Of course, you must pay the tax before you appeal the bill…..

According to the Sage of Ely this is a very sensible thing, that you must pay your tax bill before you try to appeal it:

HM Revenue & Customs paid out £1.9 million in compensation after sending a firm bankrupt with a tax demand that turned out to be wrong.
The embarrassing blunder has been disclosed in the fine print of the organisation’s annual report and accounts.

Umm, yeah. I too want the PCS scrotes to be able to bankrupt me with their errors.

4 thoughts on “Of course, you must pay the tax before you appeal the bill…..”

  1. Ritchie doesn’t understand this, as he’s got loads of cash.

    Ely property purchase completed on 22/04/2016 for £330,000 in cash.

    Downham Market property sale completed later on 10/06/2016 for £445,000 in cash (tax free profit £65,000 based on 2006 purchase).

    I assume he’s been stung by the double stamp duty for the second property/wait for refund if sell within 3 years thing that came in the budget?

    Still mystifying why he moved downmarket, but he has the liquid cash to buy before selling.

  2. Hopefully Osbo’s plan, to have the Revenue debit alleged taxes due from taxpayers in advance of a final decision, has died with his career.

  3. I very much doubt it – it seems that it’s a cornerstone of tax collection these days.
    While I have very little sympathy for those engaged in tax evasion, there is something fundamentally unfair with a system where you can :
    * Use a tax avoidance scheme – perfectly legal, and anyone who says otherwise while having a pension or ISA (or any of a fair number of similar schemes) is a bare faced liar (or just pig ignorant).
    * Declare said tax avoidance scheme to the tax authorities.
    * Tax authorities will outright refuse to give anything reliable in terms of opinion as to it’s legality in advance.
    * Tax authorities will then wait many years, perhaps a decade, before declaring it illegal and demanding all the tax to be paid.
    * Tax authorities can sit back and take as long as they like to decide if the tax was actually due or not, and if in the wrong, suffer only to pay interest on what they “stole” from the taxpayer.
    Search for “Accelerated Payment Notice”. A tool which, like many others, was touted as being for one purpose, but which ends up being used far more widely. The logic is that certain types of tax evaders may well take their money out of the reach of HMRC while HMRC and the taxpayer are arguing about the amount. Thus a tool allowing them to require up-front payment would make sense. Where it doesn’t make sense, and is grossly unfair, is where the taxpayer properly declares the avoidance scheme – then HMRC sit on their arses and do nothing at all for a decade before deciding to act and demand 10 years disputed tax in advance of any discussions.
    While looking for a site about this (which I can’t find), I did come across this interesting article on why it may backfire on HMRC http://www.pinsentmasons.com/en/media/published-articles/why-hmrc-might-come-to-regret-accelerated-payment-notices/

  4. Simon,

    Agreed.

    In many cases, a tax payer might just as easily have taken alternative courses of action, for example, put money into pension schemes (fully tax allowable) or similar. And hence got partial reliefs in different ways.

    That’s not possible after the event if HMRC then apply retrospective decisions to taxpayer actions that at the time were often taken transparently, openly and in good faith.

    I accept that – to some – various of these avoidance schemes may not have appeared to pass the smell test. All the more reason for HMRC to have acted promptly and close them off years ago.

    Their current tactics in some cases might look like straightforward extortion.

    I must admit I always wondered if the DOTAS arrangements were going to turn out to be nothing more than ‘a trojan horse of sorts’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *