I have completed the first tax return for a person newly registered for self assessment, who was due a tax refund. They had previously signed a document with a tax rebate company. This is a 64-8 but also includes a line that they unconditionally allow this company to receive their tax refund. I gained authority to act for them and could see them on my list of clients. I requested the refund to go directly to the clients bank through online services. The client then received a letter stating the refund had been sent to the tax rebate company. When i went back onto my online services, i could no longer see my client on there. HMRC have stated that i have never been authorised to act for my client when i clearly have. My question is: Once i became authorised, would HMRC still be allowed to send my clients tax refund to the tax rebate company?
Thanks in advance
Replies (17)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Well before you spend too much time and energy then get your client to contact the tax rebate company to see if they can get their money.
If it is not forthcoming see what paperwork/proof you can gather that you were agent and uploaded the bank details.
Who submitted the return?
This is then a legal matter for your client. Others may have ideas how you can contact HMRC to complain but I would charge my client if they want you to sort it out, up to you how involved you want to be.
Why didn't you put the bank details on the tax return?
Did you submit electronically using third party software or HMRC's?
If the former then hopefully your software will have a trail to prove that you made the submission.
If the latter did you receive an email confirming the submission from your account? That should give you the necessary proof.
Also presumably you must have a trail of correspondence with the client, engagement letter, submitting the 64-8 to HMRC, sending the return to the client for approval etc., that should again give plenty of ammo.
This doesn't make sense, the 64-8 doesn't mention anything about giving the agent authority to receive the refund. If you completed the return and sent it electronically how on earth has the previous agent gained access to request the refund. Could the previous agent have sent their 64-8 off after you were registered as the agent and had done the work? This would remove your access and let them go onto the clients account and request any refund sitting on the account be transferred to their bank. I'm not aware that HMRC would automatically send a refund without someone completing the bank account details ever year. If it isn't this there must be something wrong with HMRC systems to allow a third party to access and request the refund.
If the client didn't have any agent on her account how has someone managed to get their hands on her refund? If she doesn't have an agent registered then only the client could request a refund surely. The client needs to contact HMRC and ask them some questions about the refund - who did HMRC speak to, who authorised the company to collect her refund. This could potentially be fraud, has the client received her 60% and is the refund company a UK registered operation?
Not sure if it's relevant, but when completing a tax return recently in TaxCalc a warning popped up saying that HMRC have changed the way they process refunds, and that they are likely to use the bank details already on their systems - or something to that effect. Could it be that they send the refund there, as that is where they sent it the year before?
Wait, HMRC losing a 64-8? never!
The amount of times hmrc have said, "do you have a 64-8 in place"? to which i reply, one was sent in 20 years ago, to which i get back, we dont have one on file.
Never use them anyone, always online authorisations only!
I think that you should send a letter of complaint to HMRC about your removal. What others have said about bank details is true but very dangerous for HMRC since payment could be made to an unauthorised receipient.
YOur client should contact the previous agent for a full refund. If he or she meets with a refusal then the court application seems likely