I can't see any fairness or justice in the system. On the one hand a small builder can be penalised £100 for being 1/2 an hour late with a nil CIS return trying to keep up with their book work at night.
On the other hand, a local company recently went into liquidation owing £400,000 to HMRC for VAT and PAYE having not submitted VAT returns for 4 years, 2 years late with their accounts, and incompetent enough to still be using tax code 647L in 2014 in their payroll. Never got more than a mr angry letter from HMRC and undercut competitors who were trying to do it properly.
How can solicitors claim they didn't know what income they had to pay tax on? If HMRC know a particular solicitor hasn't paid tax, why don't they just open an enquiry? Most solicitors I know are so thick skinned that if they haven't already declared income they are not going to be frightened into doing so now. I'll bet the yield on this one is paltry.
I think the main gripe is not that the rules have changed but that previously there was a pragmatic and reasonable approach to enforcement so there was no need to complain. That seems to have been dispensed with resulting in a system that seems unjust and unneccesarily harsh.
This article reads as though it was written by a teenager. It's so poor you need to re-read it several times to make sure you understood what it was attempting to say, and even then you're still not sure.
Surely a technical subject like this demands better.
It was probably the VAT helpline that told them VAT wouldn't apply in the first place, then denied any responsibility when some-one at HMRC read Tolleys and decided VAT did apply after all.
Granted they might have expected the same treatment, but I still can't understand the commerciality behind converting a luxury suv into a van when there are perfectly good commercial alternatives. If they wanted a leather front seats they could have had them as an option or fitted them in the van version rather than selling the back seats they took out on ebay at a discount. Most of the AA technicians I see are driving transits.
I suspect there's still more to this than is being admitted, perhaps a medical reason why the technician couldn't use a commercial>
I'm sure some have clients who although they "co-habit" are still fiercely independent of their partners. Mr High earner needs to complete his tax return and lives with Ms Not so high earner who has a number of children from a previous relationship, and her own income. How does he persuade her to tell him how much child benefit she receives if she is unwilling, and indeed why should she tell him anything. At present, if they don't claim tax credits, how would HMRC know they are co-habiting anyway?
Would he have a defence for not complying? Do human rights come into this? So I have to pay more tax because of the child benefit on some-one elses children.
Is this another example of things not being thought through properly by people who don't live in the real world?
My answers
Penalties don't achieve what they should
I can't see any fairness or justice in the system. On the one hand a small builder can be penalised £100 for being 1/2 an hour late with a nil CIS return trying to keep up with their book work at night.
On the other hand, a local company recently went into liquidation owing £400,000 to HMRC for VAT and PAYE having not submitted VAT returns for 4 years, 2 years late with their accounts, and incompetent enough to still be using tax code 647L in 2014 in their payroll. Never got more than a mr angry letter from HMRC and undercut competitors who were trying to do it properly.
Is Seph Blatter helping HMRC
Apart from the corruption as I don't think anyone at HMRC is taking bribes, I get that deja vu feeling - FIFA?
Sounds like a zero enforcement policy
How can solicitors claim they didn't know what income they had to pay tax on? If HMRC know a particular solicitor hasn't paid tax, why don't they just open an enquiry? Most solicitors I know are so thick skinned that if they haven't already declared income they are not going to be frightened into doing so now. I'll bet the yield on this one is paltry.
Rules haven't changed but the implications have
I think the main gripe is not that the rules have changed but that previously there was a pragmatic and reasonable approach to enforcement so there was no need to complain. That seems to have been dispensed with resulting in a system that seems unjust and unneccesarily harsh.
Paper Tax code notices
We're still getting tax codes notices posted to us which subsequently never appear online!! How can that be possible?
Who wrote this *****t!
This article reads as though it was written by a teenager. It's so poor you need to re-read it several times to make sure you understood what it was attempting to say, and even then you're still not sure.
Surely a technical subject like this demands better.
The VAT office!!
It was probably the VAT helpline that told them VAT wouldn't apply in the first place, then denied any responsibility when some-one at HMRC read Tolleys and decided VAT did apply after all.
Nice Idea
But, out here in the sticks the internet drops out several times a day. That's what puts me off.
Treatment was inconsistent.........but
Granted they might have expected the same treatment, but I still can't understand the commerciality behind converting a luxury suv into a van when there are perfectly good commercial alternatives. If they wanted a leather front seats they could have had them as an option or fitted them in the van version rather than selling the back seats they took out on ebay at a discount. Most of the AA technicians I see are driving transits.
I suspect there's still more to this than is being admitted, perhaps a medical reason why the technician couldn't use a commercial>
Child benefit tensions
I'm sure some have clients who although they "co-habit" are still fiercely independent of their partners. Mr High earner needs to complete his tax return and lives with Ms Not so high earner who has a number of children from a previous relationship, and her own income. How does he persuade her to tell him how much child benefit she receives if she is unwilling, and indeed why should she tell him anything. At present, if they don't claim tax credits, how would HMRC know they are co-habiting anyway?
Would he have a defence for not complying? Do human rights come into this? So I have to pay more tax because of the child benefit on some-one elses children.
Is this another example of things not being thought through properly by people who don't live in the real world?