[Politics] HMRC. FIT FOR PURPOSE?

[Eric the meek]

Over the years, I have become used to poor service and performance from public services. That way, I'm not disappointed when they match my low expectations, which is usually, and on the odd occasion when they exceed expectations, it's a pleasant surprise.

 

[Seecider]

Over the years, I have become used to poor service and performance from public services. That way, I'm not disappointed when they match my low expectations, which is usually, and on the odd occasion when they exceed expectations, it's a pleasant surprise.

The government departments that seem to work best are the complaints departments. One of the stats they like to publish is how well they deal with complaints and how many are resolved quickly. Its just a matter of how you get your complaint to the right place. When I've had ongoing issues with HMRC, I've written to 11 Downing St on a number of occaisions -- particularly if I have had a letter from HMRC with no senders address, name, or phone no. Usually get some action that way.

 

[keaton]

And flat rate income tax as a % of income. Would save a fortune and as everyone pays according to their income, the same %, it is fair. Can add in some tweaks for finesse.

However others violently disagreed with me on this on NSC when I suggested it, saying it is not fair that a rich may pays 'the same' in tax as a poor man. I tried to point out that 10% of £a million is hugely more than 10% of £10,000, but they wouldn't accept this.

With this level of intransigence we are forevermore going to have income tax used as a bribe at election time. By both sides.

Wouldn't that lead to hugely less tax being received?

 

[Eric the meek]

The government departments that seem to work best are the complaints departments. One of the stats they like to publish is how well they deal with complaints and how many are resolved quickly. Its just a matter of how you get your complaint to the right place. When I've had ongoing issues with HMRC, I've written to 11 Downing St on a number of occaisions -- particularly if I have had a letter from HMRC with no senders address, name, or phone no. Usually get some action that way.

HMRC is not run to make your life easier you know. HMRC is a revenue collection service and is designed to be run with as little outside interference as possible, to ensure the smooth running of the operation. It makes perfect sense that they send you letters without the information for you to contact them back.

 

[beorhthelm]

Wouldn't that lead to hugely less tax being received?

would depend on the level and the tax rules. i've seen sensible estimates that show clear rise in revenue as there's less avoidance and loopholes, and easier for tax returns to be calculated. we have a tax system that punishes earning more while providing incentives the higher earners to find ways around tax.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

…and don’t get me started on Barclays business.

 

[nicko31]

Had to call HMRC last week, 90 mins on a call. The guy was pretty off hand (sounded burnt out), then told to speak to PAYE dept, transferred the call and it dropped out. Took a further 60 mins to speak to them on a seperate call.

Just bizarre a department that collects money is cut to the bone.

 

[rippleman]

The HMRC is a total joke. I’m trying to get an overpayment out of them. Does anyone know if there’s anyway I can take legal action against them? It’s only a few hundred quid but it’s got to the point where it’s now a matter of principle and Im totally fed up being fobbed off with crap they tell me.

No, you can't. The clue is in "HM" ie His Majesty's. You can't sue the Crown.

What I often resort to is a letter addressed to "The Chief Executive". His correspondence gets passed to HMRC's "Ministerial Complaints Team" and they are bloody good (despite often having one hand tied behind their backs by senior management). They are open and honest and will never try to conceal or cover-up HMRC errors.

Other options are to go to the Adjudicators office. The Adjudicator and her team are really good and thoroughly investigate complaints. However, you have to have exhausted HMRC's complaints process before you can go to the Adjudicator - and, perhaps unsurprisingly, The Adjudicator is deluged with complaints and it can take up to 18 months for her to report.

Your final option is to complain via your MP. Good luck with that!

 

[keaton]

would depend on the level and the tax rules. i've seen sensible estimates that show clear rise in revenue as there's less avoidance and loopholes, and easier for tax returns to be calculated. we have a tax system that punishes earning more while providing incentives the higher earners to find ways around tax.

But that's it what number isn't going to lead to massive shortfall that won't also mean part-time or low income workers would be better off unemployed. And I'm no way convinced only taxing higher earners 20-30% will mean they stop trying to avoid it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, you can't. The clue is in "HM" ie His Majesty's. You can't sue the Crown.

Court finds taxpayers can sue HMRC for damages

The Court of Appeal has found that HM Revenue and Customs do owe a duty of care to a taxpayer if it makes mistakes. As a consequence of the decisions in

www.accountingweb.co.uk

You can!

 

[rippleman]

Court finds taxpayers can sue HMRC for damages

The Court of Appeal has found that HM Revenue and Customs do owe a duty of care to a taxpayer if it makes mistakes. As a consequence of the decisions in

www.accountingweb.co.uk

You can!

I stand corrected - thank you.

That decision was in 2007 but I can't find any more recent cases of a taxpayer sueing HMRC for delay/error. Was there a subsequent change in legislation because I certainly would have expected an avalanche of cases given HMRC's incompetence and delays. I will read the case.

To point out to all that you can claim a redress payment from HMRC if you have been adversely impacted by HMRC's actions.

CRG5100 - Financial redress: Considering claims - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

CRG6050 - Payments for worry and distress: Criteria for considering payment - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

Note that although the instructions at CRG6050 state that HMRC should be proactive in making payments for "worry and stress" in practice they will never offer it up; you have to tell them that you want it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I am an accountant and can confirm that - right now - the service is as bad as I've known it in my 26 year career in the profession.

Many years ago tax agents were given a dedicated HMRC line and you used to be able to get straight through. Now the wait is anywhere from 10-25 mins.

Client information that should be visible on the agent pages isn't there, PAYE information downloadable via API doesn't come through, they don't email anything, personal tax refunds that should be automatic need to be chased, corporation tax refunds are taking 3-4 months, even setting up a VAT scheme - so a company can collect and pay over the taxes the country so badly needs- is taking 6 months in some cases. The list really does go on.

As others have said, if you haven't got the staff numbers or the budget then what you do is simplify the system so it is easier and quicker to administer.

Yet this government recently abolished the Office of Tax Simplification who - in their 12 years of existence - managed to achieve precisely nothing other than run a raft of reports that the government ignored or kicked down the road.

 

[Weststander]

I am an accountant and can confirm that - right now - the service is as bad as I've known it in my 26 year career in the profession.

Many years ago tax agents were given a dedicated HMRC line and you used to be able to get straight through. Now the wait is anywhere from 10-25 mins.

Client information that should be visible on the agent pages isn't there, PAYE information downloadable via API doesn't come through, they don't email anything, personal tax refunds that should be automatic need to be chased, corporation tax refunds are taking 3-4 months, even setting up a VAT scheme - so a company can collect and pay over the taxes the country so badly needs- is taking 6 months in some cases. The list really does go on.

As others have said, if you haven't got the staff numbers or the budget then what you do is simplify the system so it is easier and quicker to administer.

Yet this government recently abolished the Office of Tax Simplification who - in their 12 years of existence - managed to achieve precisely nothing other than run a raft of reports that the government ignored or kicked down the road.

The same profession, my experience is exactly the same, it got noticeably worse from the first lockdown and hasn't improved one iota.

Recent examples:

1. Taking 6 hour long phone calls (including the queuing) to sort an HMRC mess up where a client limited company couldn't recover CIS tax suffered. In the end I just got lucky with an incredibly helpful, knowledgeable guy at an HMRC Scottish call centre. Before that pushed pillar to post by goons not wanting to take 'ownership'.

2. A VAT registration and Opting To Tax a property was applied for 100% correctly, yet it took the special VAT unit 3.5 months to get on it with despite chasing. The unbelievable icing on the cake was a letter from another special VAT unit a month later saying that they were deregistering the VAT scheme due to suspected fraud, with just 10 days to reply to them to put that on hold. The client has 10 other VAT registrations, VAT is always paid on time, returns filed on time and detailed VAT inspection visits went seamlessly.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

No, you can't. The clue is in "HM" ie His Majesty's. You can't sue the Crown.

What I often resort to is a letter addressed to "The Chief Executive". His correspondence gets passed to HMRC's "Ministerial Complaints Team" and they are bloody good (despite often having one hand tied behind their backs by senior management). They are open and honest and will never try to conceal or cover-up HMRC errors.

Other options are to go to the Adjudicators office. The Adjudicator and her team are really good and thoroughly investigate complaints. However, you have to have exhausted HMRC's complaints process before you can go to the Adjudicator - and, perhaps unsurprisingly, The Adjudicator is deluged with complaints and it can take up to 18 months for her to report.

Your final option is to complain via your MP. Good luck with that!

You will be lucky to get an apology full stop.

They decided to write to me a week before Xmas years back advising that I owned them £5,000 which was due by 31st January

Turns out they had send an estimate out by mistake and they couldn’t qualify how they reached the exact number, they weren’t even sure if it was linked to my account!

I put a complaint in and asked for an apology for basically (all be it temporarily) ruining Xmas. Was told it’s not HMRC’s policy to apologise

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And flat rate income tax as a % of income. Would save a fortune and as everyone pays according to their income, the same %, it is fair. Can add in some tweaks for finesse.

However others violently disagreed with me on this on NSC when I suggested it, saying it is not fair that a rich may pays 'the same' in tax as a poor man. I tried to point out that 10% of £a million is hugely more than 10% of £10,000, but they wouldn't accept this.

With this level of intransigence we are forevermore going to have income tax used as a bribe at election time. By both sides.

As well as a flat rate of income tax lets throw in IHT as well - i.e. it should be scrapped. Why should people who have been frugal while alive been penalised when dead ? If we have to keep IHT then lets simplify it. For example - IHT should be based on the actual SALE amount not some estimate at time of death. An example - I'm currently selling properties that my parents left - valued after a quick look around by estate agents at over £1m. In reality they are likely to achieve ~£800k. Yet I've been forced to pay IHT on the guess by the estate agents. The value has dropped in part due to HMRC taking months (12+) to issue probate, that idiot Truss and of course the common 'but the survey has shown this'. Yet HMRC are carrying out an investigation claiming too little IHT has been paid. Utter wankers - makes me understand why some try and evade paying the correct tax.

 

[Weststander]

As well as a flat rate of income tax lets throw in IHT as well - i.e. it should be scrapped. Why should people who have been frugal while alive been penalised when dead ? If we have to keep IHT then lets simplify it. For example - IHT should be based on the actual SALE amount not some estimate at time of death. An example - I'm currently selling properties that my parents left - valued after a quick look around by estate agents at over £1m. In reality they are likely to achieve ~£800k. Yet I've been forced to pay IHT on the guess by the estate agents. The value has dropped in part due to HMRC taking months (12+) to issue probate, that idiot Truss and of course the common 'but the survey has shown this'. Yet HMRC are carrying out an investigation claiming too little IHT has been paid. Utter wankers - makes me understand why some try and evade paying the correct tax.

Or just main home never part of estate subject to IHT?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Or just main home never part of estate subject to IHT?

That would definitely make it much fairer. That said I go back to being frugal - my parent both worked hard and saved - we went through hard times including free school meals for a number of years but they still managed to save and invest for their retirement. And their estate is now paying for their frugalness. Yet they could have just pissed it up the wall, let the state help them in their dotage and not pay any IHT. On one hand the government says save for your old age but with the other it takes a slice once your dead if you do. I'm sorely tempted to follow the 'piss it up the wall' model !

 

[chickens]

Had to call HMRC last week, 90 mins on a call. The guy was pretty off hand (sounded burnt out), then told to speak to PAYE dept, transferred the call and it dropped out. Took a further 60 mins to speak to them on a seperate call.

Just bizarre a department that collects money is cut to the bone.

Don’t worry, give this lot another term and they’ll have handed one of their mates a contract to run it on their behalf.

They’ll skim 20% off the top and cut everyone’s terms and conditions to compensate. That’ll improve things. Britain needs its overpaid staff to be cut down to size.

 

[Weststander]

That would definitely make it much fairer. That said I go back to being frugal - my parent both worked hard and saved - we went through hard times including free school meals for a number of years but they still managed to save and invest for their retirement. And their estate is now paying for their frugalness. Yet they could have just pissed it up the wall, let the state help them in their dotage and not pay any IHT. On one hand the government says save for your old age but with the other it takes a slice once your dead if you do. I'm sorely tempted to follow the 'piss it up the wall' model !

I don’t disagree with you, but it’s political, envy is rife, plus IHT rakes in £6b a year.

A very similar thing is the self employed who spent every penny earned on living, nice holidays, booze, fags versus those on identical income who spent decades saving in a private pension plan. I know examples exactly as I’ve described. Retired, the former will likely receive means tested pension credit, housing benefit if renting and much more.

 

[Sirnormangall]

They still seem to have enough staff and resource to chase me for (literally) a few quid in extra tax each year. The cost of processing must exceed what they collect, but I’m an easy target: low hanging fruit who abide by the rules.