You might also be interested in
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Not Horse Trading?
If it looks like a horse, neighs like a horse and trots like a horse....................
Question seems to be
Why couldn't that have happened without what seems to have been a long drawn out days work and as leon0001 says a horse trade - albeit a technical penalty? Why any penalty at all? Clearly it had/has to be founded on the mind of the client at the time that the tax return was submitted - of course I forgot HMRC would always think the client was neglectful if there was £100K at stake.
Yes but
To avoid the Tribunal procedure I submitted a matter to the Alternative Disputes Procedure in February, last. There are no complicated issues therein, and it does not involve the penalty regime.
Not having heard from them, in August I chased up a reply. The polite HMRC officer on the other end of the 'phone apologetically informed me that their office was only a "Small office with few staff". It would therefore be at least another few weeks before I might have a reply.
I in my innocence had thought that HMRC would treat this system as being important, and would do all in their power to ensure it worked quickly and efficiently. This because of the clear benefit to all of (at last) a quick way to discuss technical issues.
Not so, the HMRC officer's remark, with the delay in action, suggests that yet again this will be a bone thrown to the professional dog, with no real intention to make it work as it should.
Yet again HMRC's motto turns out to be "Don't do as we do, do as we say"
Yet, as I also found out this week, there are HMRC officers who not only know their stuff but understand it, so that without descending to horse-trading, honourable conclusions may be reached. The pity is these officers are not those driving the cart.
There used to be ...
... a similar process, I think it was called "A Tax Inspector". These could be found within a few miles of every accountant. They used specialist premises called "Tax Offices" and where there was a stalemate the tax payer and the tax inspector met and settled the issue using a system which has long since fallen into disuse, I believe the system went under the name "common sense".
.
@ OGA it does sound very much like the "old days". You have a bit of fun with the junior staff poking holes, then the proper inspector rocks up, looks at the file, weighs the evidence, has a quiet word and you do a deal.
However as always there will be a huge gulf between the pilot and the watered down 'rolled out' version so will see what happens. No doubt the 'facilitator' will end up being remote and overworked, you will never get any of these people in your office and it will just end up as it is now - being passed from on numptie to the next each 10-12 weeks when they reply to the next round of letters by which point all continuity and knowledge of the case is lost.
Quite why they sacked all the smart inspectors I will never know.
Here Here
OGA, "common sense" and "flexibility" replaced with "compliance and rigidity".
In those days I could actually phone our DI and ask what he thought about a sceanrio with the confidence that by the end of 10 minutes you would have a solution that was "right and fair" for everyone.
Thank you all
I thought | was alone and eccentric.
I am glad I am not alone.
Does anyone above the rank of Private (Pioneer Corps), in HMRC read Accounting Web?
would be nice to know.
"ADR is a free service from
"ADR is a free service from HMRC and the only costs the client will incur are hourly charge rates of the accountancy firm and any representation they require on the day"
As a client I wouldn't necessarily dismiss this as the "only cost the client will incur". This comment suggests it is immaterial to the client- it can get very expensive simply to argue something you know full well is right just because HMRC follow procedure or look for some other unfair and inequitable means to raise Revenue.
Having spent circa £20K on such costs and been proved to have been right all along, it's now virtually impossible to get HMRC to now recompense me. HMRC are well aware the costs can be very prohibitive and therefore horse trading has to be done just to prevent racking up legal costs, one sided horse trading never appeals.
Time is the issue.
That is the point at issue. ADR is a Free Service- my italics
It is a definition of constructive dishonesty-
HMRC when assessing the public cost of new systems, amendments, "Improvements to service", never takes into account the cost to the taxpayer Inclusive of professional services.
HMRC dare not. This because if HMRC were to admit the professional service cost of the system, it would demonstrate the whole fib upon which "Self-Assessment is based.
Namely- that the system is designed to enable the taxpayer to self-assess and deal easily with his or her tax affairs.
95% of the so-called improvement in HMRC efficiency over the previous three decades has in reality been a shifting of work from that department to the cost of the taxpayer.
The willful dereliction of duty by members of parliament in not directing HMRC has enabled not so civil servants to devise a tax administrative system to suit themselves rather than the so called customer. An automobile without a steering wheel. (A client of mine had one of these. He turned right at London Bridge, but the car decided to keep going ahead!)
When I sat my final tax exam there were two tax text books- which could nowadays fit into my laptop bag. I do not see any qualitative improvement despite today's tax shelf being heavy enough to give an elephant a hernia. (Goodness knows how heavy it would be, if I printed out all the manuals I have on CD)
Of course we must not forget that HMRC in these hard times have provided much employment for CCH, Lexis, Wolters Kluwer, Sage, Digita, et al.- and whoever prints the tidal wave of HMRC explanatory leaflets and software..
In fact if someone was clever enough to work out the number of Man-hours (Per taxpayer) taken up by our tax system, in 1973, including HMRC staff and professional time, compared to 2013, also including the man-hour equivalent of the computer power used- It would really demonstrate what a dog's dinner we have got ourselves into.