Member Since: 2nd Aug 2001
1st Mar 2019
There's no jeopardy for HMRC in Tribunal cases. They either win, or walk away without losing anything.
If HMRC, when losing cases, had to cough up under a doubling up process so that they had to pay the other side twice amount they were claiming, they might be more realistic in the cases they decided to fight.
Unfortunately no government is going to want to side with taxpayers and introduce something like this because the political narrative is always about closing the "tax gap", so in the government's eyes HMRC is always right - even when they're wrong.
14th Sep 2018
"One particular area of pension administration confusion highlighted by the report relates to contribution errors resulting from employers or their agents incorrectly believing a pension scheme operates on a Relief at Source basis rather than Net Pay, and vice versa, and so confusing gross and net figures."
You don't say! This terminology to differentiate between these two schemes was an accident waiting to happen.
26th Jul 2018
At the risk of being the odd one out I think this is an excellent idea, and I know several self-employed people who would much prefer to pay a monthly tax rather than the horrors of the January & July tax bills.
Obviously much more work needs doing on this - not least the continuing issues created by the refusal of successive governments to merge tax and NI - but I think this is well worth pursuing, at least for those who would want the ability to choose this option.
17th Aug 2017
I would like to see a Double Jeopardy rule brought in so that, in any case where HMRC penalties were overturned, HMRC had to pay double the amount of the wrongful penalty to the other side.
This would concentrate their minds before imposing any penalties - at the moment there is no downside risk to HMRC of a bad assessment.
3rd Jul 2017
Isn't the deadline for paying Class 1A NI July 19th rather than July 6th?
23rd Sep 2016
A good time to look back at the "quick wins" and multiple "directions of travel" contained in the 45 (yes 45) recommendations that appeared in the June 2008 Poynter Report on HMRC Data Security following the great HMRC CD Rom disaster of 2007?
It was politely suggested at the time on this very message board that this Report was "corporate gibberish speak", "garbage" and "twaddle".
Eight years on - you decide.
30th Jun 2015
Feedback to HMRC
Can I suggest that AccountingWEB print this entire thread at the end of today and then post it to the head of HMRC (copied to the appropriate Select Committee) and ask for their comments - within 30 days of course?
26th Feb 2015
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or the law of unintended consequences - take your pick.
It won't matter in a few years to an honest "hard-working" (the politicians favourite word) accountant who is deceived by his client and is caught by some poorly thought out and politically motivated legislation intended to catch a larger and different kind of fish altogether, and who then spends several stressful years trying to prove his innocence.
This is pre-election posturing - pandering to the public with vague but cynical platitudes on tax evasion in order to try and win a few votes.
16th Feb 2015
Stick & carrot
Nowhere in this discussion paper does it say what HMRC want to achieve in terms of the timing of SA returns. Do they prefer a steady 10% a month over 10 months to ease their workflow? if so there should be an incentive payment to those that file early in the return window.
Secondly, the public and ourselves seem to meekly accept the hugely unbalanced and unfair system we are operating under. One day late and a £100 fine. Yet, try writing a letter to HMRC and see if you get a credible reply within three months. Or try sorting out a PAYE refund in a single phone call. As they impose such harsh terms on us they should accept the same professional standards and we should be able to levy "fines" on late, inadequate or non-existent responses.
Thirdly, penalties which turn out to be incorrectly imposed should be "punished" with a double refund. At the moment there is no downside to HMRC sending out thousands of incorrect penalties but if they had to pay back £200 for every £100 penalty sent out in error it might concentrate their minds on them getting it right first time.
The system is completely one-sided and we're letting them get away with it!
21st Aug 2013
Why get rid of a very sensible, relatively straight forward and easy to submit return? It's the one opportunity each year to tell the world at large (if they're interested) the up-to-date basics about your company. Failure to submit on time is in itself a warning sign that all might not be well.
It would be a backward step to get rid of this simple requirement.