Share this content

Will courts agree for HMRC to refund TCOG fee?

The Taking Control of Goods charge based on wrong tax liability

Didn't find your answer?

My client was in agreement of a repayment plan regarding his personal tax liability, which was then revoked by HMRC and shortly The Taking Control of Goods (TCOG) charge arose, calculated partially at a percantage of the debt HMRC assessed at that time. We were disputing the amount of tax HMRC was pursuing and we have reduced the tax liability by almost £10k. We requested that the TCOG was recalculated (couple of years have passed since it was originally issued) but HMRC replied that it was calculated correctly on the tax libility at that time (which was overstated by ca. £10k ) and refused to refund the overcharged portion of the fee (ca. £700), stating that the client will need to take the matter to the court. It seems to me this is an outragous and unjust reply from HMRC and should be successfully dealt with in the courts. Does anyone have any experience in a similar situation and can you recommend any solicitors to deal with this case?



Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By EnglishRose
12th Feb 2018 09:38

I have no direct experience but it may be worth the client going on line to moneyclaims online and bringing a small claim which I suspect HMRC are unlikely to defend as it is just £700 unless they think a lot of similar claims will follow.

Under the law I expect it will depend on what the regulations to impose that original charge say - if they say HMRC can charge based on whatever massive mickey mouse sum they originally came up with the client might lose although even then the county court judge might be sympathetic - HMRC could say £10m is due, get fees based on that £10m when clearly only £1000 was due. It seems a breach of natural justice , not that that is the law, to allow such a high fee and it might be a counted as a "penalty". In law penalty charges can be void although fairly high parking charges recently were upheld as valid and not penalties.

Thanks (1)
Share this content