how many frikking times has this been reported NOW?
five ..... six times .....
It's a fairly fundamental change between state and subjects, or public servants and the public. Hence referrals back to things like the Magna Carta to stop the plundering of personal assets. It's also going through a 'consultation' period which is where the government pretends to listen to the people.
But like many bits of one-sided legislation it's potentially solvable with a few tweaks-
A truly independent appeals process (currently this should be the judiciary)
Fair compensation when.. I mean if money is seized in error. Say £50/day + interest + compensation. HMRC already views that as fair if they win, so why not when they lose?
Removal of Crown Immunity from HMRC employees so they can be sued in criminal or civil actions when they're negligent.
Justice doesn't come cheap. Besides, It won't be the big fish they are targeting with this -they'll just keep their money hidden away or off-shore.
I'm just not comfortable with the idea of letting them have so much arbitrary powers. Mission creep could also mean other governments in the future could expand the concept to other things.
HMRC have a terrible track record of mistakes and dealing with the public is a major problem as they have trouble dealing with the volume of calls as it is. They really should take on more staff rather then unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner because it's cheaper. Cutting the staff of the one arm of the state responsible for collecting revenue (rather then spending it) was an absolutely bonkers idea. Totally ideology over common sense.
Apparently they only can cope with 1 out of every 5 calls. The rest just go unanswered. Would you like to be the person who's bank account has been practically emptied due to a mistake by them and then you cannot get through to anyone and get them to correct their mistake? At the very least there should be a massive penalty on HMRC if they screw up. And I mean thousands in compo. Still reckon this will save money?
Justice doesn't come cheap. Besides, It won't be the big fish they are targeting with this, they'll just keep their money hidden away or off-shore.
Or in cash. Way to encourage savings though. But one reason why HMRC is seeking an extra-judicial solution is when it gets to court, it often loses, and when it loses, that can establish precedents. paulschapman probably has some good figures about another glorious brain-fart from HMRC and it's lobbyists, the infamous IR35..
Not wishing to justify the proposal but this was suggested under New Labour first.
Are yeah but when it was Labour bleating on about tax evasion that was fine and it provided the argument that "you should stop going after the benefit scroungers and go after the real parasites"
Now the Tories might be doing something about it it becomes evil
The more complex you make a tax code or system, the more opportunities you create to legally avoid that tax.
I have no problem paying tax, but I will only pay as much as is set and proscribed by law. If those that set the tax code make monumental mistakes then it is not my responsibility to make up for their stupidity.
Haven't we seen time and time again from ALL politicians, that once they get "a foot in the door" it's very very dangerous?
How soon until it's automatic deductions from your bank account for parking fines, how soon until PRIVATE firms have access to that method? How soon until the government can auto-fine you for a whole range of offences?
Won't happen? The internet has shown that when something becomes easy to do then politicians will do it. Easy tracking of what you are doing/writing/reading online, so they do it.
If you are over 30 you really have no excuse for being unaware of what politicians do with such laws, eventually...
The more complex you make a tax code or system, the more opportunities you create to legally avoid that tax.
I have no problem paying tax, but I will only pay as much as is set and proscribed by law. If those that set the tax code make monumental mistakes then it is not my responsibility to make up for their stupidity.
It's a another of those things the Tories and their supporters promised to fool the stupid and gullible into voting for them but just isn't practical. How much simplification have we seen so far from the Office of Tax Simplification? After 4 years!
Look at it another way, let's say we got rid of all the rules on benefits in kind. So either if you stay in a hotel for work and claim it back on expenses you get taxed on that money or I get to buy myself a company car from my company and pay no tax on it, you choose.
It's a another of those things the Tories and their supporters promised to fool the stupid and gullible into voting for them but just isn't practical. How much simplification have we seen so far from the Office of Tax Simplification? After 4 years!
Look at it another way, let's say we got rid of all the rules on benefits in kind. So either if you stay in a hotel for work and claim it back on expenses you get taxed on that money or I get to buy myself a company car from my company and pay no tax on it, you choose.
Simple?
Lets look at it another way. Why has one man, an ex chancellor and PM taken a tax code from 1000 pages to 3000 pages and made such a system so complex and porous as to allow avoidance less of a challenge and just a right of way.
Do you really want people like this to have free access to your bank accounts?
Investors in an aggressive tax avoidance scheme will be let off paying millions of pounds because of a paperwork bungle by inspectors.
Revenue & Customs has spent more than a decade investigating the Liberty tax scheme, which was used by 1,600 people, including the pop stars George Michael and Gary Barlow, in an attempt to avoid tax on £1.2 billion.
Yesterday The Times revealed that Sir Michael Caine, the four present members of Arctic Monkeys, the singer Katie Melua, businessmen, criminals, sportsmen, lawyers and doctors poured millions of pounds into the tax scheme, which ran from 2005-09.
It can now be disclosed that HMRC inspectors failed to challenge the tax returns of at least 26 Liberty investors within the time limit required by law.
As a result, these investors are entitled to hold on to millions of pounds of disputed tax relief even if the Revenue wins a tax tribunal case due to be heard in March next year.
So you have no problems with the state just grabbing money of people just because it thinks money is owed - if you had seen people get demands for £47,000 and it end up they owe absolutely nothing - you really think the tax office should have the rights to just take money from people's bank accounts? Do you think they should lose their home so that the tax office can take money that is not actually owed?
(The £47,000 was eventually ruled in favour of the taxpayer after a protracted court case lasting years and eventually costing £500,000 - estimated)
Because they can. Take something simple, like VAT. Ok, it's not that simple, but the basic concept is. Company buys in <stuff>, does something to it to increase the 'value' and the government takes 20% of the value added. If no value is added, or there are no transactions, VAT is not due or applicable.
So imagine my suprise when HMRC sends a VAT assessment to a dormant company. It just presents a number, tells me it needs to be paid NOW and first-borns will be confiscated if the cash isn't presented forthwith.
(ok, the first-born bit may be a slight exageration)
So if you wrote to HMRC asking for a detailed calculation showing how they arrived at that amount (ie some evidence of VAT-applicable activity having occurred), what do you think the answer would be?
Currently it's kind of blah blah you need to pay the money NOW while we think about it to avoid incurring interest, fines, first-born confiscation etc etc but essentially without evidence of VAT being due, HMRC are effectively committing VAT fraud.
In their brave new world, they want to just be able to take whatever money they think you owe them.
They're doing exactly the same with us, albeit with inheritance tax. Estate was in the process of being wound up, we're in agreement with them to pay off the IHT over ten years, and now we're being harrassed by their debt collection team saying we owe them another 10k and they want it NOW! No indication why we do, or where they have suddenly moved the goalposts. Three different offices have given three different figures. They were incredibly reluctant to hand over the paperwork showing the calculations, sent out a three page document that me who has worked in debt collection couldn't understand. Lots of to-ing and fro-ing and they sent out another 7 page document with all their figures on, plus demand, and we tol d them it's being looked at by an ex-tax man. Even the woman on the phone couldn't tell me how the office had come up with the figure, so they can go hang if they think they can just suddenly raid our bank account.
Or in cash. Way to encourage savings though. But one reason why HMRC is seeking an extra-judicial solution is when it gets to court, it often loses, and when it loses, that can establish precedents. paulschapman probably has some good figures about another glorious brain-fart from HMRC and it's lobbyists, the infamous IR35..
That is a good example
When I was involved in campaigning we kept figures on how many times HMRC said money was owed under IR35 and how many times it was eventually paid. This was how we checked the efficacy of the Tax Investigation Insurance. So for those that had the insurance and were properly advised the figures were 1600+ found outside and 6 found in. So a victory rate for the tax office of 0.00375%
Justice doesn't come cheap. Besides, It won't be the big fish they are targeting with this -they'll just keep their money hidden away or off-shore.
I'm just not comfortable with the idea of letting them have so much arbitrary powers. Mission creep could also mean other governments in the future could expand the concept to other things.
HMRC have a terrible track record of mistakes and dealing with the public is a major problem as they have trouble dealing with the volume of calls as it is. They really should take on more staff rather then unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner because it's cheaper. Cutting the staff of the one arm of the state responsible for collecting revenue (rather then spending it) was an absolutely bonkers idea. Totally ideology over common sense.
Apparently they only can cope with 1 out of every 5 calls. The rest just go unanswered. Would you like to be the person who's bank account has been practically emptied due to a mistake by them and then you cannot get through to anyone and get them to correct their mistake? At the very least there should be a massive penalty on HMRC if they screw up. And I mean thousands in compo. Still reckon this will save money?
Indeed. I'm sure HMRC bosses would love to.
They are stopped due to government ideology-based austerity measures, however.
I am perfectly happy with HMRC taking money out of the bank accounts of idiots who believe they are above the law and wish to withhold tax that is legally due.
What is the matter with them for God's sake? They have the money!!
They are stopped due to government ideology-based austerity measures, however.
I am perfectly happy with HMRC taking money out of the bank accounts of idiots who believe they are above the law and wish to withhold tax that is legally due.
What is the matter with them for God's sake? They have the money!!
Avoiding the question I asked you earlier. The whole point is that just because the tax office says that money is owed it does not automatically follow that this is the case. Indeed the tax office has used ay number of tactics to bully people into paying money that they don't owe - because to fight them is likely to be far too costly for the average person. Which is also why professional advice is vital - and why on earth should be need professional advice to protect what is legally ours?
They are stopped due to government ideology-based austerity measures, however.
I am perfectly happy with HMRC taking money out of the bank accounts of idiots who believe they are above the law and wish to withhold tax that is legally due.
What is the matter with them for God's sake? They have the money!!
Have you not read the thread at all?
Do you also think its OK to put innocent people in jail....just in case one of them might have done something wrong ?
So you have no problems with the state just grabbing money of people just because it thinks money is owed - if you had seen people get demands for £47,000 and it end up they owe absolutely nothing - you really think the tax office should have the rights to just take money from people's bank accounts? Do you think they should lose their home so that the tax office can take money that is not actually owed?
(The £47,000 was eventually ruled in favour of the taxpayer after a protracted court case lasting years and eventually costing £500,000 - estimated)
I am not happy with people withholding their fair share - many of whom appear to be pretty well off. They far outweigh the cases where HMRC make an error that exercise you on a daily basis. But you admit your hatred of that organisation anyway, so it explains your emotional terms like "grabbing".
As for losing a home that would not happen - such draconian measures are not part of the proposals.
Most people in this country pay tax under PAYE - they have no choice in paying the going rate, and generally accept it.
What is it that makes some not on PAYE so greedy and resentful - whatever they pay?
Avoiding the question I asked you earlier. The whole point is that just because the tax office says that money is owed it does not automatically follow that this is the case. Indeed the tax office has used ay number of tactics to bully people into paying money that they don't owe - because to fight them is likely to be far too costly for the average person. Which is also why professional advice is vital - and why on earth should be need professional advice to protect what is legally ours?
Agreed. Too many mistakes made by HMRC makes this a bad idea. If people have the money and don't want to pay - take them to court and make them pay court costs. There needs to be a voice of reason (independant) before money is seized.
Avoiding the question I asked you earlier. The whole point is that just because the tax office says that money is owed it does not automatically follow that this is the case. Indeed the tax office has used ay number of tactics to bully people into paying money that they don't owe - because to fight them is likely to be far too costly for the average person. Which is also why professional advice is vital - and why on earth should be need professional advice to protect what is legally ours?
This wasn't a response to you, but to another poster from last night.
I will accept your apology.
I replied to your question to me from this morning just now.
Lets look at it another way. Why has one man, an ex chancellor and PM taken a tax code from 1000 pages to 3000 pages and made such a system so complex and porous as to allow avoidance less of a challenge and just a right of way.
Way to doge the question.
As i've explained before, much of the extra detail is to close loopholes, as you close the easy loopholes people jump through more complex hoops to avoid them.
And some of it is to reduce admin, so employers and employees now don't need to track or declare mileage paid at the approved HMRC rates.
Comments
It's a fairly fundamental change between state and subjects, or public servants and the public. Hence referrals back to things like the Magna Carta to stop the plundering of personal assets. It's also going through a 'consultation' period which is where the government pretends to listen to the people.
But like many bits of one-sided legislation it's potentially solvable with a few tweaks-
A truly independent appeals process (currently this should be the judiciary)
Fair compensation when.. I mean if money is seized in error. Say £50/day + interest + compensation. HMRC already views that as fair if they win, so why not when they lose?
Removal of Crown Immunity from HMRC employees so they can be sued in criminal or civil actions when they're negligent.
I'm just not comfortable with the idea of letting them have so much arbitrary powers. Mission creep could also mean other governments in the future could expand the concept to other things.
HMRC have a terrible track record of mistakes and dealing with the public is a major problem as they have trouble dealing with the volume of calls as it is. They really should take on more staff rather then unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner because it's cheaper. Cutting the staff of the one arm of the state responsible for collecting revenue (rather then spending it) was an absolutely bonkers idea. Totally ideology over common sense.
Apparently they only can cope with 1 out of every 5 calls. The rest just go unanswered. Would you like to be the person who's bank account has been practically emptied due to a mistake by them and then you cannot get through to anyone and get them to correct their mistake? At the very least there should be a massive penalty on HMRC if they screw up. And I mean thousands in compo. Still reckon this will save money?
Or in cash. Way to encourage savings though. But one reason why HMRC is seeking an extra-judicial solution is when it gets to court, it often loses, and when it loses, that can establish precedents. paulschapman probably has some good figures about another glorious brain-fart from HMRC and it's lobbyists, the infamous IR35..
Are yeah but when it was Labour bleating on about tax evasion that was fine and it provided the argument that "you should stop going after the benefit scroungers and go after the real parasites"
Now the Tories might be doing something about it it becomes evil
I have no problem paying tax, but I will only pay as much as is set and proscribed by law. If those that set the tax code make monumental mistakes then it is not my responsibility to make up for their stupidity.
Simplify the tax code and collect more tax.
How soon until it's automatic deductions from your bank account for parking fines, how soon until PRIVATE firms have access to that method? How soon until the government can auto-fine you for a whole range of offences?
Won't happen? The internet has shown that when something becomes easy to do then politicians will do it. Easy tracking of what you are doing/writing/reading online, so they do it.
If you are over 30 you really have no excuse for being unaware of what politicians do with such laws, eventually...
Flat rate tax.
It's a another of those things the Tories and their supporters promised to fool the stupid and gullible into voting for them but just isn't practical. How much simplification have we seen so far from the Office of Tax Simplification? After 4 years!
Look at it another way, let's say we got rid of all the rules on benefits in kind. So either if you stay in a hotel for work and claim it back on expenses you get taxed on that money or I get to buy myself a company car from my company and pay no tax on it, you choose.
Simple?
Lets look at it another way. Why has one man, an ex chancellor and PM taken a tax code from 1000 pages to 3000 pages and made such a system so complex and porous as to allow avoidance less of a challenge and just a right of way.
You created the European tax system that allows them to offset costs against other european entities.
And to have Margret Hodge who has hidden 10's of millions from the taxman to lecture is as usual, labour hipocrasy at its very best.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4143485.ece
So you have no problems with the state just grabbing money of people just because it thinks money is owed - if you had seen people get demands for £47,000 and it end up they owe absolutely nothing - you really think the tax office should have the rights to just take money from people's bank accounts? Do you think they should lose their home so that the tax office can take money that is not actually owed?
(The £47,000 was eventually ruled in favour of the taxpayer after a protracted court case lasting years and eventually costing £500,000 - estimated)
They're doing exactly the same with us, albeit with inheritance tax. Estate was in the process of being wound up, we're in agreement with them to pay off the IHT over ten years, and now we're being harrassed by their debt collection team saying we owe them another 10k and they want it NOW! No indication why we do, or where they have suddenly moved the goalposts. Three different offices have given three different figures. They were incredibly reluctant to hand over the paperwork showing the calculations, sent out a three page document that me who has worked in debt collection couldn't understand. Lots of to-ing and fro-ing and they sent out another 7 page document with all their figures on, plus demand, and we tol d them it's being looked at by an ex-tax man. Even the woman on the phone couldn't tell me how the office had come up with the figure, so they can go hang if they think they can just suddenly raid our bank account.
That is a good example
When I was involved in campaigning we kept figures on how many times HMRC said money was owed under IR35 and how many times it was eventually paid. This was how we checked the efficacy of the Tax Investigation Insurance. So for those that had the insurance and were properly advised the figures were 1600+ found outside and 6 found in. So a victory rate for the tax office of 0.00375%
Even when it went to the commissioners their rate was a paltry 50%. In one they lost the tax inspector ended up apologising before the court for his handling of the case
And some people think they should have then right to raid people's bank accounts
(also see http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic/tax/taxzone-newthwire-14-hope-ir35)
Indeed. I'm sure HMRC bosses would love to.
They are stopped due to government ideology-based austerity measures, however.
I am perfectly happy with HMRC taking money out of the bank accounts of idiots who believe they are above the law and wish to withhold tax that is legally due.
What is the matter with them for God's sake? They have the money!!
Avoiding the question I asked you earlier. The whole point is that just because the tax office says that money is owed it does not automatically follow that this is the case. Indeed the tax office has used ay number of tactics to bully people into paying money that they don't owe - because to fight them is likely to be far too costly for the average person. Which is also why professional advice is vital - and why on earth should be need professional advice to protect what is legally ours?
Have you not read the thread at all?
Do you also think its OK to put innocent people in jail....just in case one of them might have done something wrong ?
I am not happy with people withholding their fair share - many of whom appear to be pretty well off. They far outweigh the cases where HMRC make an error that exercise you on a daily basis. But you admit your hatred of that organisation anyway, so it explains your emotional terms like "grabbing".
As for losing a home that would not happen - such draconian measures are not part of the proposals.
Most people in this country pay tax under PAYE - they have no choice in paying the going rate, and generally accept it.
What is it that makes some not on PAYE so greedy and resentful - whatever they pay?
Agreed. Too many mistakes made by HMRC makes this a bad idea. If people have the money and don't want to pay - take them to court and make them pay court costs. There needs to be a voice of reason (independant) before money is seized.
This wasn't a response to you, but to another poster from last night.
I will accept your apology.
I replied to your question to me from this morning just now.
Yes thanks (and I don't know what relevance your final sentence has).
No you haven't, your advocating sentence without trial and state sponsored theft.
Now go back and read several personal examples of exactly why this should not be allowed.
Way to doge the question.
As i've explained before, much of the extra detail is to close loopholes, as you close the easy loopholes people jump through more complex hoops to avoid them.
And some of it is to reduce admin, so employers and employees now don't need to track or declare mileage paid at the approved HMRC rates.
The DWP can bypass the courts to directly get back fraudulently claimed benefits to save money.
Is that "state sponsored theft" too?