You might also be interested in
Replies (13)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
More stats please
It would be interesting to get an idea of whether the 1 in 4 figure is skewed by taxpayers representing themselves at tribunal in "hopeless" cases. Could the figures for properly argued cases be nearer 50:50?
Statistics
7081 appeals - 6626 were settled- 95% of appeals did not go to tribunal either revenue accepted the taxpayers appeal, there was a compromise or the taxpayer changed their mind and withdrew the appeal.
It would be interesting to know how many of these were settled with less tax being collected than originally sought.
It seems reasonable to assume that there was some benefit to the taxpayer to accept a settlement to their appeal.
Of the 7000 odd appeals the HMRC successfully argued 342 in front of the tribunal - not quite the 75% success rate implied
also what was the subject matter?
A lot of what the tribunal sees relates to penalties. Thinking for example about VAT surcharges the client may perceive the Tribunal to have more discretion than is actually the case.
The more interesting question is whether or not HMRC are winning cases where there are clear grounds for appeal.
It is also worth noting that because of the Donaldson decision few (any?) cases have yet been heard on self assessment late filing penalties post the new penalty regime.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
I sit as a Tribunal Member and can tell you that you cannot draw any sensible conclusion from the HMRC figures. Quite a lot of utterly hopeless appeals by unrepresented taxpayers come to hearing. "Yes, I was late but I am usually on time, so please let me off". My experience is that the taxpayer wins the majority of cases that are not utterly hopeless.
So do not be put off taking a case with some merit. What I can be sure about is that you will get a fair hearing.
Chance has nothing to do with it
Thank you charles.underwood for responding so appropriately to this piece of sloppy journalism.
The published figures simply report historical fact.
They have no bearing on the prospect of success in a future case: that success should depend on the merits (or otherwise) of the appeal and the strength of the presentation of the case to the Tribunal.
I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest that the outcome of a Tribunal Hearing comes down to chance, and I do not believe that it does.
If the author believes that Tribunal hearings really are just a lottery with a 25% chance of winning, he should produce some real evidence of that.
I heard the other day that the national pass rate for the driving test was just over 47%. One of my nieces takes hers soon. She is an intelligent, confident and capable driver and has had hours and hours of practice. If this article is right, though, she still has less than 50% chance of success!
I was involved only three weeks ago at a Tribunal. As a payroll provider I had made a "genuine mistake". I took it all the way to tribunal. I am a sole payroll practitioner with an unblemished record over 20 years..Lett me say the whole process is not for the faint hearted. It is just like a court case with all the rules and regulations that go with it. HMRC referring to "bundles", the official Tribunal hearing where HMRC run roughshod over you, producing additional bundles which are not technically allowed. After my tribunal we wrote to complain about the way it was handled and we were allowed to put our concerns in writing. HMRC were allowed to respond. Their response bore little resemblance to that tribunal!.
What is the percentage of people pulling out of the process because they cant get to grips with the legal side of it? I would have not have gone the full race if I hadn't have had my accountant husband backing me up, writing the letters etc. He was like my solicitor.
Oh - and if you are interested The Judge has gone away for two months to think on it as there were legal implications where HMRC had got in a muddle with what they were "charging" me for.
When its been decided - which I know will not go my way you can all have a look at it as it will be in the public domain.
I read this as......
.... If you have a good case you are likely to win, however if you don't then you are likely to lose.
Isn't this the real point of tribunal?
If you have a really good case, it probably will not end up at tribunal at all.
Absolutely correct
If you have a really good case, it probably will not end up at tribunal at all.
My illustrious namesake is right. HMRC like any large litigant has to filter cases. If the taxpayer is likely to win, they don't (and shouldn't) waste public money taking it to tribunal. So the sample of cases that get through to hearing is doubtless skewed in favour of HMRC slam-dunks, or cases where the taxpayer doesn't know or won't accept that his/her case is weak. So the statistic is not really very surprising, or significant.
Great headline
Robert, which has created well informed comments.
Thank you for commenting Charles.Underwood. It really is good to get comments from people that I call "in the know".
When you have a great headline does it really matter about the content. Anyone can see it's an insurance promotion but don't we just bypass that because the meat is in the headline.
Another consideration is this; what if HMRC simply drops the cases they don't think they will win on the day of the hearing? This way HMRC keep a high scorecard and they have put the taxpayer through unfair stress and expense.
And are HMRC responsible for the money they spend on taking cases this far? I have been told by a former HMRC Fraud investigator it will cost between £150,00 to £450,000 to complete a prosecution that may only amount to a £2,000 loss,
And are HMRC responsible for the money they spend on taking cases this far? I have been told by a former HMRC Fraud investigator it will cost between £150,00 to £450,000 to complete a prosecution that may only amount to a £2,000 loss,