty Land Tax, HM Revenue & Customs BX9 1HD


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"

Friday, 19 June 2009

Free Advice To MPs

Snouts in The Trough
Taking pity on all those MPs who find their perfectly legal tax avoidance house flipping schemes under intense public scrutiny, I have sourced an article on Citywire that shows them how to avoid stamp duty on property purchases.

Well worth our impoverished MPs taking a look at:)

The article can be viewed here Citywire

Tax does have to be taxing.

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"

Tuesday, 4 November 2008

SDLT

SDLT
HMRC is doing its best to encourage people to file their tax returns online. In fact HMRC are targeting all strata of society, including solicitors and conveyancers.

Now, given the fact that house sales have fallen through the floor, you would have thought that filing property transactions online would have been a relatively simple task?

You would have thought that, wouldn't you?

Sadly no!

File a transaction via paper, and the SDLT (Stamp Duty Land Transaction) certificate takes around 6-8 weeks to be issued.

Surely online filing is faster?

No!

This from the SDLT help desk:

"HMRC systems are currently responding slowly to all SDLT e-submissions.

If your submission does not complete, return to the form later and to click the 'Check Progress' button.

We advise you to refrain from submitting further returns until we have an update from HMRC, unless the return needs to be made today, in which case by attempting to submit you will have an audit trail to prove you attempted the submission.

HMRC are aware of the issue
..."

Tax does have to be taxing.

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"

Thursday, 28 August 2008

Unprotected

UnprotectedThose running HMRC claim that HMRC is a professional organisation, that treats its staff and "customers" (that's the taxpayers to you and I) professionally.

I'm all for that!

The trouble is that the many communications I have had from members of staff and taxpayers, and many stories in the media, would indicate otherwise.

Therefore I am more than a "little concerned" to see that HMRC inspectors will be soon acquiring new new powers to investigate and fine taxpayers, without any safeguards for individuals or businesses.

How can this be?

How can powers be granted, without corresponding checks and balances normally associated with a professional organisation?

Simple, there will be safeguards but not for at least four months after the powers have been granted.

HMRC will acquire powers in 2009 to enter business premises and private homes used for business. For errors that are "careless, but non-deliberate", penalties of up to 30% of an unpaid tax bill can be levied. Fines worth 70% of the final tax bill could be imposed, should officials believe the taxpayer deliberately ignored the need to make a payment. Deliberate concealment could trigger fines worth 100% of the final tax bill.

These new powers will come into effect on April 1 2009.

Tax officers will gain powers to inspect and remove information and documents, while the Treasury will limit the amount taxpayers can reclaim in wrongly paid tax from six to four years. Income tax, capital gains tax, VAT and stamp duty tax will be among payments covered by the new regime. Fines can be imposed from March 2009 on tax bills calculated from March 2008.

The charter to protect taxpayers from "over-zealous" inspectors is not even due to complete its consultation phase until at least July 2009.

Publication and distribution of the charter is unlikely until late 2009 or 2010.

This is not just barmy, it's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Others would seem to agree.

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants wants the new powers delayed until 2010, when the charter is sent to all taxpayers.

Roy Maugham, a partner at accountants UHY Hacker Young, said:

"These are hugely draconian proposals that would allow the Treasury to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of individual taxpayers.

The banks have been criticised for their unfair charges, but if the banks shouldn't operate in this way, why should HMRC?

Permitting HMRC to issue daily fines without authorisation from the general or special commissioners would remove a vital legal protection for taxpayers against the arbitrary use of power.

Regardless of whether taxpayers could appeal, the balance is shifted firmly in HMRC's favour, and would inevitably result in greater use of daily fines
."

Unfortunately this is entirely in keeping with the Brown ethos of command and control, he despises the individual (both taxpayer and those who work for HMRC) and believes that the state is supreme.

The government and those running HMRC cannot be trusted, as taxpayers and staff can readily attest to.

You should not be fucked without the protection of a condom (the charter is the taxpayers' condom)!

Tax does have to be taxing.

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"

Wednesday, 7 May 2008

Guardian Says Sorry

Guardian Says Sorry
The Guardian has apologised to Tesco over its reporting of Tesco's tax affairs.

As noted on this site in April, the Guardian wrote an article about Tesco's alleged tax avoidance plans.

Seemingly the Guardian was talking bollocks, and has now stated that it no longer believes that Tesco's Cayman island structures allowed it to avoid up to £1BN in corporation tax.

"The original Guardian articles did not correctly explain the effect of Tesco's tax schemes. It was wrong to state that they were designed to avoid corporation tax. It would have been correct to refer to avoiding SDLT [Stamp Duty Land Tax].

As a result, the figure of 'up to £1bn' - calculated as the amount which could have been saved on the disposal of £5bn of property - is wrong. The loss to the exchequer is likely to be nearer the region of £90m-£100m
."

All very well, but even if there had been a tax avoidance plan that could have saved £1BN, the Guardian has been duped by Hartnett and Brown into their web of deception that tax avoidance is somehow wrong.

So what if Tesco had in fact put together a tax avoidance plan for saving £1BN?

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, we all do it each year by eg claiming our personal allowances.

Hartnett and Brown are keen to tar tax avoidance with the same brush as tax evasion (which is illegal) because they desperately need to increase the tax take, as the government's finances are blown.

Once they have cracked down on high profile schemes, they will turn their attention to the more "mundane" ones such as isa's and possibly even personal allowances.

The Guardian was duped into playing the government's and HMRC's game, yet they still don't see this. Their apology snidely refers to "clever accountants", thus leading the reader to conclude that tax avoidance is somewhat "dodgy".

However, being the Guardian, it chooses to cite their "righteous moralism" over "correctly reporting the facts" as being justification for the error.

"We remain ready to defend our journalism - in court, if necessary. We believe these matters should be subject to debate and scrutiny, and we invite further informed analysis from any readers with experience in accountancy or tax law."

They want input, I suggest that you give them some; here is their email tax@guardian.co.uk

Tax avoidance is legal!

The most effective way for the government to reduce the time, effort and money spent by HMRC on chasing tax avoiders is to simplify the tax system; thus making it unnecessary for companies and individuals to set up complex and costly tax avoidance structures.

Unfortunately, Brown and Darling don't do "simplification".

Tax does have to be taxing.

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"

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Negative Spin

Negative SpinI have stated a number of times on this site my concern over the "subtle" negative spin being propagated by Hartnett, Brown and certain elements within HMRC over tax avoidance.

They would have us believe that tax avoidance is wrong, and bordering on being illegal. Hartnett et al are cunning in their campaign, they seek to highlight the multi million pound "aggressive" (their word) tax avoidance schemes practised by large companies and very wealthy individuals.

They know that this drip drip drip of negative publicity, because it only relates to the super wealthy and multi nationals, has the desired effect of persuading the ordinary taxpayer that tax avoidance is the tool of the rich and (human nature being what it is) should be aggressively resisted.

Now here is the problem:

1 Tax avoidance (legitimately reducing your taxable income) is legal, it is tax evasion (hiding taxable income) that is illegal.

2 We all practice tax avoidance by the very fact that we use personal allowances, isa's, tax credits etc.

Why then would Hartnett et al seek to create the false impression of illegality wrt avoidance?

Three reasons:

1 Brown is running out of money, he desperately needs to increase the tax take; cutting back on people's legal right to reduce tax, by making it more difficult for them to avoid tax and by slandering them, is an easy option.

2 HMRC et al are softening the rest of us up for reductions in tax allowances (personal allowances are already not in fact raised in line with inflation).

3 HMRC and Brown are softening us up for legislation that will make avoidance illegal.

Indeed, so effective has this drip drip drip of negative publicity been that even Tesco and The Guardian have been suckered into a fight over it.

Tesco is suing The Guardian over claims the paper made about its tax planning.

Tesco claims that the Guardian wrongly alleged that Tesco had set up a tax avoidance structure offshore to avoid paying up to £1BN in corporation tax, and that the supermarket had already avoided £500m in corporation tax using the structure.

It claims it has saved only £23M in stamp duty from the scheme, and could avoid a further £30M-£40M from the structure, again in stamp duty.

The paper said the claims were an attempt to "chill public debate" on tax avoidance issues.

The Guardian are quoted in Accountancy Age:

"We have never claimed Tesco behaved illegally. These are matters of considerable political importance at present, debated by all parties."

So we have here two large organisations, one legally using legitimate tax avoidance techniques the other reporting on those techniques and stating that they are not illegal.

Had Hartnett et al not been feeding the public misconceptions about tax avoidance there would be no story here and the Guardian would never have bothered to print it, and Tesco (had the Guardian printed this non story) would not be bothered about the Guardian printing it in the first place.

This is the direct consequence of the HMRC and government campaign to denigrate those that practice tax avoidance, and to imprgenate tax avoidance with the stench of disrepute.

As I have already said, all of us practice tax avoidance. Once HMRC, Hartnett and Brown have curtailed the legitimate activities of the large companies, they will come for the rest of us, who then will stand up for us?

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
The they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up
."

Martin Niemoeller

To repeat:

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal.

HMRC want you to believe something else!

Tax does have to be taxing.

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"

Monday, 25 February 2008

HMRC Buys Stolen Goods

HMRC Buys Stolen GoodsSome rather interesting news emerged over the weekend, about HMRC buying a series of CDs containing the personal details (eg bank accounts) of a large number of British citizens.

Could this be the missing CDs that HMRC lost last year, containing the details of 25 million child benefit claimants?

Errrmmm......No.

These CDs apparently contain the details of a large number of wealthy people who hold bank accounts in Liechtenstein.

HMRC are so keen to track down every penny of tax, that they believe is owed to them, that they have now stooped to paying off nefarious characters in order to obtain information about suspected tax evaders.

HM Revenue & Customs paid £100K to Heinrich Kieber, for data that it will use to launch investigations of up to 100 British citizens who have accounts at Liechtenstein's biggest bank (LGT).

Now, you may well ask, how did Herr Kieber obtain this data?

Well, he seems to have nicked it.

In 2004 he was convicted of fraud for stealing sensitive information from his employer, LGT, the biggest bank in Liechtenstein, which is controlled by the principality's royal family.

Nice doing business with you Herr Kieber!

Maybe someone should remind HMRC that it is an offence to knowingly handle stolen goods?

Now that these CDs are in the hands of HMRC, given their lamentable track record with regard to information security, can we expect these CDs to be "lost" and then appear on the open market again for purchase at the highest price?

Of course HMRC would argue that none of this subterfuge, unpleasant dealings and costs (in terms of time, money and effort) would have to be undertaken if people didn't go to such extraordinary lengths to evade tax.

That in itself is true, up to a point. However, one of the prime motivations for tax evasion is the complexity of the tax system.

Simplify the tax system to resolve this problem, and cut the costs of collecting tax:

- increase the personal allowances to around £10K
- introduce a flat rate of tax of around 20%
- abolish all other perverse taxes such as; stamp duty, CGT, IHT, NI etc
- increase the rate of VAT to make up the shortfall

Do the above, and there will be a dramatic reduction in the amount of time, effort and money expended by both taxpayers and HMRC in trying to wade their way through the tax system.

Tax does have to be taxing.

HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com) is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Wednesday, 23 January 2008

HMRC Plays Hide and Seek

HMRC Plays Hide and SeekHMRC likes to claim that it is very keen to "consult" with the hapless taxpayer and finance professional over new proposals. Unfortunately, the reality and practicality of interaction in this "consultation" process leaves something to be desired.

Links to two new consultation documents have not appeared in HMRC's "What's New" page in recent weeks. One of the consultations does not even appear on HMRC's "consultation" page, only making a guest appearance on the Treasury website.

The consultation entitled "Benefits in kind and expense payments in the payroll - a fresh approach" was published in December by HMRC, together with an impact assessment of "Including Benefits in Kind and Expense payments in the payroll."

HMRC's "What's New" showed details of the impact assessment, but no details of or links to the actual consultation.

HMRC's Stamp Taxes:Technical Newsletter - issue 6, appeared on the website on 16 January. It claimed that there has been a consultation document "Stamp duty land tax: ensuring fairness for all" in circulation for the last month.

HMRC claimed that:

"On 17 December 2007 the Government published a consultation document seeking views on its proposals. More details about this consultation can be found on the HM Treasury website".

This was not up on the HMRC site in December/early January, yet the closing date for consultation is 8th February.

Why is that then?

Are HMRC trying to cut down on the amount of interaction that they have with the taxpayer and finance professionals?

The government claims in its "consultations code" that consultation should last for a minimum of 12 weeks, yet HMRC does not follow that guidance.

-Why?

-What are they afraid of?

-What are they trying to hide?

HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com) is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"