Another scandalous example of gross incompetence by HMRC

Another scandalous example of gross...

Didn't find your answer?

Almost six million people are embroiled in the biggest tax blunder for years.
 

About 1.4million will have to fork out an average of £1,500 after underpaying through no fault of their own.
 

Some will face far higher bills, though the Treasury insists no immediate repayment will be required if the sum is more than £2,000.
 

For 4.3million, the news is better. They will be told they are owed money by the taxman after having too much deducted from their earnings.
 

The total in overpayments is £1.8billion, meaning an average rebate of £418.

Refunds will be sent by cheque, officials say. However, the National Audit Office
warned earlier this year that households already owed large sums in overpayments might not get their money for four years because of chaos in the system.

Between now and Christmas, the 5.7million affected will receive letters informing them of what they owe or are due.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308859/6million-caught-tax-debacle--1-4million-repay-1-500.html#ixzz0yVJijSyi

Replies (42)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By MarionMorrison
04th Sep 2010 07:47

Journalists as Amateurs

I've often noticed this - when the TV or print media cover a subject I actually know something about, they do talk the most over-dramatised load of horse-manure.  I'm sure the paper will be able to find the odd person whose tax affairs are such a mess that it will take years to sort out but the tone of the article implying that this will apply to millions is just rubbish.

The pulling together of threads that was the computerisation of the PAYE system was something that was planned and executed under the previous administration and has nothing to do with the coalition.  It has unearthed [***]-ups where someone had, for instance, two separate 647L codings.  It's spat out a whole load of crazy codings and has started to automatically generate PAYE recalculations leading to repayments/underpayments for 2009/10, a good few months earlier than previously.

The Mail doesn't seem to have got its head round the idea that the problems it over-dramatises are the result of bringing the system into a coherent whole instead of a rickety set of badly linked or unlinked files.  It compounds it by talking to "a source" instead of the Revenue or an accountant who understands what's going on for fear that it will ruin a good negative story.  You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and the Mail is complaining about the damage to eggshells whilst the omelette is still warm.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Sep 2010 08:16

On this occasion the newspapers are dead right

Sorry but you're wrong.

Firstly of course this is down to the general bungling and incompetence personified by the last government. The current lot havent had time to foul things up - yet !

A simple fact - well over a million taxpayers are to be hit with demands for an average of about £1.400 each. HMRC has already stated that it will NOT give them time to pay. Those still in employment will be £100 a month poorer every month next year, those no longer in employment will face the normal threats and demands made by the HMRC bully boy department.

I would suggest that 99% of these cases fall under the heading of "official error" - but HMRC cannot afford to give this amount of tax away so there could be some interesting fights ahead.  

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Guest1
04th Sep 2010 08:29

Lets have the full story and explanation and then

sleep on it and digest the contents. That for me, always seems the best way forward.

Then, if an extra statutory concession can be considered, HM Revenue & Customs have a duty of care (presumably) to explain that situation, to any affected taxpayers.

I have to agree, the outcome may be interesting.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
04th Sep 2010 08:48

Sorry - but ths is old news

The whole point about the rationalization of the PAYE system was to move from several separate databases to one and reduce the number of duplicated entries for people with more than one job, multiple pensions, etc. This has for the most part been achieved, however as per usual with any government IT projects, they failed to plan for the inevitable problems.

Due to multiple codings being in various systems, these needed to be reconciled. Rather than have an automated process for dealing with this, what HMRC seem to have done is to send out various coding notices (often dozens at a time) and deal with it through the Contact Centres.

Net result = Chaos.

As most of us have noticed, for that last 9-12 months the Contact Centres have been largely uncontactable (which surely defeats the purpose of having them) and HMRC management has been back-peddling ever since. It is quite obvious that 'der managemunt' have been utterly clueless as usual and made no contingency arrangements. Possibly the reason for this that any contingency arrangement for sorting out the coding problems of 1-2% of PAYE taxpayers would cost millions and probably nullify the savings and error reductions of introducing the system in the first place.

It would have made more sense to cutover to a central system on a region by region basis and then they would have only had to fight one fire at a time. However, this would have taken longer and probably cost more (but still less than the costs to government, taxpayers and agents suffering the current chaos). Given how much we're paying towards HMRC and the size of salaries there, we deserve a much better organized and efficient system than we've got. Time to scrap it and start all over again.

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
04th Sep 2010 11:21

No copies to agents

A lady from the ICAEW mentioned on the Today programme this morning that HMRC would not be sending copies of these 2008/09 and 2009/10 tax calculations to agents.

Well!  That is rather obvious.  Those affected are not self-assessment cases and hence, would be most unlikely to have a tax agent.

The presenter also commented that the "victims" might have to go to an accountant and pay fees of £1,500.  If only!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Richards
04th Sep 2010 12:21

Speaking personally (and not for my employer)

 "Firstly of course this is down to the general bungling and incompetence personified by the last government. The current lot havent had time to foul things up - yet !

A simple fact - well over a million taxpayers are to be hit with demands for an average of about £1.400 each. HMRC has already stated that it will NOT give them time to pay."
Posted by cymraeg_draig on Sat, 04/09/2010 - 08:16

Whatever your opinions on the cause of the problem (the previous government, HMRC management, etc) surely one thing the "current lot" are in control of, is whether or not the affected taxpayers are given extra time to pay.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Sep 2010 13:24

Give them their P45's

Whatever your opinions on the cause of the problem (the previous government, HMRC management, etc) surely one thing the "current lot" are in control of, is whether or not the affected taxpayers are given extra time to pay

tooltip();

 

Posted by David Richards on Sat, 04/09/2010 - 12:21

 

That is a decision taken by the wonderful management of HMRC. Like with most things governments will not get involved unless we and our clients and the media make enough noise to force them to do something.

The point is that almost all of those affected are employees and therefore unrepresented and will, in all probability, know nothing about "official error" and their rights.

Whatever happens about the under & over payments of tax, I think one fact is now glaringly obvious - the management of HMRC is grossly incompetent.  They stagger from one crisis to another.  Tax bills are wrong.  Confidential data is routinely lost. The tax credit system is a total farce.

Their management should NOT be getting bonuses and appearing in honours lists - they should be dispatched to the nearest job centre and competent managers employed.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thehaggis
04th Sep 2010 20:30

Twaddle

 You are almost as bad as the papers that run this nonsense.  Do you have any fact to support your contention that 99% will be due to official error, apart from your obvious disdain for the current incumbents running the system.

When I worked in the old IR in the seventies and eighties we manually reconciled all the PAYE records.  A million underpayments does not seem like a particularly high figure when you consider the number of people whose circumstances change regularly throughout the year.  Its not all about tax codes  being wrong .. it's also forms P11D and other notifications being brought into account.

There is no getting over the fact that the tax office is a shambles. But this is simply not news. It happens every year.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Sep 2010 22:42

thehaggis

You are almost as bad as the papers that run this nonsense.  Do you have any fact to support your contention that 99% will be due to official error, apart from your obvious disdain for the current incumbents running the system.tooltip();

 

Posted by thehaggis on Sat, 04/09/2010 - 20:30

 

It seems you have your head firmly in the sand, or maybe some other orofice.

As always HMRC is approaching this on the basis that the taxpayer id guilty unless proven innocent. They have already stated that it is for the taxpayer to PROVE that their tax affairs are in order - an impossible task.  This approach by HMRC is ILLEGAL. It contravenes Artice 6 HRA.

As for my having "disdain for the crrent incumbents running the system" - there you are correct.  How can any right thinking person have any other view of the half wits and incompetent muppets running HMRC?  This is just the latest in a never ending series of massive foul ups going back over the last few years.  Tax credits more often wrong than right  Personal data repeatedly "lost".  Our own experience of receiving letters demanding that a return "must be signed IN PERSON by Mrs ******* (deceased)"  What kind of a lame brained cretin could send out a letter like that? 

Or maybe the letter I personally received which stated - QUOTE - "We cannot discuss YOUR tax affairs with YOU as we do not hold a 64-8 signed by YOU authrising us to discuss YOUR affairs with YOU". . Interestingly only yesterday we received a letter requesting information and giving detailed income figures for a taxpayer who is not and never has been our client and who we have never heard of - but we now know how much he earns, where he banks, his NI & UTR numbers, and a great deal more besides - thanks to HMRC.

HMRC are not fit for purpose - indeed they are not fit for ANY purpose, and this latest farce simply reinforces that.  As the owner of a fairly large practice with 40 years experience I think I have a fair idea of how abysmal HMRC have become, and I am not exagerating the potential repercusions of this latest debacle. 

Your comments indicate that you think it is acceptable to mess about taxpayers in this way and to cause unnecessary distress to them by making them pay for HMRC's errors. I hope your clients are happy to pay over additional taxes without argument.  Ours certainly wont be paying a single penny without every avenue being explored first.  

 

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
05th Sep 2010 11:57

.

I have always belived in people paying the amount of tax they actually owe, so I am very glad they have started to reconcile the PAYE again properly as its been a shambles for years, especially as far as higher rate tax payers go who are asked NOT to fill in a tax return despite clearly need to due to having investments, BIK's changes in employment etc and yet not 'fulfilling the criteria' for SA.

However its a bit of a bungled announcement. PR disaster for what is a good thing.

Think of all those small rebates people are due for example that they never knew about, for example stopping work part way through a tax year.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Richards
05th Sep 2010 12:36

Hmm...

"That is a decision taken by the wonderful management of HMRC."
Posted by cymraeg_draig on Sat, 04/09/2010 - 13:24

I suspect that a decision of that magnitude will always be a political one, rather than an administrative one.  Junior Treasury Minster David Gauke's interview with the BBC suggests to me that it was clearly a political decision. He could have washed his hands of the whole affair, by saying it was merely an administrative issue and the responsibility of HMRC.

Of course a lot depends on whether you believe that the new system is the cause of the problem, or that the new system merely highlights an existing problem and makes it easier to identify the discrepancies. David Gauke seems to think it's the latter. I note that even he didn't blame the previous administration for the problem, but the fact that PAYE was designed in a different era when people's working patterns and reward packages were very different.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
05th Sep 2010 15:47

HMRC are to blame

I think that either way - once HMRC have taken tax off you, you are entitled to rely upon their figures as being correct and that should be the end of the matter, unless HMRC can PROVE that you knew the amount to be wrong and deliberately and knowingly sought to defraud HMRC.

 

Otherwise HMRC should take responsibility for their own incompetence.  I see no reason why taxpayers should be hit with a second bill just because HMRC got it wrong - and if "the system" was inadequate before, then that too is HMRC's fault - not the taxpayers.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thehaggis
06th Sep 2010 00:25

Your Clients

 If you do not know how much tax your clients ought to have paid, and are sitting in trepidation of HMRC's reconciliation, then I think that after 40 years you ought to retire.  No matter where my head might be, I can see that very clearly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
06th Sep 2010 09:32

Never let a scary headline get in the way of facts, eh?

What in the "complex PAYE system" has caused this? Or is it just that theHMRC systems have at long last been updated so that one bit talks to another?

No doubt with a story like this in the media the backlog will only get worse as the world and its mother decide they must be caught and clog the lines further.

Presumably it is at last linking together multiple sources & flagging up these problems - something caused by the incompetent last lot introducing the new computer system in 2009?

We all have horror stories of dealing with HMRC, but surely the introduction of this new system will have highlighted things that would never have come to light in the halcyon days when all was right with the world and HMRC had sufficient & trained staff, but no computer system to link together multiple sources.

The BBC seem to have a slightly less shrieky take on matters - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11186397 - though they were going on about it on Breakfast TV this morning, but I only caught the headline not the full report before leaving the house.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Sep 2010 10:06

Pompous individuals
Your Clients  - If you do not know how much tax your clients ought to have paid, and are sitting in trepidation of HMRC's reconciliation, then I think that after 40 years you ought to retire.  No matter where my head might be, I can see that very clearly.tooltip(); 

Posted by thehaggis on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 00:25

 

What an offensive individual you clearly are. 

I have no such trepadation, and know exactly how much tax clients should have paid - now tell us all what has that got to do with HMRC's calculations ?  Have you any idea of the percentage of incorrect tax computations issued by HMRC ?   

Further, this latest in a long line of HMRC foul ups is unlikely to affect clients as it relates to PAYE. However, it WILL affect pensioners and other vulnerable members of society and we happen to have a social concience and regularly assist those in need (without charging).  Perhaps if you came down from your ivory tower and developed a social cncience you might not be so pompous.

Now, let's look at what the people who KNOW think about HMRC - those who work for them.

- 61% didn't have confidence in the decision made by HMRC's senior managers- 67% didn't feel that change was well managed- 60% didn't see career development opportunities in HMRC- 63% don't believe that HMRC managers will take action as a result of the survey- 24% want to leave HMRC within 1 year
 

Hardly a picture of a competent efficient organisation is it.

 

You can see it for yourself here -

http://www.kenfrost.com/HMRC_report_full_final2010.pdf

 

______________________________________________________

Or another opportunity to have a pop at HMRC? And another opportunity to tell the "64-8 story" - one that we've been hearing for a year now.

tooltip();

 

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 07:45

 

You seem to have a bit of an attitude problem. Face FACTS HMRC are not fit for purpose and in need of a drastic overhaul.  As regards examples of their incompetence - you have the answer in your own hands - dont read it. 

  

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
06th Sep 2010 10:29

I think Cymraeg Draig has hit the nail on the head

Ultimatly the most despicable part of this whole PAYE saga is that in the main it will affect unrepresented taxpayers. Regardless of the blame that is rightly or wrongly placed upon HMRC, it will affect those for whom PAYE was originally setup to extract tax with the minimum of fuss (i.e. before it went into their pockets so that they could complain about it).

The impact of these outstanding claims is about 2bn pounds, in this regard HMRC and more rightly HM Treasury should suck it up and take the hit. If I was Cameron I would say "HMRC error, therefore HMRC pays", however in reality it will always be Mr and Mrs Taxpayer that pays, regardless of which books this is charged to. The only question is whether the individual taxpayer who has had the benefit of underpaid tax should pay specifically or it is written off and all taxpayers pay it through increased taxation or loss of services.

A better solution would be a to have a "Time to pay" option where the PAYE tax code has an additional item added to it whereby an agreed amount of the tax underpayment is paid through the PAYE code each month. Rather than being 100 pounds per month, which might be more than some people on low-to-middle incomes could handle it should be in the order of 20-30 pounds per month.

Equally, for pensioners and those on low fixed incomes, even this might be too much. In these cases this should be written off - pure and simple as lost tax through HMRC incompetence. At the very least these losses should be added to the project costs of the new PAYE Computer system so that next time they think of doing this they see the not just the software, time and material costs, but the cost of poor implementation as well.

On the position of HMRC generally, it should be broken into a thousand peices and scattered to the four winds as it is unfit for purpose - just like the Child Support Agency. A new organisation with a much more focussed role based upon getting as much tax in as required as simply and painlessly as required. However, this would require a new tax code - so the OTS better get a move on (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots.htm)

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
06th Sep 2010 11:09

Typical media coverage of tax issues

Has there ever been an example of a newspaper running a tax story and not totally exaggerating and sensationalising it beyond all recongnition? The Mail is not alone in this but it does seem to be consistently one of the worst culprits. Maybe their contact list doesn't include anyone who actually knows anything about the day to day working of tax and PAYE.

PAYE admin was totally out of date and something had to be done. This is the result of something being done. So some people will have to pay some tax back, but that situation used to arise under the old system too. At least now (hopefully) these errors will happen less. Only time will tell on that one though!

Two final points, I have to disagree with C_D that the decision not to allow time to pay came from HMRC. There is absolutely no way on earth that the government was not involved in that decision. I doubt that HMRC management would have put up much of a fight though!

And I have to agree with PennyC about the 64-8 story. Sorry C_D, but any time I see you mention 64-8's in any context in your postings, my eyes glaze over and I take absolutely no notice. A bit like when I see Bob Harper post anything in a marketing-based thread!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
06th Sep 2010 11:25

I'm beginning to spot a trend

One thing which is consistent is the fact that a government department implements a new IT system (CSA, HMRC PAYE, Inland Revenue NIRS2 project, etc., etc.) and almost without exception this is done without apparent consideration of those it will impact or the knock-on effects of problems such as manual files for all of the information that can't be entered into the system.

Remember - we're paying for this chaos.

There should be some review process which stops IT projects proceeding through the various stages without having a reappraisal of the Cost / Benefit (including cost to the unlucky "Customers" of these systems). I agree that some change and some disruption is inevitable - as was the merger of the various PAYE systems, however the government seems to replicate the same mistakes time-and-again.

I'm really getting sick of these over-hyped press releases (agreed - mostly from the Daily Mail). Perhaps it is time we had a moratorium on Government IT projects until they can clearly and demonstrably get it right.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Sep 2010 11:36

@ PennyC

I much prefer to take action through the appropriate channels which, in my experience, is much more effective and beneficial to my clients.

tooltip();

 

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 10:26

 

And there is the crux of the problem. You seek what is most beneficial for YOUR CLIENTS.

Many of these disasters, and this is just the latest in a very long line, affect people who are not "clients" and are unrepresented.  Quite frankly if most of our clients received a bill for £1,500 it would not be a crisis for them, but the people who are likely to receive these bills are in fact those it will make a huge difference to. Pensioners, the low paid (who tend to change jobs more often), single parents, - these are the people who are most likely to be affected. 

These people are not "clients" and probably cannot afford to be clients. They are unrepresented and will simply end up paying in many cases for what is actually "official error".  How are they going to dispute these bills?  We all know the kind of standard letters they will receive from HMRC should they complain.  They will be told it's somehow "their fault" and that they should have known they were being undertaxed and should have informed HMRC.

Official error is defined a mistake made by a Government department to which the "customer" (victim) did not materially contribute - however we have already seen in the tax credits fiasco how HMRC twist & turn in their attempts to pass the blame on to claimants. 

So, I will ask a simple question as you see fit to critisize our attitude. 

What are YOU doing to protect people from this latest raid by HMRC?  What sre YOU doing to change the system?

 You talk about "official channels" - I'd love to know what channels they are and how you think they will alter anything.
 

We have already decided to hold free clinics to assist people receiving these demands, and, where appropriate, to dispute them free of charge.

As for "the system" as a long standing member of the Conservative Party and ex Conservative County Councillor (retired never having lost an election), I am ensuring that this government looks carefully at HMRC which is clearly not fit for purpose, and, that action is taken to radically overhaul the way it operates. Changes which will take time, but, which will make HMRC accountable for its actions.  

 

Thanks (0)
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
06th Sep 2010 12:39

I'm with "Frustrated" & Marion on this one

I heard Anita Monteith on Radio 4 on Saturday morning and rushed around for a while in case I'd missed a big scoop.

On closer inspection the news was based around some adjustments to the estimated amounts of PAYE over- and underpayments, and the fact that 45,000 taxpayers are going to get letters about their cases this week.

I felt the new facts needed to be reported, but didn't see much that moved it forward from the HMRC annual accounts & NAO report that detailed all the problems. While I used to work with one of the Guardian journalists who wrote the story and respect his work, both that paper and the Telegraph are programmed to make the most of issues that they feel matter to their users.

Having covered the internal IT issues confronting HMRC for many years, I'll agree that the episode exposes a worrying level of incompetence within the systems development and management function, but would put it down more to long-term [***]-ups than conspiracy.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Chris Smail
06th Sep 2010 13:43

C-D please stop reading the Daily Mail

Its September now, you should be reading Rugby in the Western Mail and working out how you are going to win the Autumn Internationals

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Sep 2010 15:23

..
C-D please stop reading the Daily MailPosted by Chris Smail on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 13:43

 

Actually I browse through most of the papers - thats one of the more useful purposes the internet provides - but I have noticed that what is in the Mail today generally appears in the Express etcetera tomorrow. Whether they are actually quicker getting the news, or, simply faster putting it online I dont know.

 

_________________________________________________

.... working out how you are going to win the Autumn Internationalstooltip(); 

Posted by Chris Smail on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 13:43

That's simple - we merely have to turn up - there really is no credible opposition.

 

_________________________________________________

Well, being a practising tax adviser my priority has to be with my clients. That does not mean that I am unaware of how the problem will affect those that are not my clients. Though it is fair to say that few, if any, of my cleints will be directly affected.

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 12:25

 

As a professional dont you feel that you owe a duty to the wider population and not merely your clients?

Being an accountant, or indeed a lawyer, a doctor, or whatever, is not a 9-5 job, it's a vocation, a way of life, and something that you dont "switch off" when you close the office door.

 

____________________________________________________

 

 

That is laudable, but I simply don't have the resources. But it misses the point - why not just get on with it, rather than moaning about problems that we already know about, and citing old examples that we've heard about many times before.

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 12:25

 

The POINT is that HMRC is a shabolic disgrace, and those who deal with it on a day to day basis must speak out at every opportunity - or nothing will ever change. As for "resources", of course you do. What about your clients, what happens if their sons, daughters, parents, uncles etc receive one of these "demands" ?  Couldnt you handle them on a pro bono basis?  

Do you not do any pro bono work at all ?  

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Sep 2010 16:36

Penny

...... there are far too many other things to do than spend my entire life thinking about tax and accountancy.

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 15:52

Agreed - and I certainly don't "live to work", BUT, at the same time I do have a social concience and believe in putting back into society more than I take out.  When you see injustice then, in my view, you have a mral duty as a human being to do whatever you can to put it right.

__________________________________________________

 

The POINT is that HMRC is a shabolic disgrace, and those who deal with it on a day to day basis must speak out at every opportunity - or nothing will ever change.

If you think that 'speaking out' on Accounting Web will lead to change in policy, good luck to you.

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 15:52

 

If it gets just one person to stop, consider, and maybe do that little bit more for his fellow man and not simply say "it doesnt affect me so I cant be bothered" - then its well worth while.

Incidently I happen to know of two members of the current government who regularly read this forum - there may be more. 

_____________________________________________________

 

As for "resources", of course you do. What about your clients, what happens if their sons, daughters, parents, uncles etc receive one of these "demands" ?  Couldnt you handle them on a pro bono basis?  

I could - but that is markedly different from setting up a free advice clinic for all and sundry.   Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 15:52

 

But it's a way to help. A way to make a difference.  Resources have little to do with it - its the desire to do something that matters.

 

_________________________________________________

 

Do you not do any pro bono work at all ?  

I don't believe I said that

tooltip();

 

Posted by PennyC on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 15:52

 

I didnt say you did - but you certainly gave the impression that you were only interested in paid work, so I asked the question.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Chris Smail
06th Sep 2010 17:57

I don't think this irs the place to 'Speak out'

Pester your MP

Email the cabinet minister responsible for HMRC (who is it now anyway?)

Go to "Working together" meetings

 

We all know wht it's like. I have friends on the inside who are depressed, meiserable and frustrated.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
06th Sep 2010 21:52

Page 2 at last!

Yet more hot air on yet another ancient topic, but was good to read John's summary (linked above). 

Having cut my teeth on thousands of incorrect notices of coding 20-30 years ago I don't see anything new in that area to bother the ward nurse about.  As "frustrated" has identified however the real news is HMRC's poor attempts to do something about it.

Ultimately it still makes sense to try to get technology to join up all the dots, eg the fact that X is employed or receiving pension from several sources, but even in a perfect IT environment, HMRC still have to rely on information provided by employees & employers and, in many cases, this information is out of date or not guaranteed to remain constant throughout the tax year.

Consequently, unless they throw it all up in the air and start again, (say with Self Coding), if collecting tax on a "best guess" basis" is to remain, then more emphasis should be given to educating and encouraging employees and pensioners to get more involved in their own tax affairs, after all who wants a nanny state?

The reasons why taxpayers don't currently get involved are complex, being a mix of confusion, fear of the unknown, "not my job" and deliberate head burying.  Removing these obstacles to clarity will be difficult in the case of the elderly and disadvantaged however there are agencies, voluntary organisations and charities (eg CAB) who currently work wonders with benefit and financial advice and so resources could be directed there rather than HMRC helpdesks.

What has surprised me however is how ill prepared young adults are to deal with tax & NI or, in general, how the state pays its way.  You only have to wait for the look of horror on the face of a 18-22 year old when they get their first payslip and see what they haven't ended up with.  This is where education should start, it would be great to think of my 20something year old kids helping my Mum with her tax.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
06th Sep 2010 23:06

Maybe we should switch over to the American style system...

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems here is that unrepresented taxpayers have no real knowledge of the tax system (and therefore how much the government is taking from them each day / week / month / year), because PAYE acts as a barrier of ignorance of the amount of tax they are actually paying.

If they had to fill in a tax form each year which clearly showed how much the government was taking away from them including PAYE Income Tax, Employees NI and (for that matter) Employers NI then they would soon begin to take more interest in the tax affairs of this country. It might even allow them to understand their boss.

BOSS: "I'd like you to really stretch yourself next year" (Thinks "Since you cost me £27,467.84 this year")

WORKER: "Sure boss" (Thinks "Miserable old goat, he's only paying me £19,174.20 after tax this year")

Maybe I'm living in cloud cuckoo land?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
06th Sep 2010 23:20

Education

What has surprised me however is how ill prepared young adults are to deal with tax & NI or, in general, how the state pays its way.  You only have to wait for the look of horror on the face of a 18-22 year old when they get their first payslip and see what they haven't ended up with.  This is where education should start, it would be great to think of my 20something year old kids helping my Mum with her tax.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Mon, 06/09/2010 - 21:52

 

Fine - you've identified a problem - but what are you going to do about it ?

Have you thought of speaking to your local school and giving a couple of hours of your time once a year to give those ready to leave school an insight into the basics of how tax works?

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
07th Sep 2010 11:21

CD

Unlike you I have no need to publicise the voluntary & charity work I do.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
07th Sep 2010 12:06

.

Unlike you I have no need to publicise the voluntary & charity work I do.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Tue, 07/09/2010 - 11:21

 

I'm not publising anything - merely asking if you have tried doing anything about the problem you perceive - or are you simply moaning and doing nothing?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Dubda
09th Sep 2010 13:51

OMG

"Being an accountant, or indeed a lawyer, a doctor, or whatever, is not a 9-5 job, it's a vocation, a way of life, and something that you dont "switch off" when you close the office door."

 

Now ive read some absolute drivel from CD over the years but this just takes the biscuit!! A doctor ill give you, but a lawyer and an accountant? A vocation? You really are having a giraffe!

Foster Carers, Social Workers, Priests/Vicars, now they are and example of some of the people who have a vocation, but to include yourself and lawyers in that bracket really does highlight how wrapped up in your own self importance you are. You really need to have a long hard look at yourself after making comments like that and while you are at it, you maybe should stop using this forum for spouting your poisonous bile. Maybe you should team up with Ken to help him out on his website, afterall, thats what it is designed for.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
09th Sep 2010 15:38

Dubda

 

Your comments say more about your own attitude.

Clearly you are clueless about the wider aspects of a profession.  There may be some lawyers who simply clock on 9-5 but some of use take the pursuit of justice more seriously, including in my case the ongoing fight against the death penalty.

Similarly there are no doubt accountants who are nothing more than simple bean counters, but some take their responsibility to society and to the weaker members of that society who can't afford professional help and end up being fleeced by unscrupulous banks and tax inspectors.

As for your reference to "poisonous bile" - produce an example - the only poisonous drivel I see is YOURS.

 

Perhaps you should stick to making the tea at the local tax office.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Dubda
09th Sep 2010 17:10

On the contrary my Welsh friend

"Your comments say more about your own attitude. Clearly you are clueless about the wider aspects of a profession". 

As an accountant myself and the child of a senior barrister, I would never class either of our proffessions as a "vocation". Its a career!!

However noble you may wish to paint your voluntary activities and crusades against injustice, it's still just a job!

A wise man once said (and no im not quoting you here CD) but if the cap fits and all that...

"There are not a few among the disciples of charity who require, in their vocation, scarcely less excitement than the votaries of pleasure in theirs".

 "As for your reference to "poisonous bile" - produce an example - the only poisonous drivel I see is YOURS. Perhaps you should stick to making the tea at the local tax office".

Well, as the local office tea monkey, i probably wouldnt have the skills to search the AWeb for one of your attacks on our cousins in HMRC, but im sure the wider community on here wont have any difficulty relating to what i said.  

Anyway, thats after 5pm now so i really must dash and put away my counting beans.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
09th Sep 2010 17:16

Ah, Penny

You are reminding me of the tragedy of human relationships!

Women think they can change men but they can't.

Men think that women won't change but they do.

Love him or loathe him, C_D isn't going to change for you, the moderators or anyone. It took me a long while to work that one out, but accepting it has made me a better person ;)

-- Kind regards Andy

PS. A very long time ago I thought AWeb's technical experts were going to revert to having the most recent post at the top of the list, not the bottom. This way is a real pain, expecially when there is a good argument to keep abreast of.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
09th Sep 2010 19:07

Penny

 I do not have the resources to carry out the amount of unpaid work that you claim to do. But does that mean that I am nothing more than a simple bean counter? As is so often, it is not what you say - it is the way that you say it.

tooltip();

 

Posted by PennyC on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 17:06

 

 

I don't seek to "polarise the profession" nor do I consider others to be" inferior or lesser human beings".  However, if I make people think, and consider what they do and why they do it, if I make them consider whether they could become better people and realise that money really isnt everything, then good.

You say you "dont have the resources" - you do.  You have your time and your expertise. Simply helping a local charity by doing its books for free can make just as much difference in it's way as going out and physically helping them do whatever work they happen to do.

 

Last week my mother found a wooden box. In it are a few faded photographs, and letters, written in pencil by my grandfathers two brothers, and the telegrams notifying their mother of their deaths in WW1.  The letters are faded, but, by scanning them then using paintshop I have been able to make readable copies.  Reading what they went through in the trenches, researching the battles they were in - one died at the Somme - I realise just how little we do for others, and just what we owe to these brave boys, and one of them was a boy having lied about his age to enlist (not uncommon I understand).  It makes me ashamed of the selfish greedy self obsessed society that we have become.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
09th Sep 2010 19:17

Dubda

"As for your reference to "poisonous bile" - produce an example - the only poisonous drivel I see is YOURS. Perhaps you should stick to making the tea at the local tax office".

Well, as the local office tea monkey, i probably wouldnt have the skills to search the AWeb for one of your attacks on our cousins in HMRC, but im sure the wider community on here wont have any difficulty relating to what i said.  

Anyway, thats after 5pm now so i really must dash and put away my counting beans.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Dubda on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 17:10

 

I think most of the community will wonder what YOUR motives were in resurecting an old thread to post a peronal attack upon another, particularly given your infrequent posting record.

As for "attacks on our cousins in HMRC".  That is a very telling phrase. If you are attempting to defend or excuse the gross incompetence demonstrated by HMRC, then you are defending the indefensible and your views are clearly not worth my time considering.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Dubda
09th Sep 2010 22:15

CD

"I think most of the community will wonder what YOUR motives were in resurecting an old thread to post a peronal attack upon another, particularly given your infrequent posting record.

As for "attacks on our cousins in HMRC".  That is a very telling phrase. If you are attempting to defend or excuse the gross incompetence demonstrated by HMRC, then you are defending the indefensible and your views are clearly not worth my time considering".

 

I very much doubt the community will even give my motives a second thought, I read a 3 day old post for the 1st time today and was frankly angered by what i was reading, (for reasons i wont bother to repeat).

As for my infrequent posting record, i have no desire to have my opinion constantly rammed down the throats of other users of this forum. That obviously makes me a lesser person than yourself, why else would you examine my posting record? I dont get the relevance?

Im glad my views are not worth your consideration, i'd hate to think i was on any kind of level with you. I look forward to you NOT wasting any more of your free time on me and my irrelevant little opinions.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
09th Sep 2010 22:36

So as suspected your post was an unprovoked personal attack.

 very much doubt the community will even give my motives a second thought, I read a 3 day old post for the 1st time today and was frankly angered by what i was reading, (for reasons i wont bother to repeat).

Posted by Dubda on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 22:15

 

You were "angered" - yet you decline to elaborate on that claim.

That is the biggest load of round bouncy objects I have heard in a long time.  Your credibility has just hit zero.

Further, by your not merely failing but actually declining to state the reason for your post it is very clear that is was in fact an unprovoked personal attack made purely for the purpose of launching your tirade of personal abuse at me.

 

______________________________________________________

.... i'd hate to think i was on any kind of level with you.  Posted by Dubda on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 22:15

 

You can be assured that from the content of your abusive posts it is self evident that my office cat has better standards than you display.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
09th Sep 2010 22:42

Penny

I'm sure that you don't - but unfortunately the tone and content of many of your posts leave that impression. You might say that is down to the reader - perhaps, but I get the feeling that I am not alone.

As for 'my resources', I'm sorry but you are making assumptions - you simply don't know anything about my circumstances, which for good reason I will not divulge on this site.

This is best replytooltip(); 

Posted by PennyC on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 19:23

 

Unfortunately your inability to comprehend what I write is a problem I cannot do anything about.  Certainly those for whom I prepare opinions have no difficulty, nor do those who read the two works I have had published.

As for your "resources" - again if you read my post I was making no assumptions at all, I merely pointed out that "resources" are not necessary, merely as much or as little time as can be spared and whatever abilities one can offer, and that this could be anything from a day a week to a morning once a year. Perhaps you can tell me what "assumptions" I made ?

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Becky Midgley
10th Sep 2010 10:11

Moderator here

@Dubda - Your comments above could be construed as 'flaming'. Can you please refrain from deliberately winding people up?

@cymraeg_draig - Don't rise to it! You should not have qualified the 'poisonous bile' jibe with a response; it was a deliberate attempt to wind you up.

We are, as ever, watching closely folks. Please try and remember what it is I have to harp on about every few months and save me from doing the stuck record thing this time.

Cheers

Thanks (0)
avatar
By weaversmiths
13th Sep 2010 18:20

Twaddle - and it is.

 <...When I worked in the old IR in the seventies and eighties we manually reconciled all the PAYE records.  A million underpayments does not seem like a particularly high figure when you consider the number of people whose circumstances change regularly throughout the year.  ....>

 

I did my PAYE training in the early 90s - oh for the benefit of doing things manually. What a dream.  Once the records are on an unremitting computer system working them manually flies out of the window.  Then grade comes into it - an RO has to wait for an RE to OK any major changes - luckily I came in from another Department and was already the grade .  There was a major PAYE coding error in the early 90s and the telephones were red hot for weeks.  There were only two of us out of six or seven and we took around 48 calls each a day from very angry taxpayers.  Where were the rest of the team?  Kids holidays x 2, TA duties x 1, sick leave x 1, holidays the remainder.  IR was in meltdown even then.

 

 

TheAncientOne

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By weaversmiths
13th Sep 2010 18:53

C-D

Andy Partridge says <Love him or loathe him, C_D isn't going to change for you, the moderators or anyone. It took me a long while to work that one out, but accepting it has made me a better person ;)..>

I have always found C-D to be a kind and helpful contributor and I do like someone who calls a spade a spade and tells it like it is.  HMRC is a shambles and this country relies on them so we professionals should be having these conversations.  I only hope that someone is reading and taking note - someone who matters and who can change things.  I complain to the Revenue when they are incompetent, they deserve it.  Usually it is something simple like not recording my 64-8s for VAT purposes and writing gobbledegook to my client (the most recent).  I received a terse reply today but they did deserve my waspish comment. and I shall continue. 

Keep up the good work C-D.  40 years working - you are but a youngster (;-).

Sorry to be a bit behind with the comments but I have been on holiday to lovely Northumberland and then to Edinburgh.

 

TheAncientOne.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
13th Sep 2010 19:03

I'll forgive you your choice of holiday - this time.

Keep up the good work C-D.  40 years working - you are but a youngster (;-).

Sorry to be a bit behind with the comments but I have been on holiday to lovely Northumberland and then to Edinburgh.

TheAncientOne.

tooltip();

 

Posted by weaversmiths on Mon, 13/09/2010 - 18:53

 

If this is what it feels like to be "a youngster" God help me when I'm older :)

How dare you go to Northumberland & Ediburgh on holiday when you could (should) have come to sunny Wales ? (Yes it is sunny - well it was - once - 1957 if I remember right).  

We love it when the English come to Wales - it saves us having to travel to England to do our missionary work.

Thanks (0)