Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
confused man looking at computer
istock_g-stockstudio_cc

Taxpayers confused by online filing messages

by
8th Jun 2017
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Julie Cameron considers four cases concerning self-assessment late filing penalties, and wonders how those taxpayers will deal with quarterly reporting under Making Tax Digital.

Four appeals

On 25 April 2017, the First Tier Tribunal rejected appeals against late filing penalties lodged by four unrepresented individuals, who had erroneously assumed that their SA tax returns had been successfully filed electronically.

In essence, the separate appeals were very similar: Andrew Kent (TC05887), Barbara Harvey (TC05886), John Bowles (TC05883) and Nigel Cross (TC05882) each appealed against the imposition of daily penalties for late filing of their 2010/11 or 2011/12 SA tax returns.

These appeals were part of the wave of cases which had been put on hold pending the Court of Appeal decision in the “Donaldson case”. In July 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed Donaldson’s appeal against late filing daily penalties, and HMRC’s standard approach to late filing penalties was endorsed. In December 2016 Donaldson was refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The way was now clear for the all the cases held behind Donaldson, including these four appeals, to be considered.

Receipt

Each of the taxpayers stated they thought they had filed online before the statutory filing deadline. Three of the taxpayers said they had not received the normal submission receipt email, which Cross assumed was down to an “error in the system” and would eventually sort itself out. Although Bowles had received what he though was a “submission receipt” it turned out to be exactly the opposite.

Harvey maintained that her sons had filed their tax returns using the same computer as she had, and although none of them received filing acknowledgements, the sons had later received their anticipated tax refunds. So Harvey assumed that her tax return had also been successfully filed.

Experience counts

HMRC was clear that each taxpayer had previous online filing experience, so it was expected that they would “be aware of the online filing procedures”. The absence of an acknowledgement should have alerted them to the non-submission of the tax return in question.

With a professional’s knowledge of the online filing system, it might look as though there was a singular lack of concern by the taxpayers as to whether the returns had been filed. There is no reference to any of the four having rung HMRC to check why there was no acknowledgement, even when penalty warning notices first began to be received. Nowadays, HMRC may expect the taxpayer to look at their online records, to check whether their tax return had been processed.

Confusion

Perhaps these experiences signify a deeper issue of confusion and uncertainty surrounding online filing. In his appeal, Kent defended his belief that he had filed (when in fact he had only completed a draft return), blaming the misunderstanding on his “knowledge of computers and [HMRC’s] website”. Harvey commented that: “computers are not infallible”.

We all occasionally blame the computer when technology does not work as it should, rather than delving deeper for an answer. Add to that an inbuilt wariness, fear even, to engage with HMRC and there is the potential for the kind of misunderstanding highlighted by these appeals.

It was said of the appeals that they were “not concerned with specialist or obscure areas of tax law”, but with each taxpayer’s “ordinary every day responsibilities”. But if the fulfilment of the annual responsibility is surrounded by such confusion, how much more confusing will this be when the filing requirements for the unrepresented businessman or landlord increases to six times a year under Making Tax Digital (MTD)?

MTD penalties

Late submission penalties are proposed under MTD, which will not be linked to the tax liability. It seems that most of the general public, who are also taxpayers, are unaware of the approaching storm of MTD. With my weather eye on the horizon, I foresee righteous indignation flourishing amidst the late MTD filing penalties.

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By coolmanwithbeard
10th Jun 2017 23:34

I can understand some confusion maybe but it seems it is the daily penalties that were being objected to - meaning that an initial £100 penalty had been ignored.

Unless wrong information had been given on enquiring about these (and I have successfully challenged penalties where HMRC have given their customers wrong information) the issues should have been resolved as a result of the earlier notices.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Eric T
11th Jun 2017 09:10

It's to do with attitude. Most of us here are professional "filers" and know what type of responses we should be getting when filing data electronically to HMRC. But on occasions, even we sometimes get caught out.

The problem for HMRC is that they are expecting that, under MTD, the general public will suddenly be instantly up to speed on all the requirements of filing using computers and will be switched on and alert to what to do if and when things don't proceed smoothly.

I think this is an extremely optimistic assumption on behalf of HMRC.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Eric T:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2017 10:28

Isn't that one of the purposes of MTD? Penalise the tax payer so much when they get it wrong so that they either go on to PAYE or learn everything themselves so Accountants aren't needed. A bit like TM hoping for a bigger majority.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Eric T
12th Jun 2017 17:48

If that is the attitude of HMRC, then there is something seriously wrong with democracy in this country. They are civil SERVANTS. They are supposed to serve us, not us serve them.

Thanks (0)
Julian Cohen
By bigugly
13th Jun 2017 18:00

That is the attitude of HMRC, and there is something seriously wrong with democracy in this country

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Jun 2017 09:17

I think HMRC attitude stems from the Gordon Brown days where (getting it right) nobody should do anything to reduce their tax bill.
Of course some of the big boys and celebs have measures in place that mean they pay little or no tax. The only way HMRC can get that back is penalise the smaller concern. If MTD does actually come in for the smaller business then penalties for the slightest mistake will be high.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By joolzjbs
15th Jun 2017 10:44

Has there been any information out yet as to if spreadsheets can be used to import information, with MTD or will the normal S/A be available, but with it needing to be completed the 4 times with the final submission at the end of the year? Non of my clients use software, and I pull all of the information together into spreadsheets and produce accounts on those, then imput the information onto the HMRC S/A Software

Thanks (0)