Member Since: 2nd Nov 2006
Having spent 41+ years as a tax investigation gamekeeper I became a serious defender of the the odd "poacher" and all sufferers at the hands of HMRC and their enquiry machine in summer 2006 - (a.k.a retired early - hence the youthful picture). Since then I have taken to the good side like a duck to water and you can see more on me on my website www.wamstaxltd.com or email me for a short initial free consultation on how I can help with your enquiry to [email protected]
You can also see testimonials at either http://www.wamstaxltd.com/clients_testimonials.html or http://www.taxenquiryadvice.com/Bills_Page.html
Looking forward to working with you and my 24/7 mobile is 07751 720 507
30th Oct 2019
Ok present systems within HMRC result in correspondence and information/ documents ending up - even if addressed direct - ending up in a post room somewhere and then being scanned to the relevant officer. And just to add to the clients paranoia yes HMRC on occasions can issue private and personal information to the wrong person.
Of course you could always ensure that HMRC are only requesting information that is reasonably required and not like the client just give them whatever they ask for as he seems to have done in the past.
Equally of course you could also insist that documents and information are handed over at a meeting - but then of course you have to be able to manage the meeting and not let HMRC dictate.
I know this is probably not something that you want to hear but are you sure that their requests are properly as a result of risks identified at the outset or are they on the proverbial fishing trip. Depends a lot on the type of enquiry and what formal enquiry notices were issued at the outset AND of course if the client knows of anything being wrong whether carelessly or deliberately OR if he is innocent and they’re fishing - especially when they seem to be questioning sources of capital etc. What case have they given for this approach. Of course the client may have realised he’s already sold the biscuit and is trying to put impediments in the way of subsequent enquiry.
3rd Sep 2019
Their loss and they’ll never know what they missed is the best way of looking at it. More time for others or new projects
13th Nov 2017
Ok I had the advantage of having done my 40 years but have never regretted retiring early. Making your own income is the challenge if you go it alone but the work/life balance is much better. If you are worried about job security the answer is in your own hands make sure you apply yourself and give value for money.
If going on your own then preferably get some professionals that find you indispensable and give them value for money along with a selection of private clients. Remember you have good working conditions with your present employer and moving to an outside employer might get you better rewards BUT it will be more challenging (I would imagine as I didn’t feel like swapping one boss for another)
28th Nov 2016
You got it in one!!!
28th Nov 2016
I just hope that they handed him the "authority to inspect" before doing anything otherwise they were not acting properly.
28th Nov 2016
Ah the good old days ..... Being one of the past creatures that could arrest somebody and also an HM Inspector in a past life who held a warrant card I can say that since 2005 there has been no difference in the powers of either the indirect tax VAT Officer or the direct tax "Officer" in that boths powers are contained in FA 2008 Schedule 36. So maybe some VAT officers have conveniently forgotten that they lost their powers of prancing all round a businesses premises at their will and they have no more power than the General Inspector.
Yes unannounced visits are becoming more frequent but before even entertaining people who turn up announces there are a few basics to be taken care of inter alia
(a) ensure that they have their personal ID with them (and there is no reason why you shouldn't ask to copy it)
(b) ensure that they are visiting backed up by the appropriate authority (either an authorisation signed by an authorised officer of HMR&C allowing them to call uninvited or unannounced or the appropriate authority from the FT Tribunal)
(c) that the date of the visit is within the stipulated dates shown on the authority
(d) they provide a copy of the Authority before they start any Inspection
then realise that the authority only allows them to inspect the premises and records and NOBODY is obliged to even talk to them.
Schedule 36 also only gives them the power to enter and INSPECT either the premises or assets or documents OF THE BUSINESS it does not allow them unfettered access and they cannot go on a search of the premises. Nor does it allow them to enter premises used as a dwelling house.
Of course there is nothing to stop the client telling them that he/she is willing to cooperate but any discussion of any sort will have to await the arrival of his/her tax adviser that he/she is just phoning now. Then of course if you have any doubts or difficulties you can always phone me on 07751720507 for a short chat if you would want to involve me
27th Nov 2016
David - an excellent blog - as usual.
Just finished listening to Mundell and true to form he uses the terms "tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes" in the same breath and sentence.
I can see the Unexplained Wealth Orders being applied to tax avoidance in due course which is not what I interpreted them to be appropriate to - namely tax evasion only.
Never mind good work ahead on this basis with the reintroduction of double entry capital statements and forensic accounting to defend the clients being chased inappropriately.
27th Nov 2016
Of course any action on a scam email - including just trying to open any attachment - can set up a keystroke tracking operation - and of course what do you do immediately after trying to open the attachment - YOU go on to your banking site and check the bank !!!
This needs careful and urgent attention
27th Nov 2016
And remember that HMRC's spanner in the works - MTD - may not be compatible with any of them.
27th Nov 2016
Section 188(2) ITEPA 2003
The release or writing off of a loan made to a director or employee (or any relative of theirs) by reason of the employment is still chargeable if it takes place:
•after he or she has retired, or
•after he or she has ceased to be a director or in employment falling within the benefits code
Section 189 ITEPA 2003 and Part 6 Chapter 3 ITEPA 2003The release or writing off of a loan could in certain circumstances also fall within the wording of Part 6 Chapter 3 ITEPA 2003 which taxes termination payments on retirement etc.
Where this is the case the charge under Section 188(1) ITEPA 2003 on the full amount of the release takes precedence (Section 189(2) ITEPA 2003). This means that an employee in those circumstances cannot have the benefit of the £30,000 exemption applying to termination payment
Hope that this helps