Share this content

PAYE tax payers treated differently to SA t

Sa forms

Didn't find your answer?

Hypothetical question .

Hicbc ,HMRC changed self assessment tax forms to include info on hicbc .

Reading case summaries on hicbc .HMRC points out they used a media campaign to raise awareness. Then why did they change the self assessment tax form .PAYE tax payers not given the same yearly reminder. Is this unfair treatment. 

Clearly by updating the SA forms this shows the HMRC recognised that the "extensive media campagin" was not suitable or sufficient to raise awareness hence why the SAForm was updated to include information on the hicbc.

 

 

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
14th May 2021 09:26

No sympathy here
Impossible not to know of the issue when it happened.
A bit like saying a taxpayer did not know that rent was taxable income.

How could a tax return exist without a place to put the entry in?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By Duggimon
14th May 2021 09:58

Paul Crowley wrote:

No sympathy here
Impossible not to know of the issue when it happened.
A bit like saying a taxpayer did not know that rent was taxable income.

How could a tax return exist without a place to put the entry in?

That is absolute rubbish.

It would be like not knowing rent was taxable even when the rent was your spouse's but only if you earn over £50,000, and only as the result of a change in the rules, it never used to be taxable and you should know this based on a feeble media campaign, even if you don't have an accountant because why would you when you just work in a salaried job.

It's a stupid rule and I believe HMRC have the resources to warn people in advance or at least after the first year in which they fall foul instead of waiting until three or four years worth of child benefit is owed and then assessing people who had no idea of the rules.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
14th May 2021 10:39

It would appear OP did know the rules

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By Duggimon
14th May 2021 10:53

OP posed a hypothetical question and I posted my answer, which is that the rules are clear enough that the charge is due, but they're obscure and HMRC's handling of it leaves a lot to be desired, and that your analogy was completely incomparable to the situation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 11:09

Paul Crowley wrote:

It would appear OP did know the rules

But not about the income. Haven't there been cases (which I'm confident the OP knows about) with almost that exact same scenario?

I'm not sure what you, Duggi and I are arguing about tbh. Should the money be repaid? Probably yes. With interest? There's not a lot of leeway there - it's what the rules say. Should there be penalties? Probably not.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
14th May 2021 11:50

The current question is suggesting that PAYE people (every single one) should be sent a letter every single year to explain the rules on High income child benefit.
That somehow people with tax returns are treated better because they are sent a tax return notice. ( The thing that says do a tax return, given that tax returns and notes are no longer sent out)
And that as a result HMRC are treating PAYE people worse than tax return people and implying that somehow this is an excuse for failure to declare.
Just do not buy in to that thought process.
I get at least one new client a year who claims it is HMRC's fault that they failed to declare taxable income.
'they did not send me a tax return!'

The prior thread shows OP knew the rules
I would have more sympathy with those who get caught not declaring CGT.

The fault is not with HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 11:57

I agree.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By SteveHa
14th May 2021 12:09

Paul Crowley wrote:

The fault is not with HMRC.

How about the fact that HMRC's chosen (and sole) method of telling the public about the changes excludes people such as myself that don't own a TV, don't (or rarely) listen to commercial radio, and don't buy a newspaper. Were it not for my profession, I'd have had no idea.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rmillaree
14th May 2021 09:45

"A bit like saying a taxpayer did not know that rent was taxable income."

I agree with your other point here but this is not really a fair comparison - the child benefit was always previously allowed to be kept - most employed individuals wouldn't have had any reason to presume the rules had changed if they had been the same for so many years - presumably thats why many fines were perhaps sensibly squashed for the first couple of years - really hmrc should have insisted all child benefit claimants tick a box or something (like councils send out to single people who claim council tax discount) confirming both they and their partner are aware of the new rules and would ensure compliance.
If i had to make an anlogy here its more like the people who choose to never (a) look at their tax codes notices (b) if they do look then just preume everything on their must be right even if it looks odd or they don't understand if the entry is right. Similarly with benefit claims being made one should take reponsibility for ensuring one is elgigible - i would love to know what actual information was sent out to claimants that first and second year of change and how far short of slapping them in the face with warnings it was?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 10:03

Hypothetical answer.

Rules change.

Thanks (0)
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
14th May 2021 10:05

TBH I didn’t hear about the media campaign. I mean, I heard OF the campaign via AWeb, but I didn’t actually hear/see THE campaign.

If I wasn’t an accountant, I wouldn’t know.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 10:10

But is this hypothetical? Or just no longer anonymous?

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/hicbc-1

Sounds like you have grounds for appealing penalties, but obviously you (non-hypothetically) have to pay the (non-hypothetical) benefit money back to HMT.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By Duggimon
14th May 2021 10:18

Would you agree however that, in the case of your linked thread, while the HICBC is rightly owed, HMRC's handling of it is extremely shoddy since (though it's a bit vague on this) it appears the assessment for seven years of HICBC was raised all at once in 2020 when the latest HMRC had access to the information necessary to determine the charge was payable was in 2013?

It would seem only equitable to allow the same delay in repaying the debt, which is nevertheless owed, perhaps a seven year payment plan for the charge with no interest and no penalties.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 10:39

Have seven years been assessed? I'm not sure they can've.

Not really sure what you're asking me to agree, tbh. It's not great it hasn't been picked up before.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By Duggimon
14th May 2021 10:56

I'm only saying what was said in that thread, which isn't this thread so I'm not sure I should even have started the discussion. The OP in there stated the HICBC from 2012/13 onwards was assessed on him in September 2020.

I was just wondering whether you agreed that it was unreasonable for HMRC to sit on the information they had about it for so long and then expect immediate repayment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th May 2021 11:34

But if it's unreasonable, aren't there other processes can kick in? (Maybe even TTP, as a last resort.) It's not unreasonable to seek to rectify the mistake, and indeed if HMRC didn't do the full rectification in one go, there'd probably be some kind of argument about lack of timely action once the error was discovered.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
14th May 2021 10:43

'Based on her statement that she no longer recieved child benefit I did not fill out a self assessment .

The knowlegde i had was that i had to earn over £50,000 -i was on about £48,000- that i was not registered for self assessment -I am paid via PAYE ,I was registered for self assessment already as Both I and my wife owned a business together prior to 2009 but had a letter from the HMRC telling me not to use self assesment .

and that either I or my partner claimed child benefit .'

This does sound like OP knew the rules at the time, but was 'misinformed' by wife
She thought that OP was transferring an amount that exactly matched child benefit to her bank account using a reference including CHB

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Hugo Fair
14th May 2021 12:22

I'm in a snarky mood today, so here's a thought ... the solution might be to bring Child Benefit into the UC fold (where benefits are always seen in the context of household earnings).
This wouldn't be liked by middle-class high(er) earners who consider themselves as not part of the 'benefits' crowd ... but would be simpler to understand & operate, and of course make it clear to recipients that they are indeed claiming benefits.

Edit: Regarding OP's claim of injustice - see Paul's response at 11:50 today, with which I totally agree.

Thanks (2)
Share this content