Eric Morecambe moment on HMRC website

The three words are right, but not necessarily .....

Didn't find your answer?

  On front page of HMRC website today, under "Policy Papers and Consultations" there is  a link to an impact statment on "Basis Reform Period" (sic).

Replies (14)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
11th Mar 2024 11:26

Proof reading still an HMRC area needing extra resources.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By FactChecker
11th Mar 2024 16:03

Although it would appear that they've learned to read and have at least one person with the combined nous/authority to act ... the link on their website has already been corrected!

Now if only they could harness that enthusiasm/energy and apply it to responding to queries from taxpayers ...

Thanks (3)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By richard thomas
11th Mar 2024 16:14

In did in fact use the "is there something wrong with this page?" box to tell them, but I didn't expect them to act on it so quickly, or even at all.

Thanks (2)
Replying to richard thomas:
avatar
By FactChecker
12th Mar 2024 14:10

Wholly unimportant, but if you want yet another example of how fragmented are HMRC's systems (and the ability to maintain them) ...

... after their rapid update yesterday (presumably in response to you notifying them) to the GOV.UK page - they failed to update also whatever system they use to extract a synopsis for populating various emails issued each day (listing each of yesterday's announcements for a specified topic area).

So today I received their email (for "Publications related to HM Revenue & Customs and Money"), in which there it is in pride of place at the top of the list:

Basis Reform Period
Page summary:
Screening equality impact assessment for the Basis Reform Period.

I don't know which would be worse ... finding out that the daily extracts are a manual process (surely not), or that their automated system of extracts fails to notice (prior to issuing the email) when the source has since been amended?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Mar 2024 11:43

The best HMRC solecism I've see is when Lin Homer did not describe "permanent establishment" properly once in this discourse:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmcomloc/writev/...

You see it in legislation too. For example, s94(1) IHTA 1984 reads the opposite to what it's supposed to mean.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
11th Mar 2024 13:18

Justin Bryant wrote:
For example, s94(1) IHTA 1984 reads the opposite to what it's supposed to mean.

What's it supposed to mean then? Because it reads as it is explained in all related commentary.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Mar 2024 15:03

s94(1) and s99(3) IHTA 1984 are incorrectly drafted.

These should say “...as a result of the company’s transfer” and not “....but for the company’s transfer”.

This error is more or less spelled out by HMRC in the link below:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm16247.htm

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
11th Mar 2024 15:42

Justin Bryant wrote:

These should say “...as a result of the company’s transfer” and not “....but for the company’s transfer”.

Grammatically, you would need to add a comma after "would be" to make your version accurate. As it is, the current wording does exactly what it says on the tin - it excludes any increase in value that is solely attributable to the transfer in question. "apart for" means exactly the same as "but for".

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Mar 2024 16:14

Let's agree to differ (I'm not the only one who thinks it's wrongly worded). (It makes no difference in practice in court of course, as they'll construe it the right way regardless.)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
11th Mar 2024 16:37

We can agree to differ but those who think it's wrongly worded are wrong.

One could just as easily say "... the value is more than it would be in the absence of the company's transfer". Where "in the absence of" means exactly the same as "but for". (I also think that "would have been" is tidier than "would be" but the two essentially mean the same thing.)

You are right, it may be of little practical importance in the context of application of s94, because everyone understands what it means. But when one misconstrues what is simple English language one has to wonder what else they have misunderstood.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Mar 2024 16:56

Is there anyone else at Aweb who gets so excited and vexed over nothing? Probably not.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DKB-Sheffield
11th Mar 2024 12:09

From the title, I was expecting HMRC to have included "Bring Me Sunshine".

Perhaps putting Andre Preview at the head of HMRC would sort matters out. An orchestra plays together to provide the experience their audience (customers) want... similar to HMRC?

Thanks (1)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By More unearned luck
11th Mar 2024 15:28

Richard is, of course, referring to para 56 here:

https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j9486/TC0...

Thanks (1)
Replying to DKB-Sheffield:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Mar 2024 17:04

You mean Mr Andrew Preview of course.

Thanks (1)