"Within 30 days, you must tell HMRC the date on which you first make a reverse charge sale. You must also give HMRC the name and telephone number of a contact. If you then stop making such supplies, within 30 days, you must tell HMRC the date that you stopped. But if later, you again make reverse charge sales, within 30 days you must tell HMRC the date you restarted, and again give contact details. Penalties apply"
HMRC's service is always very poor and - as though it wasn't possible - it's actually getting worse.
We took on a simple case where a Taxpayer's accountant had retired without telling anyone. The Taxpayer had paid tax at source under CIS and his records had been left with his previous agent - who had disappeared. A simple case - contact HMRC - find out how much he had already paid - and see if the Taxpayer is due a bill or a refund. 5 years later HMRC are still refusing to let us have the data on how much has been paid at source and, instead, are insisting on payment in full to the exclusion of payments already made.
I notice that virtually all "errors" are in favour of HMRC - by fluke of course.
I've had exactly the same before where HMRC and the judges were chatting away to each other like old friends. We had something like 50 interruptions by the judges - HMRC had none. We could see from the start that we had lost. The calibre of judges in the 1st Tier is a very low standard in our view.
In terms of penalties HMRC are taking advantage all the time. We have one case where we took on a forestry worker who had registered for tax about 3 years ago. He didn't earn anything for 2 years and had moved to stay with his girlfriend. Eventually when he received his mail he was on daily penalties. He then quickly submitted estimated tax returns and estimated how much tax he had already paid. This was found to be over-estimated with the result that another £340 in penalties were applied.
The result? He owes £2,800 in penalties but, of the 12 other forestry workers who were intending to be bona fide - none of them are now registering for tax as they've seen what happened to their colleague!
We regularly check on the actions of HMRC and whether or not they are complying with legislation. Looks like the Assured Agents will give HMRC a free reign so that they do whatever they want.
I always thought one day HMRC would attempt to vet those agents who do a good job and get rid of those agents who do a better job. Looks like that point is now on the horizon.
I totally agree. We have very little faith at all with the 1st Tier.
We defended a case and asked for a summons to have records brought forward by HMRC which could prove the Taxpayer's innocence. The summons was granted. HMRC subsequently stated that all records had been "lost" and that only the limited evidence supplied to make the case against the Taxpayer could be used. We calculated, and put forward to the Tribunal, that the odds of all records being lost by HMRC from all 10 locations listed were at least ten thousand million to one against. The 1st Tier Tribunal stated that the actions of HMRC were acceptable and we lost the case.
And they're supposed to be unbiased!
Our view is that only points of law will support an appeal at the 1st Tier. Whatever HMRC puts forward, no matter how absurd, is believed. And the same will apply to Agents. If HMRC say we are dishonest it will be a massive uphill battle to show otherwise.
My answers
Our concern is the reporting -
"Within 30 days, you must tell HMRC the date on which you first make a reverse charge sale. You must also give HMRC the name and telephone number of a contact. If you then stop making such supplies, within 30 days, you must tell HMRC the date that you stopped. But if later, you again make reverse charge sales, within 30 days you must tell HMRC the date you restarted, and again give contact details. Penalties apply"
HMRC's service is always very poor and - as though it wasn't possible - it's actually getting worse.
We took on a simple case where a Taxpayer's accountant had retired without telling anyone. The Taxpayer had paid tax at source under CIS and his records had been left with his previous agent - who had disappeared. A simple case - contact HMRC - find out how much he had already paid - and see if the Taxpayer is due a bill or a refund. 5 years later HMRC are still refusing to let us have the data on how much has been paid at source and, instead, are insisting on payment in full to the exclusion of payments already made.
I notice that virtually all "errors" are in favour of HMRC - by fluke of course.
Judges
I've had exactly the same before where HMRC and the judges were chatting away to each other like old friends. We had something like 50 interruptions by the judges - HMRC had none. We could see from the start that we had lost. The calibre of judges in the 1st Tier is a very low standard in our view.
In terms of penalties HMRC are taking advantage all the time. We have one case where we took on a forestry worker who had registered for tax about 3 years ago. He didn't earn anything for 2 years and had moved to stay with his girlfriend. Eventually when he received his mail he was on daily penalties. He then quickly submitted estimated tax returns and estimated how much tax he had already paid. This was found to be over-estimated with the result that another £340 in penalties were applied.
The result? He owes £2,800 in penalties but, of the 12 other forestry workers who were intending to be bona fide - none of them are now registering for tax as they've seen what happened to their colleague!
Assured Agents
Crooked agents I agree should be removed
We regularly check on the actions of HMRC and whether or not they are complying with legislation. Looks like the Assured Agents will give HMRC a free reign so that they do whatever they want.
I always thought one day HMRC would attempt to vet those agents who do a good job and get rid of those agents who do a better job. Looks like that point is now on the horizon.
Yes Hmmmmmmmm
I totally agree. We have very little faith at all with the 1st Tier.
We defended a case and asked for a summons to have records brought forward by HMRC which could prove the Taxpayer's innocence. The summons was granted. HMRC subsequently stated that all records had been "lost" and that only the limited evidence supplied to make the case against the Taxpayer could be used. We calculated, and put forward to the Tribunal, that the odds of all records being lost by HMRC from all 10 locations listed were at least ten thousand million to one against. The 1st Tier Tribunal stated that the actions of HMRC were acceptable and we lost the case.
And they're supposed to be unbiased!
Our view is that only points of law will support an appeal at the 1st Tier. Whatever HMRC puts forward, no matter how absurd, is believed. And the same will apply to Agents. If HMRC say we are dishonest it will be a massive uphill battle to show otherwise.