HMRC powers – a step too far? By Rebecca Benneyworth

Posted by AccountingWEB PM | on Mon, 14/07/2008 - 09:09 4364 4 comments

Its too late to change the 2008 finance bill, says top tax lecturer, Rebecca Benneyworth, but there is still the Taxpayer's Charter...

The professional bodies have expressed significant concern about the new powers available to HMRC proposed by the Finance Bill 2008.

Continued...

Ah but...

RebeccaBenneyworth | Wed, 16/07/2008 - 12:16 | Permalink

To be fair regarding penalties for errors.. (I quote) "To err is human, but to forgive is now HMRC policy". This refers to the new NIL penalty for errors having taken reasonable care (within a person's abilities and circumstances).

At least this is one area where I wholeheartedly agree with the new legislation. Not being bashed over the head for a simple error is a great step forward.

The next step is to enshrine both sides' rights and responsibilities in a robust taxpayer's charter with statutory force.

Careless/dangerous

mikewhit | Wed, 16/07/2008 - 09:55 | Permalink

@Allen

Analogous to the recent items on penalties for causing death by careless, or dangerous driving.

In one case, it's a "could have happened to anyone" - looked down to check speedo when somebody stepped out, as opposed to cutting someone up and causing a collision.

Perhaps.

HMR&C powers

lunnallen | Wed, 16/07/2008 - 09:12 | Permalink

I believe that the majority of taxpayers are honest or at least they try to be. Sometimes they can be held to be negligent but that's not dishonesty, or be guilty of omissions but that's down to inattentiveness.

After all, to err is human and shouldn't be punishable by tyrannical penalties constructed by a government that's hell-bent on increasing never-ending stealth taxes.

Now fraud is a different kettle of fish; it's usually pre-empted and is knowingly making a false representation to obtain an unjust advantage. So it's no revelation that the taxpayer will get what's deserved.

But with the new finace bill 2008 comes changes. What we may feel is deserved or equitable has no bearing when the taxpayer loses the right of appeal, whether right or wrong. When the revenue retorts: "trust us, we shall be reasonable" and exclaims: "new powers", different rules and uncertainties become visible. This inspires excessive abuse of powers and over zealous revenue officials having undue influence. With no right of appeal against the heavy brigade it's even more disturbing that the taxpayer's charter is perhaps, to become the tool of change and institutionalised as laid in stone outlined by Rebecca.

Dr Allen Lunn