What happened to the ESC A19 Flowchart?

What happened to the ESC A19 Flowchart?

Didn't find your answer?

Around a year ago I was looking in the HMRC manual (the rule book used by Inspectors to inspect) and I came across a flowchart for ESC A19. Very interesting, I thought. A lot has happened in HMRC land over the last 12 months and today the flow chart has been taken away now and replaced with “(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)” The question is: why remove the flowchart? It seems harmless enough. And what justification is there to remove it?

Oh here is the flowchart, so you can see just how dangerous it is!

http://www.tax-hell.co.uk/2011/01/13/what-happened-to-the-esc-a19-flowch...

Cheers

Nick

www.tax-hell.co.uk

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
13th Jan 2011 14:53

I found something similar in the Compliance Operational Guidance

A recent What's New announcement took me to HMRC's latest Compliance Operational Guidance web pages.

I wasn't looking for any specific information like the ESC A19* flowchart, but I was also struck by the prevalencne of information withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. Not having a copy of the previous guidance, I couldn't tell whether more information is being held back this time around.

Almost as significant for transparency in my view is the awful onlilne configuration of the guidance. It's strewn very clumisly around spages and sub pages, with very little navigational assistance. Very, very little effort has been made into making the information useful to anyone, either inside or outside the department.

Hard to say whether this is a deliberate policy to make it more difficult to "game" HMRC operational procedures, or just a reflection of lack of resources.

(*not 16 as originally posted - subsequently corrected)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
13th Jan 2011 18:03

What worries me ...

... is not so much this particular flowchart, which I agree is inoccuous, but what ELSE of a similarly inoccuous nature is also withheld, and is the procedure for making that decision in any way scrutinised by a responsible body which has no vested interest in concealing the contents.  Clearly we the public cannot make that decision otherwise than in exceptional examples such as this one.

It is not just the FOIA that concerns me.  The OP had considerable success in using the DPA to access personal records when defending an investigation.  Similar attempts nowadays can be expected to meet with tougher resistance.

Some while ago, we filed a CGT comp which necessarily required the use of valuations, which were supplied by an independent professional valuer.  HMRC referred the matter to the DV and as I predicted the DV came up with valuations that gave rise to a small amount of additional tax - but just not quite a big enough difference to make it commercially viable to challenge it.

The iniquitous part of all this is that the DV is entitled to request from HMRC the computations in support of the taxpayer's claim BEFORE he is required to provide his own valuation.  Accordingly, if he is so minded, he can "decide" what valuation he intends to provide (by reference to the taxpayer's computations, adjusted to give rise to a modest tax increase) and then engineer his workings to conform with that value.  Hence my prediction that was indeed borne out.  In reality, the OMV of an asset should not be a function of the valuation provided by some other party and the independence of the DV would be more transparently upheld if he were obliged to provide his valuation without such access.

I was half inclined to challenge it pro bono, and to that end asked the DV for their detailed workings of their valuation.  All I got back was - confirmation of the valuation.   So I applied under the DPA, more out of interest of what I would get back than anything else.  What I expected was a page of notes showing other properties of like size, quality, state of repair etc, in similar locations sold on the open market for known amounts, and some sort of averaging calculation.  What I got back instead was a note to the effect that my request provided insufficient detail for them to comply with the request at all.

In the end I gave up, but rather wish that I hadn't, and maybe next time I will press the point.  The point being that the DPA recognises that the applicant may not have sufficient information to know what information is held, and therefore cannot be obliged to be "specific" in the request.  The other party simply has to regurgitate.  I think that there may be an option to charge a nominal fee, but so be it.

It is all a bit predictable, and I am not without sympathy for HMRC on it.  If the powers available under DPA became sufficiently well known they would be simply buried under the requests (perhaps they are already).  It is a bit different with the FOIA, though.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Thanks (0)