Taxpayers deserve proper rights! By Nichola Ross Martin

Indeed not. That's very disappointing, the more so because you can't do anything about it unless your client has very deep pockets (and long arms).

It's also disappointing that an HMRC officer has apparently been economical with the truth. Especially because a witness when giving evidence has a responsibility to the tribunal that should outweigh any other...

...presumably means that there was the opportunity to cross-examine. Was this opportunity taken? (A rhetorical question BTW)

If an assertion is made in the examination in chief but not challenged in cross-examination, then the tribunal has to accept it as fact.

I'm sure everyone knows this already; but anyone that doesn't know this (and other procedural rules) is walking into a minefield if he or she represents a client before a tribunal. Specialist help is a good investment...

John may be right.

Do we organise some sort of "Accountants' march to Westminster", with Dave Davis as front man, representing personal freedom?

It's a bit pythonesque, but at least it would be peaceful protest.

@ Steve H.
"But surely HMRC can't retrospectively decide that something is a statutory record when it previously wasn't " - but that is why the retrospective increase in taxation of cars built after 2001 is such a sinister move. This point seems to have been lost in the debate about the reasons for this proposed increase.

It's good to see that there is some agreement regarding action. I can't see that pointing out every error HMRC makes in an investigation, however small, is anything but a good approach. It's a fact that official bodies only react when the individuals employed in those organisations suffer some kind of inconvenience.

HMRC is the sum of the individuals employed in it and if the rank and file are getting hassle, then they will complain to their bosses. If their bosses come under Parliamentary scrutiny, as they did when investigating my expenses claims, then they will be very careful in challenging that business in future.

Granted, this approach will do little to stem the tide of unfair and oppressive legislation, but it would be a start. Let's make the system difficult for HMRC to administer and the official bodies should state that as an overt aim. Perhaps then HMRC might alter its approach.

But surely HMRC can't retrospectively decide that something is a statutory record when it previously wasn't and then fine us because we can't produce it. It has to tell us in advance what records it requires us to keep (and if something new, then in exactly what form it requires them).

We can then keep such records - purely to satisfy the demands of HMRC. In that case I would then set up a new "statutory diary" which would contain what HMRC say they require, and nothing more. And much good may it do them.

I agree with the more general points about tyranny. Apart from open violent rebellion, the other way to oppose it is just to gum up the works with passive resistance, civil disobedience, work-to-rule, etc. As John says, pick them up on every minor infringement of their own procedures, make life intolerable to them from bottom to top of the organisation.

Marching to Westminster is not very effective. This was shown by the absence of any perceptible effect from the anti Iraq war demonstrations in 2003. Petitions are not effective at all. I can't think of a single No.10 petition which has actually produced a change in government policy. A strike might have some effect - but how many taxpayers would be happy if their accountants refused to submit their tax returns ? And how many accountants could afford the loss in income from those clients ?

Steve H. is right about the ineffectuality of protest.

However, it would be a first step in recognising that something is awry.

If we gum up the system as he suggests, they'd never notice now it's so far gone already.

The best way to grab their attention would be a co-ordinated January protest; companies withhold their 19-Jan payments and the Self-Assessed their 31-Jan payments. Put them in a deposit account to mitigate the penalties. Would upset the apple cart a tad.

But organising it would be nigh on impossible.

I still believe that the Taxpayers Charter was a cynical attempt to disguise that the Revenue were about to farm out to the Taxpayer half of the Revenue's hitherto duties. ie. Assessment and calculation of tax.

Sure enough, once they'd got SA through, the Charter was dumped.

IMO that abdication of responsibility was the start of a slippery slope, and now we face HMRC who are both judge and jury.

@ Nichola -
"I am bringing out something this week on the Taxpayers Charter to ensure that we can encourage as many people as possible to respond"

any civilised reasoned response is likely to be confined to the bin by this Government. Even though they have paid lip service to legitimate protest by introducing the E-petition facility, they are also blocking those petitions that they do not wish to see. (e.g. Daily Express fuel campaign). Although my whistle blowing suggestions may seem outrageous, how can you deal legally with a dictatorship? History has shown that only insurrection works under these circumstances. Remember the Rebecca riots? In effect we have the same intransigence today. Concessions are being made to minority groups as a result of fear by the Government of the consequences of not doing so. Those consequences are hardly the complaints of the law abiding masses.

but HMRC has now got the power to decide what is a statutory record.

• So if it decides that a diary is a statutory record then diaries become statutory records.
• If it says we must maintain one, then we must.
• If we then deny HMRC the opportunity to inspect it, HMRC can fine us.

No right of appeal either against the fact that we don't think that our diaries should be classed as statutory records.
No right of appeal against the inspection either.

And we all thought that the income shifting proposals were bad!

Agree with your comments John. I am bringing out something this week on the Taxpayers Charter to ensure that we can encourage as many people as possible to respond.

The government is simply exploring its freedom to act outside of its legal and constitutional position. It legislates because no constitutional instruments are there to stop it doing so.

No Commons government is likely to create such instruments because they capture votes by promising to increase the cost base of running the nation, at our expense. Only the House of Lords could do this but they are simply a wholly owned subsidiary of the Commons whose members suffer a perception of autonomy.

I quote Thomas Jefferson: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”.

Nichola you are right to mention this and I again quote from Thomas Jefferson: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"

Thomas Jefferson: (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

Nichola .... My point entirely.

I don't keep a diary. It is not a 'statutory document' (even if HMRC wish it were and designate it as such). Therefore I can honestly tell HMRC that they cannot see it because I do not have one.

However, if you were to decide not to show them your diary by telling them that you also don't keep one, or that you have destroyed it, what powers do they have (a) to distinguish your situation from mine, or (b) to find the diary that they claim you really do have, or (c) to impose penalties for not producing it on demand ?

Surely, "statutory documents" must mean precisely that - documents which are defined in law as required. For example, a company must by law keep certain documents such as a minute book, registers of members and directors, etc., and all businesses must keep records of their accounts and certain supporting documents such as bank statements and invoices.

For anything else, HMRC can go whistle. If I'm not required by law to have a certain document, then whether or not I might have it, they aren't getting it, and I can't see that they can force me to provide it. I'm not required by law to keep a diary, so this is not a document which is available for HMRC to inspect, whether it's a personal or a business diary, or combined.

Essex man, you raise some quite interesting points there.
All very well being say a hairdresser or plumber or such and having an appointment's diary, but modern diaries, particularly the electronic variety are a different animal entirely.

I regard my own diaries as private, and I write notes (bus and pleasure) and most my meetings go in there, and sometimes I note expenses in there too, if I am feeling keen, sometimes I don't, ( they all go onto a spreadsheet in the end in any case). But really my diary is there to organise me and help me plan me, do to the work I do, it means that it is a record with mixed use.

With no guidance on whether this is going to be classed as a business record in the future I am somewhat concerned. I would be alarmed if someone else were to set out to deliberately read my diary, I would be alarmed if someone threatened that they might and it would possibly put all sorts of pressure on me. Not good. It would be nice to think that my human rights protected me, but of course, HMRC has a HRA override!

It has been blindingly obvious that the country has been on this route for some time, yet no-one seems prepared to say it. The population at large is too lazy bother to understand and the press are too busy feeding them sallacious titbits, or alternatively are too stupid to grasp the issues.

To compare the incumbent fifth-columnists with Rankin' John Major is an insult; Major introduced the 'Citizens Charters' and I laughed. I had to unlaugh when the IR's previously contemptbly bad customer disservice started to show genuine signs of improvement. We are back to a stage where the IR is even worse than ever.

Thing is, not only are the current incumbents living in some sort of lower-sixth socialist dreamworld, I am sure they are also too naive to realise their actions have consequences that they are too dim to envision:

Such a "radical" HMRC will provoke a "radical" reaction from dispossessed taxpayers; obvious to anyone outside the Westminster sheep farm. We are already seeing cases where people losing tax cases or even planning appeals are having their assets nationalised under legislation supposedly to protect "us" from terrorists. A taxpayer using a gun as his only legitimate right of response to a tax inspector's pretty "radical" and something I'd rather not see, thanks. Hopefully it won't come to that; there may be an insurrection or even civil war to prevent it. Even the mildest-mannered of respectible citizens seem filled with bile these days.

I cannot believe the lack of foresight and general stupidity that seems to emanate from the executive these days. Are they really trying to break all the toys so that no-one else, especially a new government, can play with them either?

..to John's recommendation ("ensure that your business and personal conduct is completely above board and lawful") is to separate business and personal records.

A business diary is a business record. It can and will be required - like it or loathe it, it makes no difference. A personal diary is not a business record, and under current and proposed powers it cannot usually be required.

However if I keep a diary that mixes up my business appointments and my visits to Max Mosley's parties, my privacy is at risk. It's all about discipline!

ps For legal reasons I should point out that I don't actually go to Mr Mosley's parties, which I am sure are perfectly innocent and charming occasions anyway.

AIl part of the smash and grab, clunking great fist of Gordon Brown, a man one would worry about having control of the firm`s beano kitty, if Anne Abrahams is anything to go by!
The objective of Revenue "reorganisation", which can`t be diguised by changes of name or literature is to purge "revenue" men and leave only "customs" men. We are dealing with excise men with ufettered power and everyone who values our fundamental liberties should be screaming from the rooftops.
Anyone nticed any difference in the time taken to get through to them on the phone or the pleasantness [?] of response to justified criticism?

@ John Straker

First and foremost, you endeavour to ensure that your business and personal conduct is completely above board and lawful to the best of your knowledge, and there are no "skeletons" in the cupboard. Then, if you are subjected to an investigation, you pick up the investigating officer on any mistake, however small he makes and report the issue routinely to the local HMRC area director.

Subsequently, abiding by the law of course, you become a whistle blower. In my life experience, I'm 60 by the way, those that make the most noise about some issue are often those that are endulging in such issues. So, hire a private detective and dish the dirt about any inspector who is causing you problems.

Very very few people abide by the law 100% of the time (have you never broken the speed limit?) You only have to catch the inspector breaking the law once and then advise HMRC's local director of the transgression and HMRC will then get the message to leave you alone.

I'm sorry, but Draconion anti populace powers need Draconion responses. The ultimate is a revolution.

A statutory record may or may not include personal items such as diaries
But if I don't keep a diary, and HMRC suddenly decide this is a 'statutory record' and I should have been keeping one....

It's like the undefined record-keeping that might or might not have been required under their proposed income-shifting legislation (which hasn't gone away, just deferred for a year).

Quite clearly HMRC want to be in a position to make up the rules as they go along, and now it seems their wishes are granted. Kafka's imagined central-European nightmare world of the 20th century has become reality in 21st century Britain.

in the coffin of democracy. For a long time I have stated that the UK is not a democracy e.g. Scottish MPs bussed-in to pass English only legislation, the next head of state getting the job because of who his mother is etc, etc.

However, this is much more insidious as it gives unelected officials far more power than they need or, judging by comments on this site, deserve. This bill ensures that we can no longer vote out those responsible for [potential] abuses of power.

@Don:
And from the other direction comes the increasing CRB-ification of UK life, e.g.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7500376.stm

Still, it's a good little earner for the govt. (is the fee an allowable expense of employment ?) and no doubt preparing us for id-cards by proxy ...

oppose this and other human rights restrictions in any way you can.

When I think that nowhere else in the western world needs 42 or 90 days detention without charge; when HMRC is being turned into Big Brother, with no effective right of appeal; when I read of local councils abusing powers of surveillance, I cannot help but think that the Government is very scared indeed of something or other.

The last Govt were morally bankrupt and without a mandate by the mid-nineties yet they did not make anything like this wholesale attack on civil liberties.

Perhaps there are dangers the like of which we did not remotely face during 40 years of the cold war, but if there are, I'd like to know what they are before acquiescing to any more KGB-like ground rules.

LATER
There really is a problem here as regards potential Revenue corruption. With no proper recourse to the law, the mere threat of Investigation will be wide open to abuse by anyone who holds those powers.

Sorry Nichola but what can we say or do?

The government as a political body is near to financial bankruptcy. They are unwilling to fight a general election and cannot afford it anyway. They know that most will loose their deposits if they do and will be thrown out on to the street when they cannot make their mortgage payments.

They don't care anymore?