HMRC can't see letter sent out

"They tell me that's my opinion."

Tell them as one of their "customers" (victims) your opinion is supposed to be listened to.

I am sick of trying to find out why clients who have been dead for years are apparently being resurected and issued with tax codes, demands, etc.  You really would think that (deceased) after their name would give HMRC a clue, but apparently not.  We were even told when ringing about one that HMRC didnt hold a 64-8 and could we get the client to ring. Anyone got a ouija board we can borrow?  

Presumably you are talking about CT.  We have had a similar experience.

New company.  Extended first accounting period.  Two CT600s submitted online (well within time) for the first 12 months and the balance of 3 months; both acknowledged as successfully submitted.  Client advised to pay the tax of £50,000 due for the first 12 months by 1st January, the due date for first 12 months, which he did (yes - he is a good client).  We get an acknowledgement  in the post for the balance of 3 months (but no acknowledgement for the first 12 months) showing the liability as £12,500 with £50,000 paid and hence, £37,500 overpaid.  OK, we assume that he must have used a payslip or quoted the reference for the 3 month period when paying the £50,000.

However, on looking at the account on CT Online, we see that the £50,000 was allocated to the first 12 months and then, re-allocated to the balance of 3 months and that the 12 month period is shown as "superseded" and cannot be accessed.

I can understand a letter being issued and then superseded but for that to cause all record of the letter to be obliterated at HMRC appears madness.

Posted by petersaxton on Fri, 05/02/2010 - 17:14

So you could claim anything you like was in that letter - and they could not prove otherwise.  Thats not just madness, its utter stupidity.  I wonder if every time we did a set of accounts we said it had superceded the last set and we no oonger had any records they would accept that?

At least as far as the case in hand is concerned. If the letter has been superseded, then it is of no relevance whatsover. It's not clear from the question why the letter has been superseded or what replaced it, if anything. Perhaps HMRC had already corrected it? If not, as I say, the only thing you need to discuss is the current position. Anything that went before is dead and buried.

Same goes for accounts - the only ones that matter are the final ones, everything else can go in the shredder.

PC

Try telling the Revenue that next time one of your clients is investigated.  It can often be vital to be able to establish a time-line of what exactly was done when and what the precise position was at any given moment.  Anyone in business who does not retain full copies of all letters sent and received and all calculations made with dates and explanations is just asking for trouble.  

"as far as the case in hand is concerned" is difficult to understand?

(a) I appreciate that keeping a record of what work was done when done can be vital. But as far as I am concerned, redundant copies of draft accounts are unnecessary. I do keep a record of all changes made to accounts during the process and in a couple of decades of practice that has never presented a problem, either with clients or with HMRC. If others are so paranoid that they feel the need to keep every document on file or in storage that is their prerogative.

(b) HMRC certainly do have their failings but they do occasionally do things right. I don't see the point in bleating about a particular issue that is of no consequence. HMRC issued a penalty letter, that letter was superseded, so it is only the current position that is of any relevance.

(c) some people appear to thrive on bashing HMRC at every opportunity. That may not be the case but it's certainly the impression one gets from reading this forum.

PC

(c) some people appear to thrive on bashing HMRC at every opportunity. That may not be the case but it's certainly the impression one gets from reading this forum.

PC

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 06/02/2010 - 15:51

And some people seem to thrive on bashing other, probably more experienced, posters.

No one should dispose of, or delete, letters that have been sent out.  For the Revenue to have no record of what they have written is gross incompetence.  As the OP states - the details on the "missing" letter were incorrect - he rang them to sort this out - and discovered that his time had been totally wasted by HMRC.  His no doubt valuable time was wasted. 

I have no doubt that he also wasted a considerable time listening to potted music and waiting to actually speak to a human being, automated telephone machines, another backward step by HMRC. Personally i would not allow them on my premises and we advise clients to avoid them too. In a recent study it was shown that companies using them lose 25% of sales due to potential customers hanging up when they encounter these systems.  

If the penalty determination has been superseded, they can no longer be pursuing a penalty by reference to that determination. So why go on about it? If they have cancelled it let it be, and move on. If it's been replaced by another determination, deal with it appropriately. In any event, the original determination is of no consequence now, and to use it as an example of HMRC ineptitude is simply that - unecessary HMRC bashing.

I wasn't bashing anyone - merely noting what I have observed on this forum - if you think I was referring only to you, think again.

PC

Well if ceefax is to be believed, HMRC are now saying that as many as 25 million incorrect tax codes have been issued.  Or maybe its our imagination - they dont really exist, because HMRC will "have no record of them" as they are "system generated".

Yet again HMRC use "the system" as an excuse - it isnt - THEY put the data in - THEY key in the garbage that passes for data - and THEY send out demands, tax codes etc in the full knowlege that they are wrong.  Which makes it all the more ironic when they them toss around accusations and issue "penalties" (fines) when one of their customers (victims) makes an honest error.

Now it seems that THEIR errors simply disappear in a magic puff of smoke.  It's called deniability.  "We dont have a record of it therefore it never happened".  

b) HMRC certainly do have their failings but they do occasionally do things right.

PC

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 06/02/2010 - 15:51

Correct Pc - I remember it well, it was 1966, a spring morning ......................................

I do agree that it's hardly best service, but I maintain that this particular event is not worth the song and dance.

It also seems that others have had a very unfortunate lifetime's experience with HMRC - I would say in my experience I've had more positives than negatives (horrendous though some of the negatives were). Like it or not, we have to deal with them, and the constant HMRC-bashing that we see here can do nothing to help that relationship. I believe in fact that such a negative attitude probably helps to destroy any working relationship that might otherwise exist in individual cases.

Put it another way, if certain members here (again mentioning no names) were to treat HMRC Officers the same way they treat other Accounting Web members, it's no surprise if if their experience is less than positive.

Perhaps in my case the difference is that I rarely deal with call centres, but talk/write mainly directly to Officers.

PC

It also seems that others have had a very unfortunate lifetime's experience with HMRC - I would say in my experience I've had more positives than negatives (horrendous though some of the negatives were). Like it or not, we have to deal with them, and the constant HMRC-bashing that we see here can do nothing to help that relationship. I believe in fact that such a negative attitude probably helps to destroy any working relationship that might otherwise exist in individual cases.

Put it another way, if certain members here (again mentioning no names) were to treat HMRC Officers the same way they treat other Accounting Web members, it's no surprise if if their experience is less than positive.

Perhaps in my case the difference is that I rarely deal with call centres, but talk/write mainly directly to Officers.

PC

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/02/2010 - 09:02

The question seems to be -

Do we, as taxpayers ourselves, and as representatives of other taxpayers, simply roll over and allow repeated gross incompetence?  Do we "accept" perverse rules and decisions which amount to little short of state sponsored theft. Do we allow HMRC to get away with their attitude that people are "guilty until proven innocent"? 

or,

Do we actually challenge injustice.   Insist upon moral standards. And actually represent the interests of our clients, the taxpayers, the people who not only pay our wages, but also pay the wages of the taxman.

And just to set the record straight PC - I AM on friendly, first name terms with many seniot HMRC staff. What's more a great number of senior staff at HMRC agree that their organisation is now an utter disgrace, a total shambles.  Of course they can do nothing about it and dare not speak out in public - because if they did they would soon find themselves without a pension.

However, there are other tax officers - a new breed - who are pompous, self opinionated, and have no moral standards whatsoever. They seize and abuse any and every power they can. They operate with total contempt for the rights of the taxpayer and they intend to trample over anyone who dares to stand up to them. You have a choice with people like that - you roll over and become a door mat over which they will walk, or, you meet them head on and destroy them.

The days of a professional working relationship with HMRC are coming to an end.  The new breed are taking over, and we must stand up for our client's rights, and indeed our own rights.

And in principle I don't disagree with much of what you say. But I go back to the fact that I was referring to the particular issue raised - a penalty notice that has been incorrectly issued and then superseded automatically by HMRC is not worth the time and effort to worry about.  So they made a mistake? So they corrected it themselves without agent/taxpayer intervention? Yes, a 'correcting' letter might have been nice, but as a glass half-full person, I see HMRC's actions as a positive.

I do have my own concerns about HMRC but there are proper channels for voicing them - I don't believe that ranting about it and blowing off steam on Accounting Web serves any useful purpose.

PC

bad laws must be challenged.

Bad practice must be challenged.

Injustice must be challenged.

If allowed to continue then Britain will become more and more like the old communist East Germany.  Already the signs are there - "shop a .........." lines exist for everything from tax fiddlers and benefiit cheats to people not recycling properly. The MLR regulations are an extention of this attitude placing unreasonable responsibilities of accountants. The government has proposed paying "bounties" to neighbours to spy on each other.  Our every move is filmed on the highest density of CCTV cameras in the world.  Government proposes putting black boxes in every car to track your every journey - and charge you for it.

Hitler tattooed numbers on peoples arms - the communists had paid spies to watch their neighbours - can't you see the similarity ?

What has this to do with HMRC?  They assume you are guilty unless proven innocent.  They believe their data is always right and the "state" is right - always. They rewrite history so that mistakes never happened.  Its all part of the same attitude.

And dont think for one seciond that the courts are there to protect you, because soon legal aid will be virtually non existent. Already the government is proposing changes to totally deny defendants to right to representation in the magistrates courts. Justrice, honsty, integrity, ethics - all words which will soon disappear from the english language.

All from an incorrect penalty demand.

I know all about "thin edge of the wedge", but talk about OTT

No - from 40 years of increasing HMRC incompetence.

Because when I encounter it, I deal with it - usually with a swift and positive outcome. I don't see the need to harp on about it on forums such as this, which at the end of the day will achieve absolutely nothing. But - each to their own. If moaning here reduces stress levels, fair enough.

PC

What I said was there are other ways of dealing with it. My preference is to actually deal with it and not to moan about it here. In my experience the former is much more productive.

PC

Yes, I'm relaxed about it

Because when I encounter it, I deal with it - usually with a swift and positive outcome. I don't see the need to harp on about it on forums such as this, which at the end of the day will achieve absolutely nothing. But - each to their own. If moaning here reduces stress levels, fair enough.

PC

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/02/2010 - 17:41

And you will still be "relaxed" when you find that you have been falsely accused by them under their proposed new regime?

You still feel "relaxed" that the families of thec dead are being harassed by tax demands and tax codes addressed to their deceased wives, husbands, parents. and children?   YES - we had a tax demand sent address to a client's daughter - two years after their daughter had been killed in a road accident at the age of 14.  What the hell were HMRC doing ?

You feel "relaxed" about wasting hours a week dealing with their gross incompetence?  You clealy have nothing better to do with your time - some of us do.  

"And you will still be "relaxed" when you find that you have been falsely accused by them under their proposed new regime?"

I'll deal with that if and when it happens, I'm not going to worry about it now.

"You still feel "relaxed" that the families of thec dead are being harassed by tax demands and tax codes addressed to their deceased wives, husbands, parents. and children?   YES - we had a tax demand sent address to a client's daughter - two years after their daughter had been killed in a road accident at the age of 14.  What the hell were HMRC doing ?"

Quite a different matter from a corporation tax penalty notice sent out incorrectly and then superseded by HMRC without intervention.

You feel "relaxed" about wasting hours a week dealing with their gross incompetence?  You clealy have nothing better to do with your time - some of us do.  

Well, clearly you and your clients are most unfortunate. Looking back over the last month's timesheets, I would estimate that HMRC's 'incompetence' has cost me about, oh, 5 minutes.

PC

Quite a different matter from a corporation tax penalty notice sent out incorrectly and then superseded by HMRC without intervention.

Well, clearly you and your clients are most unfortunate. Looking back over the last month's timesheets, I would estimate that HMRC's 'incompetence' has cost me about, oh, 5 minutes.

PC

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 07/02/2010 - 20:08

Not different at all - just general incompetence which pervades every part of HMRC.

"5 minutes" - but out of how many clients, and how complex are their businesses?  Do you take on clients who are having problems and sort them out?  

5 minutes if you have 50 clients, becomes 10 hours if you have 5000 clients.

But I'm not going to get involved in oneupmanship games. All I'll say is that "50 clients" is way, way off target.

PC

Our time is recorded in units of 5 minutes, so yes, I can see the detail if I need to.

Of course we often speak to HMRC but as far as I know only once (recorded) in the last month on a matter of so-called HMRC incompetence. They cocked-up interest charged on a CT account by mis-allocating payments to the wrong period. A 30s email to the client to advise them to ignore the request for payment and a letter (all of 2 minutes) to HMRC was all it took to sort it out. Sure, the postage/stationery was a cost that we could have done without but I'm happy to say the practice is profitable enough to absorb it.

And, no, I did not review every timesheet in detail for the purposes of this thread. There may well have been other instances, but as the timesheets are fresh in my mind from month-end review, I know that such instances are few indeed.

Oh, and 10 clients? - You've gone the wrong way ;)

You can choose not to believe a word I say - makes no difference to me.

PC

Would it perhaps make a difference to your attitude if I told you that today I received a HMRC letter which had a missing full stop at the end of one paragraph?

Just think of the poor taxpayer who might read this letter and waste valuable time looking for the rest of the sentence. It makes my blood boil!

What??? You mean HMRC don't have independent proof-readers checking every item of correspondence? Yes, I agree - that is outrageous, and I would be straight onto the telephone (having first checked with client, in writing, that they are prepared to meet all costs).

;) ;)

It seems that some dont see much incompetence by HMRC - of course that could be because they dont bother to check. 

As we regularly take cases against HMRC, and defend cases brought by HMRC, we are, I suspect, in a better position to judge than those who simply do "routine" accounts. 

I would not be exaggerating when I say that around 80%-90% of cases brought by HMRC are based upon erronious calculations or incorrect application of the law - by HMRC.  And there is no excuse for the incompetence we routinely see. 

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for sending out letters addressed to ******(deceased). That is not an "error" or a "mistake" - it is gross incompetence, and it is far from an isolated case. 

Threatening people with bailiffs and bankruptcy proceedings if they "do not pay the above amount" then stating the amount owed to be £ NIL is  not an "error" or a "mistake" - it is gross incompetence.

And of course, these constant foul mups come from an organisation that refuses to accept that taxpayers can make genuine innocent mistakes on their tax returns - which of course is sheer hypocrusy by HMRC.

You seriously need to calm down. Everybody gets worked up about some HMRC foul up occasionally, but you seem to get totally livid every five minutes. You're heading down heart attack alley my friend.

Learn to distinguish between what is worth getting wound up about and what isn't. Getting a letter threatening to send the bailiffs for an unpaid amount of nil. Ok it's mildly annoying at worst, but you seem to get as annoyed about that as you would if a HMRC officer ate your hamster.

You seem to see admin errors on a par with a HMRC inspector lying and swindling a client out of thousands of punds of undue tax, and that this is something which happens every day. It isn't. Calm down.

"A lot of people seem to be quite happy ignoring incompetence"

Depends how serious/important it is, and how negative an effect it will have on my or my client's well-being. A spelling mistake doesn't really do it for me.

"You are obviously one of these people who doesn't care if the pilot is looking for the cockpit at the back of the plane. You'll wait until he's heading straight for the mountain before getting alarmed!"

I care whether or not he can fly an aeroplane, I just don't really care whether or not he can spell it!

"To me it is a symptom of too many people with their noses in the trough receiving taxpayers money for doing a bad job."

To me it is Much Ado about Nothing

Peter, you're so right!  It's not just that Inland Revenue was spelt wrongly, the chances are that the form had other fundamental flaws.  Think about other HMRC forms which aren't fit for purpose, and you soon see that it is institutional incompetence.  If the people designing the forms can't even get the simple things right, it's not hard to see why the other more important failings occur.  I remember the original form 42 showing "Febuary" - that's another basic school-boy error.  How about the online tax returns where you can't put a "£" or "%" sign in the white space (pretty fundamental when dealing with monetary units and percentages you would think), or where the program has been written to split words between lines instead of starting a new line, or where there is inconsistency between lengths of fields so you end up with incomprehensible abbreviations - I could easily go on.  But more importantly are forms where you simply can't enter the information needed because the designers havn't put the question/answer block in place which means inevitable further communications afterwards to correct mistakes that could easily have been avoided by a better form in the first place.  No, Peter, you're quite right.  HMRC is institutionally incompetent, and dealing with their errors isn't adequate as they'll never learn if we, as a professional, simply shut up and deal with it.  They need taking to task each and every time a mistake is made - that's the only way they'll ever improve.