HMRC bully boys

HMRC bully boys

Didn't find your answer?

Does anyone know what the process is with a COP9 enquiry for either:

1. requesting an independent HMRC oversight review of the enquiry to date or

2. having the case listing before a tribunal with a view to a closure notice being issued. Can this be done with a COP9 enquiry and if so how?

Basically the client has cooperated 100% and given whatever they want including a disclosure report but they have now shifted the goalposts yet again and enough is enough.

Finally does anyone know the statutory authority under TMA under which the COP9 process proceeds ?

Thanks.

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By manoja
17th Mar 2010 12:20

COP9 Problems

It would be useful to know what the issues are-i deal with COP9 extensively and I have some ideas I could share with you that might help. Send me an email if you are interested.

Are you dealing with one of the CIF teams? If so, you have my sympathies. You could request the Group Leader to review the case to date and address your concerns and explain why they are unprepared to accept the disclosure report as it stands. This can take place within the spirit of COP9 procedures. COP9 enquiries are usually settled by negotiation without the requirement for formal action-ie assessments and closure notices. Proceeding with the formal option will enable you, in the first instance, to tell HMRC to desist from delaying matters/changing the goalposts and to conclude the enquiry on the basis of assessments-be prepared for telephone number figures! The advantage will be that this will force HMRC to finally put up or shut up, and moreover, entitle you to lodge appeals against those assessments with the First Tier tribunal. If HMRC don't resolve your appeal by agreement, you can then seek an "independent review" of their decision, which is performed by an HMRC officer, who is " independent" of the case. He/she may decide that your arguments have merit and rule against HMRC. On the other hand, they might not, but a formal review might encourage HMRC to see sense and resolve the open points pragmatically and through negotiation.

HMRC has published the results of the first 9 months of the review process and found against HMRC in almost 25% of the non penalty cases. Not great stats, but, clear signs that HMRC is not getting it all their own way.

Going down the formal path can be risky-you have to be prepared for the matter to end up at the Tribunal-costs and preparation time are factors, along with the chance that you will not be succesful. It will however demonstrate to HMRC that you are no longer prepared to accept their poor behaviour/attitude. Hope this helps. [email protected]

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
17th Mar 2010 12:54

thanks

thats extremely useful.

The point at principle is that there is information contained within the body of her report that HMRC are saying should be in a separate format prescribed by them and until she does so the report is "incomplete". This is entirely contrary to their (quite proper under  COP9 guidance) stance throughout the enquiry that the content of the report is entirely a matter for her. We have taken legal advice that was due to an (understandable) lack of information going back 10-20 years (her business affairs are complex) she cannot (i.e. must not) sign one of the documents requested given the threat of "criminal proceedings" should she get it wrong.

Could we request an independent review of their stance at the present time that we do consider both unreasonable and  inconsistent under COP9 guidance ?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By manoja
17th Mar 2010 14:32

COP9 Problems

IT would appear from the further information provided that you are at loggerheads with HMRC over completion of one of the formal certificates, either statement of assets/liabilities, schedule of bank accounts, or less likely, the schedule of credit card accounts. There is some scope to discuss/argue these matters with HMRC-I have had some recent experience of persuading HMRC to accept a shorther period than the expected 20 years a schedule of bank accounts would be expected to cover. Also, in certain instances, HMRC has accepted that non UK assets do not require to be listed on the statement of assets. If this is the sole item outstanding, it may be possible to get this resolved expediently/pragmatically with HMRC, bearing in mind that the end of their statistical year is  31 March and they might be keen to wrap it up before then, although from what you say matters appear to have become entrenched.

The independent review can only be formally requested once assessments etc have been issued and appeals lodged. [email protected]

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
17th Mar 2010 15:11

one final question

you've interpreted the situation correctly.

the bit I cannot reconcile is that they are saying they will "reject" the report without these statements however (1) they are (albeit in a different format) contained within the body of her report that has been adopted and (2) nowhere is it stated in the COP9 guidance neither was it in any of the meetings with HMRC that her disclosure would be "rejected" without them.

Point being she has incurred huge costs in reaching this point and having cooperated 100% with what we believe is a fishing trip (COP9 I know but its complex !) we have to draw the line somewhere. In your opinion what would be the likely outcome should we maintain our position as appears likely should HMRC not be prepared to compromise along the lines you state.

many thanks for this.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By manoja
17th Mar 2010 16:00

COP9 Problems

it might be easier to have a conversation as there are a number of apparent discussion points. Send me an email and we can get in touch from there. [email protected]

 

Thanks (0)