Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Tax tribunal accepts recession as a cause for late payment

by
29th Jan 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Recent tax cases suggest the Tax Tribunal accepts the recession may be a ‘reasonable excuse’ for late payment.
 
Businesses struggling to meet VAT and other tax liabilities might be interested to hear that a lack of funds was accepted as a reasonable excuse for late payment of tax in a recent tax case, however this shortfall must be due to events outside the taxpayer’s control.

“While Time to Pay agreements should remain the first port-of-call for struggling businesses to negotiate a delay in critical tax deadlines, this case provides further scope for discussions with the taxman and so are worth noting”, said Richard Mannion, national tax director at Smith & Wiliamson. 
 
In the case of Mutch v HMRC (TC 232), the taxpayer had built up his carpentry business to meet the needs of the local house builders, but the business had been overtaken by the recession and the immediate and devastating impact on the demand for new houses.

The judge referred to two VAT cases (“Salevon” at the High Court, September 1989, and “Steptoe” at the Court of Appeal, July 1992) where the test of reasonable excuse was considered. He said that the precedent laid down by the Courts was that you should ask whether the taxpayer had exercised reasonable foresight and due diligence in the knowledge that the tax would become due on the particular dates, but those efforts could not have avoided the insufficiency of funds which led to the failures.

Applying those tests the Judge found that the way that Mr Mutch reacted to the recession was “fair and business-like” and he had met the required standards.

“These cases have arguably shown up HMRC’s lack of understanding of just how catastrophic the recession has been for particular types of business and the decisions serve as a rebuke to their more usual unsympathetic approach. I hope that those in charge at HMRC will take the decisions on board and ensure that their staff follow the steps clearly laid down by the courts,” said Mannion.
 
“The reported cases underline the fact that an insufficiency of funds can be a reasonable excuse if attributable to events outside the taxpayer’s control. This could be the case where the business has a strong track record of good financial management, having met tax deadlines in the past, but cash flow problems had arisen due to circumstances beyond their control, and had been caused, for example, through fraud or a sudden credit problem”.

An HMRC spokesperson told AccountingWEB: “The issue relates specifically to appeals against loss of gross payment status by businesses that operate the Construction Industry Scheme. The published decisions, based on the facts of each individual case, only therefore have a narrow specific application, and do not change HMRC’s interpretation of the legislation.

“We listened to construction industry concerns with regard to a general downturn in work from early 2008 onwards, as a result of which HMRC revised its internal CIS guidance regarding reasonable excuses for late payments due to cash flow problems.

“Where a business has been granted a time to pay arrangement and is keeping to the agreed terms, then this will not affect its gross payment status”.

 

Tags:

Replies (26)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
30th Jan 2010 09:50

Lamentable

“These cases have arguably shown up HMRC’s lack of understanding of just how catastrophic the recession has been for particular types of business and the decisions serve as a rebuke to their more usual unsympathetic approach."

That's a ridiculous statement and demonstrates how, whatever HMRC does, there is a lobby that will not fail to criticise. What is the Business Payment Support Service if not an acknowledgement and understanding of the problems faced by businesses during the recession? Hasn't over £4bn been deferred? I know several businesses that would have gone under without it so how thy can be dexribed as "unsympathetic" is a poor reflection on those "rent-a-quotes" who pop up from time. I wonder why so-called tax professionals and accountants sometimes lack credibility?

Lamentable.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
30th Jan 2010 10:25

Heh - don't start me on the BPSS

I have experienced a definite discrepancy in the attitude of BPSS depending on whether they are dealing with agents or directly with taxpayers.  Whenever I speak to them they are courteous, helpful, and all that I would hope to expect.  But when clients come to me having spoken to them direct I hear repeated stories of bullying and obstacles.  Although I only get to hear the conversations second hand, here are a couple of examples:

(1)

Client: (words to the effect of) "Having problems, etc, can we discuss instalments please"

BPSS: (direct quote) "We're not a bank, you know!"

(2)

Partnership comprising of two 75 year olds, one having a liability of £200, the other £600.  Having trouble making ends meet, they phone up BPSS:

Client: "We can pay the £200 now, but can we pay the £600 over the next 3 months in instalments of £200?"

BPSS: "Oh, God, you owe the tax, just pay it!"

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
30th Jan 2010 11:42

The trouble with second hand anecdotes..

... is that they aren't necessarily representative and you don't tend to know all the details. I'm sure there are examples where, maybe, calls haven't been handled in a way that might have been expected but who is to say that the callers didn't give the impression they just didn't fancy paying their tax rather than being a viable business with temporary difficulties. Hard to know but, as ever, the minority who have a bad experience (justified or not) always shout louder than the vast majority who have a good experience.

Not a problem restricted to taxation but you do see a lot of carping, not least on AccountingWeb, from handful of people who feel wronged, which leads to an unjustified negative impression. Remember how we compained for years about the complexity of CGT and when it was eventually simplified "everyone" was up in arms and the business community said it was the end of the world and would lead to disaster? So complexity was introduced again when, in reality, a lot of people were privately saying the reform was correct but they didn't have the stomach to stand up to the loud minority. In those circumstances, we only have ourselves to blame. 

And What if someone thinking of using the BPSS sees the negative comments about HMRC's attitudes and thinks "oh, I won't bother" even if there is a legitimate need? That's not very desirable but reading some comments (and some of these threads) would give you that impression and that would be unfortunate. But Mr Mannion doesn't much care about that...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
31st Jan 2010 00:21

Lamentable ?

a poor reflection on those "rent-a-quotes" who pop up from time. I wonder why so-called tax professionals and accountants sometimes lack credibility?

Lamentable.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 30/01/2010 - 09:50

 

 

Perhaps you would make that comment after hearing a tape recording made of a HMRC "representative" in which when asked by a taxpayer for time to pay, retorted - "people like you make me sick, you shouldnt be allowed to keep a penny, not even to buy food to eat until you have paid what you owe". He then goes on in similar abusive vein for some time before the taxpayer (a lady) hangs up in tears.

Now THAT is what I would call lamentable. And yes, I personally listened to and recorded that conversation and would sign an affidavit to its authenticity if required.

 

Don't HMRC have their own forum? 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Jan 2010 09:08

One swallow doesn't make a summer

So predictable. It is almost like you ignored the earlier post about anecdotes because it didn't fit with your story but then that's what people do when they aren't interested in the discussion or debate, only an opportunity to have their own beliefs reinforced. It's the reason people watch Fox News, read the Daily Mail or join the BNP.  The fact you ask "doesn't HMRC have its own forum" shows you are not interested in listening to views that don't accord with your own notions of the world and would probably blame HMRC for the weather given half the chance. But if it makes you feel better about yourself to act in this way instead of being constructive then so be it.

IF true and IF the details are as you have suggested then clearly it is reprehensible and action should be taken. If you have a recording then you should post a link to it so we can all hear it. Something like Rapidshare will do the trick. But remind me how many phone calls HMRC get? Tens of millions. You've successfully taken one call and implied it is the norm when we both know it isn't. And you've successfully taken the call and implied that no other organisation taking that many calls would have a few not handled very well.

Your posts never seem to be constructive and I can only say I am glad that you don't represent my tax affairs. You don't have to answer to me but just because you believe you are right it doesn't mean you are.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
31st Jan 2010 09:18

Defending the indefensible

"IF true and IF the details are as you have suggested"

This comment clearly sums up your obvious agenda - to defend HMRC regardless. As an officer of the court I do NOT lie sir, and I consider the innuendo in your posting highly offensive.  

 

 

"But remind me how many phone calls HMRC get? Tens of millions. You've successfully taken one call and implied it is the norm when we both know it isn't. And you've successfully taken the call and implied that no other organisation taking that many calls would have a few not handled very well."

And according to recent reports - how many of those calls dont they even bother to answer ? 

 

 

"!Your posts never seem to be constructive and I can only say I am glad that you don't represent my tax affairs. You don't have to answer to me but just because you believe you are right it doesn't mean you are."

Does the term "Pot & kettle" mean anything to you?   Nothing constructive in your postings, merely a desparate attempt to defend the indefensible.

Perhaps you believe it is "right" to knowingly send out incorrect tax codes then sit back and do nothing whilst overtaxing millions, knowing fuill wel that many will not question their codes and that HMRC will, therefore, have STOLEN taxes it is not entitled to, mainly from the poorer members of society?

 

Time you faced a simple fact - HMRC is the most incompitent organisation there is, the quality of their staff is appalling, and they are "not fit for purpose".  The attitude displayed in your postings demonstrates very clearly why taxpayers need accountants - to protect them from arrogant HMRC staff.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Jan 2010 09:43

Then post the recording...

IF you have the recording then post it so we call listen to it. I am not calling you a liar but you are making an assertion without any evidence to support it. Upload the mp3 to Rapidshare or Megaupload so we can hear the evidence. It will take 5 minutes. And I do hope that all parties concerned know you were recording that call or maybe your integrity, which you claim to hold dear, is not as great as you would have us believe. If you find it offensive whenever someone asks you for evidence to support your claims then no wonder you take a dim view of HMRC!

Other than that you haven't shown the intellectual capacity to cope with the issues I raised with you. That's because you are only interested in peddling mistruths to fit your pre-conceived notions of the world. Until you are able to discuss the issues then there is nothing more to say. I'm not going to play the game of allowing you to masquerade your inability to answer the questions by raising different issues.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
31st Jan 2010 10:16

HMRC arrogance - ably demonstrated right here

 

 

Your posting again displays your utter arrogance and total ignorance of the law. Perhaps you need enlightening.

HMRC clearly states that IT records calls. Where one party records calls the other party is legally entited to also record those calls, and, is under no obligation whatsoever to notify HMRC that it is doing so as HMRC staff already know that all their calls are, or may be, recorded by HMRC itself.

As for producing evidence. That recording, along with approximately 3,000 other exhibits, will indeed bewcome extremely public later this year. Until then it remains sub judice.

As for your closing paragraph - again you simply resort to being offensive.  Your posting is only to typical of the politrically correct righteous brigade who infest our society with their holier than thou attitude. 

At no point have I raised "other issues", merely the one simple fact - that HMRC is not fit for purpose, and has an appallingly arrogant attitude which utterly disgusts any right thinking person.  The quote from a member of HMRC staff quoted in the OP article clearly demonstrates the arrogance and complete ignorance of HMRC who still continue to delude themselves that they can ignore court rulings.  

Judging from the tone of your postings I can only onder if, perhaps, you were the muppet who told a client they didnt deserve to eat until their tax had been paid - you certainly seem to demonstrate the same arrogant attitude.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Jan 2010 10:54

Thanks for proving my point yet again...

Firstly, I do not work for HMRC now and have never worked for HMRC. Never will either. But your pre-conceived notions led you to believe I did because it would suit your argument better if I did.

Secondly, I am not an expert on the legality of recording phone calls but I questioned the INTEGRITY of recording a phone call without informing the other party rather than the legal position, particularly given your faux outrage. HMRC inform you they are recording so it seems weasel-like to not extend them the same courtesy. And according to this link then you do need permission to record the call if you are going to share it with a third party so if your client recorded the call and let you hear it then I wouldn't be so sure about the legality. http://www.retellrecorders.co.uk/legal/home.htm

Thirdly, until you produce the evidence then it is very difficult to take you seriously. 3000 exhibits!? Are you seriously suggesting that you have a case with 3000 exhibits where your client(s) have been wronged by HMRC?

Fourthly, there is noting about my posts that are offensive other than the fact you don't agree with them. If you don't want to or can't discuss the issues then I'm not sure what you expect me to do? You feel compelled to stick it to HMRC every opportunity and that is your right I suppose but your attitude undermines your every step. You don't have a monopoly on what is correct any more than I do but the difference is I understand that.

Fifth, of course you have raised other issues. You started talking about incorrect tax codes and how incomptent HMRC are. You started talking about the calls that HMRC don't answer. This isn't a thread about whether HMRC are fit-for-purpose or not, its about the decision of a tax tribunal and the comments that HMRC have been unsypathetic to businesses during the recession.

But you prove my point about the loud minority so I would like to hear from others about their views.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
31st Jan 2010 11:22

If you dont work for HMRC - you should.
 

Integrity does not come into it. HMRC certainly show no integrity when making offensive comments to taxpayers. As IU stated there is no legal requirement to inform HMRC, or indeed anyone else, where they are already recording. After all you are only making your own copy of what they have.

For your information in any and every interview situation with HMRC we ALWAYS record the entire interview. It is amazing how short these interviews become when inspectors care faced with a triple deck recorder.

And I can assure you that I am absolutely sure of the legality - I am an expert on such matters.

Yes - I am currently involved in a class action with approximately 3,000 exhibits. Letters from HMRC ADMITTING that they regularly lose returns, letters from HMRC deliberately misrepresenting the legal position, recordings of offensive and harassing calls from HMRC, etc.

 

You state - "there is noting about my posts that are offensive other than the fact you don't agree with them".  So you dont consider your comments regarding the tapes that "IF they exist" and the clearly intended implication of that comment to be offensive?  If that is the case then you are clearly deluded and arrogant in the extreme.

 

You then go on to state - "But you prove my point about the loud minority so I would like to hear from others about their views", which is of course a further offensive comment. It seems that you dont know when you are being offensive.

 

My comments related quite simply to the arrogance of HMRC is stamping its feet and pouting whenever the courts rule against it. HMRC has repeatedly displayed a total inability to understand the affects of the recession, or indeed any other external influence, on businesses. That is no surprise as the majority of HMRC staff openly admit they have never worked in industry and have no experience of "the real world".

 

Unanswered 'phone calls. lost tax returns, erroneous tax codes, constant delays, and an arrogant refusal to accept court rulings, are symptomatic of HMRC's attitude.  Given your own arrogant refusal to accept other's opinions it is, therefore understandable, to believe that either you work for HMRC, or, if you dont, then you should. 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Jan 2010 11:48

I'm glad you are so sure of yourself...

... both in your attitude towards HMRC and the recording of phone calls. OFcom seem to take a different view and there is no caveat relating to whether the phone call is being recorded by someone else. But, you know best.

Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone? Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication.

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me? No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/consumer/advice/faqs/prvfaq3.htm

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
31st Jan 2010 13:11

Perfectly legal - despite your spurious arguements
 

Yes, as a practicing barrister I am totally certain of myself.  The question of recorded telephone conversations has been addressed many times by the courts and the court of appeal. The leading judgement probably being by Denning MR when Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was criticised for secretly recording telephone conversations with the Attorney General, among others. 

Denning MR stated that the evidence obtained could not be refused - “I know that in criminal cases a judge may have a discretion … But so far as civil cases are concerned it seems to me that the judge has no discretion.  The evidence is relevant and admissible”.   

The whole basis revolves around what is termed "a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy". Quite clearly a state employee, on a telephone system which he knows is being recorded by his own employer, has no expectation to privacy whatsoever and therefore can be recorded.  That employee further knows that his conversations are recorded and therefore by holding the conversation does so in the full knowledge and with implied consent that said conversation can be produced as evidence of any wrongdoing or in any disciplinary hearing, court case, or employee evaluation. 

Therefore your spurious arguement that you need consent is irrelevent where the other party is already recording the conversation.

Further, I would suggest that any accountant who does not record all conversations with HMRC is negligent in failing to take all reasonable precautions to at all times protect his client's interests.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 08:43

HMRC & The Real world

Can't say I've spoken to anyone rude at the BPSS, but did have a recent corp tax case which they referred to the local collector where, for the first time in forever I spoke to someone who exercised some common sense, partiularly with regard to that rediculous questionnaire they have. anyway we agreed something realistic for my client.

Couple of weeks pass by and i get a frantic call from client, someone else from HMRC has rung, gone thru the questionnaire again and upped the repayments by £200 a month to be paid on DD (something i never recommend in these instances).

 

so i ring back to speak to ther person i had dealt with, but as always that isn't allowed I have to speak to whomever answers the phone, who goes off to investigate comes back and says they need profits to date, which we had already explained weren't available. So she asks that we let her have the expected  current year end figures by the 1st week of April (for a 31/3 year end).

 

They clearly think 1- all clients prepare management accounts and can tell you at any given point how their business is doing complete with supporting documentation,

2 - agents sit around all day waiting for stuff to come in immediately the year end has passed.

 

A lesson in the real world is required methinks

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 12:03

A little humility goes a long way ...

 

To quote cymraeg_draig:

"as a practicing barrister I am totally certain of myself"

How impressive.  I recall a prominent tax QC remarking that the greatest degree of certainty he could ever give in an opinion was 75%.  If a taxpayer wanted 100% certainty, he or she should simply pay the tax in question.

Perhaps, before making such an assertion, you could pay more attention to your spelling (it helps if you can spell "incompetent" if you're going to accuse somebody of being it).

I might add that no barrister I've ever consulted would accuse someone of being a "muppet" in a public forum, or demonstrate such an apparent lack of control and restraint as in your posts on this thread.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 12:52

Hear, hear

"I might add that no barrister I've ever consulted would accuse someone of being a "muppet" in a public forum, or demonstrate such an apparent lack of control and restraint as in your posts on this thread."

And elsewhere in these forums. Sorry - that should be fora.  ;)

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 14:38

CD

Very impressive .... a faultless accountant with 30 yrs experience, the perfect barrister with 20 years experience, the best employer you can find, works hard for charities, protects clients from HMRC and defends criminals against police corruption, etc.

Is the next stage of your career to be a minister, you would fit very well in the pulpit! Or maybe your ambitions are a little higher, maybe the Popes job .... or maybe even higher???

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Trevor Scott
01st Feb 2010 20:40

Recording conversations.

I would agree with the comment that any accountant who fails to record a conversation with HMRC immediately opens himself up to the accusation of negligence. It is plain stupid not to, may accountants already do record (mainly to protect themselves/their firm) but  not so many will admit it. It shouldn't be neccesary but unfortunately the average HMRC officer is dishonest. 

A cheap and easy way to record conversations is with a Mini Disc recorder, still available on ebay for £15+. They fit in a suit pocket etc, are quiet, with no problems. The standard discs can record high quality for 4 hours, the higher quality for around 40 hours. Batteries will last 11-13 hours though some have a heavy duty pack that lasts 20+ hours, most can be plugged into the mains with their adaptor for the whole day if required. A simple telephone adaptor can be bought from Maplins or ebay for no more than £15, these go between phone and socket, and the end 3.5mm plug goes into your mini disc recorder/tape recorder etc. A microphone for recording mobile phone conversations is basically just a microphone at the end of a cable, mic covered in foam. This foam covered microphone gets placed between ear/mouth piece of mobile and it records everything (I fix mine in place with a small piece of velco).   

Special or ordinary tape recorders are ok, but it is often the case that one side of a tape doesn't last as long as a conversation and you have to switch tapes during teh conversation, obviously you lose part of the conversation. Tapes are getting harder to buy. CD recorders are expensive, and in a friend's experience very unreliable. Mini Discs are cheap and reliable.

Cables etc can easily be bought (£3?) to transfer recordings onto PC, though ordinarily this shouldn't be needed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 21:05

Stupid

"It shouldn't be neccesary but unfortunately the average HMRC officer is dishonest."

Absolutely ridiculous. It's poison like this, no doubt passed on to your clients and influencing them, that entirely undermines the efforts to work together and improve relationships. Very sad. And very stupid.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
01st Feb 2010 21:17

Officers of the Court

For the record, barristers, whether "practicing" (sic) or otherwise, are not officers of the court. That is one of the reasons why people can generally have confidence that a barrister will represent them against the authorities without fear or favour.

It is solicitors who are officers of the court.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Trevor Scott
02nd Feb 2010 09:43

Dear Anonymous of 21.05 1/2/09, you are living in a fantasy worl

Please PM me (I had previously listed my phone number but then remembered we now have PM's!) and I will arrange for you to listen/read proof that the average HMRC officer is dishonest. If you work for HMRC then I will require a public written withdrawl of your comment.

Take a look at the HMRC is [***] website, or others reporting the issues within HMRC, and then tell us how we deal with such people. Even this website's expert, Mark Lee - take a look at his website/blog, partly gave up public practice because of their "double talk".   If you wish to raise the issue of HMRC honesty on a public arena then as long as you discuss it sensibly there will be people to reply. If you do, first take a look at the previous threads covering that subject on Acc Web. 

My advice to clients is always the same. Pay your correct taxes, if you've made a mistake then correct it asap and beat the Revenue at their own game. The principal reason for "beating the Revenue at their own game" is to undermine their attempt to fine a client excessive amounts of money, especially when the penalties are levelled on amounts of tax payable that are known to all to be all fantasy rather than fact. This will always be the case until well known management/political issues are resolved in HMRC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
02nd Feb 2010 10:21

Dishonest

"unfortunately the average HMRC officer is dishonest"

Well so is the average client and the average accountant so it all evens itself out in the end.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Trevor Scott
02nd Feb 2010 14:23

Actually

it is a good point that most people are dishonest, therefore perhaps I should just point out that as civil servants none should be dishonest, they should be above reproach.  

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
02nd Feb 2010 14:34

Above reproach

"none should be dishonest, they should be above reproach."

Very true. Same applies to the police, army, doctors etc etc. But some bad apples will always surface. It doesn't mean that it applies to most people in those professions. All you can do is deal with it where it happens and move on. Personally I've found most HMRC officers to be perfectly acceptable. But some, as individuals, are slimy gits. You can't blame an organisation for the failings of the human character!

Incidentally I didn't mean for my post above to be anon!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
03rd Feb 2010 11:39

Two legs bad four legs good
As an ex-Inspector of Taxes, and CTA, I have come across prejudice on both sides of the fence. I have remained good friends with colleagues I knew at HMRC since leaving the profession and generally have a very good relationship with HMRC.

It is very interesting to read the tone of the comments on this thread and one can quite easily read between the lines and guess the approach taken by different 'professionals' towards HMRC investigators.

As a Tax Investigations specialist I am often called in by clients fed up with their current accountants/lawyers progress towards a resolution with HMRC. Taking a belligerent, aggressive attitude to HMRC is likely to result in a similar tactic from HMRC.

Yes, there are bound to be some bad apples in any cart, but on the whole HMRC will be reasonable if you are reasonable too. They may often come from the angle of guilty until proven innocent, but that is something derived from years of experience with dealing with wilful defaulters. One must always remember that cheating one's tax is a criminal offence but one that in almost every case settled by civil negotiation.

Again, concerning the BPSS and the recession, HMRC have been understanding in many cases but they frankly say that they are not commercial. They are not a bank, they do not take commercial decisions, even though we may argue that tax paid in full over 24 months is better than no tax at all, they do not see it that way. They are coming from the angle that they have to protect other taxpayers from failures and should not allow any taxpayers to take liberties when others ensure, or struggle, to pay taxes on time.

Even with the BPSS, time to pay arrangements are a concession and not a right - until 2011 of course when personal contracts are due to come in ( a bit like paying the TV licence by instalments).

Most of my cases are dealt with by local or enforcement offices and not the BPSS. I could give some anecdotes about the BPSS attitude and I have had some rude Offices on the phone, including one occasion for which I made an official complaint which was dealt with.

Therefore, there is a facility for redress in cases of complaint. If you don't complain when there is a legitimate claim then HMRC will not know they have done something wrong. If you make illegitimate claims for nuisance value then don't expect HMRC to treat you with any respect.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
03rd Feb 2010 15:55

Or, to put it another way ...

... rubbish in, rubbish out.  Or perhaps treat others as you would have them treat you. 

In 24 years of dealing with HMRC, I've never had a problem that couldn't be resolved with common sense and a cool head and I've never felt that I would be negligent if I didn't record a conversation.  If I'm in a meeting, I take my own notes and ask for a copy of their notes.  If there's something substantive to discuss, I'd always choose to do this face to face (when there will be other witnesses) than one-to-one over the phone.

The comments about human nature are well made.  I wonder if those attacking HMRC's "dishonesty" have always trusted implicitly in, and had no doubts about, their client's case?  I can't say I have.

As in all walks of life, those who look for an adversarial outcome will readily find it.  Some of us are blessed with lower blood pressure and an absence of paranoia.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikewhit
05th Feb 2010 13:28

Training

hearing a tape recording made of a HMRC "representative

I thought that "all calls are recorded for training purposes" - so they should have all this on record anyhow ?!

Thanks (0)