Share this content
0
3145

A tale of two subbies………….....

A tale of two subbies………….....

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

Subbie 1 – filed his 2011 S.A. return 7 months late in August 2012, tax repayment withheld pending a  £1,300 penalty. I appealed on the grounds of personal issues, lost CIS statements, periods of unemployment, life in turmoil and the inability to cope with the additional stresses caused by this recession. Appeal accepted and repayment issued.

Subbie 2  -  also filed his 2011 S.A. return 7 months late in August 2012, tax repayment withheld pending an £800 penalty. I appealed on similar valid grounds to same S.A. office in Cardiff. Appeal rejected, standard letter offering an ‘independent’ review or right to appeal to a tax tribunal. Tax repayment issued minus £800.

‘Independent review’ – I have little faith in this.

Instead I was going to write to the ‘customer advisor’ who rejected my appeal and ask him to reconsider upon the grounds that my client has not been treated equally under the Taxes Act and cite the above examples.

The ‘rejector’ is a ‘customer advisor’ whereas the ‘acceptor’ is an ‘assistant officer’ ………….seems like you are worse off when HMRC treats you as a customer !

I may also send him this link because ‘Dave’  agrees with me……

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8967732/David-Camerons-spokesman-HMRC-treats-all-taxpayers-even-handedly.html

Do any readers have any better ideas? Thank you in advance for your responses. 

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By George Attazder
25th Sep 2012 10:08

Perhaps they've been reading Oscar Wilde quotes

"To lose one parent is unfortunate.  To lose both parents is just careless."

Or perhaps they're thinking that "lightning never strikes twice in the same place".

It does sound a bit like you're saying I got away with this excuse for subbie 1, so why won't you accept the same excuse for subbie 2... and maybe they're worring about subbie 3, and subbie 4... and subbie 999.

Since it's in Swansea though, if you take it to tribunal you may get Geraint Jones.  He doesn't like HMRC!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By Midlands Accountancy
25th Sep 2012 10:32

Geraint Jones

George Attazder wrote:

Since it's in Swansea though, if you take it to tribunal you may get Geraint Jones.  He doesn't like HMRC!

 

 

Mr Jones is quickly taking on cult status in our office.  Collecting all his rulings for future reference is a good idea in my opinion.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By gillian martin
25th Sep 2012 10:33

They are even handed - when they are in the mood!

The fact that it is yourself dealing with both of these two subbies and the same tax office is involved is besides the point in my view.

Of course it is feasible to have two people in exactily the same position and have very similar reasons as their reasonable excuse for not meeting the deadline.

I find this sort of inconsistency with HMRC all the time.  It depends who picks up the phone or your letter wthat day and what mood they are in - or possibly what targets they have still to meet.

Pursue your case to the bitter end - and  quote "Dave" in the process!

Good luck!

Thanks (0)
Kye Burchmore profile image
By Kye Burchmore
26th Sep 2012 13:11

Shame their mood changes every 30 seconds.

I have had instances whereby I have been arguing cases with the same HMRC officer at the same time as each other with very similar facts but yet the officer reached different outcomes. I can't recall which tax offices but the HMRC officer coudln't care less that they were accepting one situation but not another with the same facts.

Once assessments raised and the case passed up the chain however it was quickly dropped.

Personally I would go down the 'independent' review route as well. I appreciate that it is carried out by someone within HMRC and therefore not truely independent but I have had a lot of cases dropped at that stage. When it goes for independent review you can set out you argument bearing in mind HMRC litigation and settlement strategy and of course throw in "Dave's position" into the mix and the fact that a similar case was accepted by HMRC.

I have found that generally the people higher up in HMRC (or the ones that would actually be the advocates at the tax tribunal) can better evaluate the case and its chances of success. The lower down bods often seem to get a bit stuck in their teeth and forget about the actual merits of the case.

Dig your heels in!

 

 

Thanks (0)
By K81
26th Sep 2012 14:05

I would agree with the previous posts in that a consistent approach should be used.

As long as HMRC don't revisit subbie 1 from your info & reinstate the penalties!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
By George Attazder
26th Sep 2012 14:38

Bing!

K81 wrote:

I would agree with the previous posts in that a consistent approach should be used.

As long as HMRC don't revisit subbie 1 from your info & reinstate the penalties!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnporter
28th Sep 2012 11:53

Since its in Swansea the've probably lost the Paperwork

Thanks (0)
Share this content