Opinion: The demise of the General Commissioners

The changes stem from the Leggatt review of tribunals undetaken around 2001 which I think can still be read at

www.tribunals-review.org.uk

This review encompassed all tribunals not just tax ones. From memory it did flag up the issue of the perceived independence of the clerk to the General Commissioners

"...the only bit which works like the old system is where the Revenue is applying for daily penalties on a job lot of cases, and even then there are questions asked."

I disagree with this point.

I have recently had a case where daily penalties were imposed after a commissioners meeting. I was most surprised as neither my client nor my firm were advised of the meeting and therefore could not make representations at the meeting.

I had a blazing row with the inspector who informed me that the meetings were effectively a rubber stamping exercise and that my client could always appeal!

If the commissioners are going to hear cases then it is only right and fair that the taxpayer has an opportunity to put his case before a decision is made.

I did appeal and the inspector caved in as the penalties had been imposed before a deadline for submitting information had passed. Also the penalties were imposed for seven days after HMRC had issued an acknowledgement that the returns had been received.

This kind of high handedness (!) does nobody any favours and only further sours the reputation of HMRC with the public.

and am not particularly qualified to comment, but a received perception is that for all that the GCs are supposed to be independent and impartial, in practice in most cases the clerk to the commissioners is on first name terms with local inspectors (not surprisingly) and tends to have a leaning in their favour. The panel of commissioners in turn are heavily influenced by advice from the clerk.

If that perception has justification then the notion that the existing system "ain't broke" is perhaps misguided.

Whether or not that is so, it remains a valid question whether the proposed change is an improvement.

Like so much of the legislation being introduced at the moment, from tax to liquor licenses, there seems to be a lack of simplicity and common sense.

Unlike Ajay, I have found, usually, that the GC can be relied upon to administer a common sense approach and do so without great expense or inconvenience.

Furthermore, they have been known to 'knock back' the over-zealous Inspector.

Long may the GC continue.

...agreeing with every comment in the last post, until I came to the final paragraph!! The problem often IS lawyers!!!! I agree this is indeed worrying, but the fact is it is all too well directed and pertinent. Lawyers should wake up to this (but they won't - it is a self-protective circle).

Yes, of course this seems a perverse point since by definition we are dealing with law, but.... The idea that by involving lawyers we get better administration of justice, let alone justice per se, is I am afraid just not true in my experience (even before attempting to deal with cost benefits, when of course the whole argument of involving lawyers is so often blown out of the water anyway).

It is quite true to point out that very many accountants totally lack adequate advocacy skills, but are they on average worse than most lawyers? - not in my experience.

Ever since I first heard that this was a possibility I have been trying to find out further details but it seems impossible to find - does anyone know of authoratative links to what is actually being proposed here our constitutional and justice department seems not to have it.

The basic idea is a typical labour-inspired "lets have change for the sake of it because then it will look like we're doing something", ranking along with the abolition of the Lord Chancellor and the conversion of the Family Income Benefit Scheme into Tax Credits and then... in effect back into the Family Income Benefit Scheme but mishandled by HMRC who don't really understand it, unlike the Benefits Agency.

..last commentary at great length!!. Pity it was not directed at the posting it purported to answer - so much for advocacy skills.

Let's keep it simple.
(i) anyone (lawyer, accountant or self-represented bus driver) arguing a case before GC should, as a matter of self-interest and client interest, have good advocacy skills.
(ii) some lawyers and accountants have good advocacy skills
(iii) many - indeed a considerable majority - do not.

fghsf

Having been to the GC's on a few occasions, I readily agree that disputes between taxpayer and inspector have most often been usefully resolved. The thought of having to hire in solicitors and barristers to sort out matters will remove access to justice from many in small business.

Sadly (for justice), neither the Revenue nor lawyers appear to understand commercial transactions. They prove it time and time again. Not a tax case, but just look at the porridge that the lawyers made of the Equitable Life case. The General Commissioners, ordinary men and women of business, have a part to play in reviewing the underlying facts and transactions, in my view. Lawyers "trammelled by tax cases" may not discern the appropriate law to apply if they cannot properly understand the transaction or business to be taxed. I vote for retention of the General Commissioners.

As a Tax Consultant with 25 years experience sitting as a General Commissioner, I feel I can contribute to this debate.
The 3 Divisions I have sat in have all, together with the 5 Clerks I have worked with, been properly and truly indepedent. We have ensured that the group of Commissioners is representative and I believe we provide a valuable public service at a very limited cost to the Country. We may not get it right every time, but as the late Lord Denning observed - neither does the House of Lords! I feel we have curbed some seriously over zelous Revenue Officers and that in the vast majority of cases the application of sound common sense has provided a fair hearing to any tax payer appearing before us. We have had QCs, Solicitors, Accountants and tax payers address us - in each category some good, some bad.
The thing that worries me about our threatened demise is not that Lawyers in general will take over the Tribunal, but that the professional Chairmen to be appointed to each Division will all get their appointmant from the Dept. of Constitutional Affairs - an arm of Government. I have attended various discussion groups on this topic and there is a clear concern from a number of Commissioners that we are being replaced by political appointees. This cannot improve the independent role so cherished by the vast majority of General Commissioners and their Clerks.

If there are persuasive reasons to retain the GC ,the Revenue's right to challenge an appellant's election to have an appeal heard by the SC should be removed.The original reason for the Revenue's power to challenge an election no longer exists.There are no "delay" appeals anymore.Every appeal is contentious.In a recent case before the GC ,they dismissed Peter Lilley's assurances to Parliament in this connection as having been given before the introduction of self assessment and therefore not applicable!What the GC ignored is that most tax legislation was enacted before the introduction of self assessment.

I represented the appellant in a case before the SC in 1999 challenging the validity of a S9A notice.This was my first case before the SC.The District Inspector warned me that the Revenue's representative was a barrister.The Revenue's representative visited me in my one man office to evaluate the opposition and said that he had won half a dozen cases on the same point before the GC.The Revenue lost and took two further cases before the SC claiming that the arguments in the original case had not been well made as both parties were not represented by barristers.The Revenue lost again despite both parties being represented by barristers.

Many accountants consider the GC to be a rubber stamping body for the Revenue.

I would rather appear before the SC than the GC.You do not need to be a lawyer to appear before the SC.

The SC comprehend facts and evidence clearly and are independent in the true spirit of the law.The Clerk to the GC meets the local inspector frequently and often leaves it to the Revenue to send out notices of hearing and rarely liaises with the appellant's representative regarding hearing dates,directions etc.

In my view, the GC should be confined to history.The sooner the better.However, if there are persuasive reasons to retain the GC ,the Revenue's right to challenge an appellant's election to have an appeal heard by the SC should be removed.The original reason for the Revenue's power to challenge an election no longer exists.There are no "delay" appeals anymore.Every appeal is contentious.In a recent case before the GC ,they dismissed Peter Lilley's assurances to Parliament in this connection as being made before the introduction of self assessment!

The proposals are set to eliminate or at least reduce the number of general commissioners over the medium term.
No new general Commissioners have been appointed over the last 2/3 years resulting in a dramatic reduction in their numbers and to a worsening in the ratios of women and ethnic representation on the hearing bodies.
Remember the appointment of a general commissioner is until 70 ,from memory, and many of them are in their 60s.
Any change from the present system should be supported by a cost benefit analysis which the Lord chancellors office has not provided to the commissioners or included in the consultation papers sent to commissioners.
The available alternatives will lead to a significant increase in costs to the government and to the taxpayer together with a deterioration in service.

In my forty years experience I have attended many GC's and a few SC's.
I have won some and lost some but all have been conducted in the manner that I would expect from an independent panel.
Where I have lost I have always understood why and learnt from the experience and hence bettered my knowledge of tax law.
It is perhaps a sign of the times that our tax system is now too complex and technical for us mere mortals to comprehend.
It appears that Mr Brown will have a bit of time on his hands which could be utilised in giving us a fair tax system so that the need for any kind of tribunal is kept to a minimum.

.... the clerk does sometimes seem to be leaning towards the 'Revenue - fortunately, for the last case I had to deal with, the clerk was entirely fair. Sometimes I have felt a little uncomfortable with the leaning of other clerks I have encountered. Even with those problems, I would still much prefer to present a case without needless costs for the client.

Paul, it took me a long time to find anything, but there is something at www.tribunalsservice.gov.uk/gcit/reform.htm . Most importantly it tells you who is on the "stakeholder group"

Yes, The Generals, do seem to be a bit of an Independent Inquiry Panel set up by the very people they are there to monitor. The Clerk being no more than a very good chum of theirs in some cases.

Tax tribunals should be independent.