New PAYE fines being enforced

chrismac1

I agree with you. I have clients who are miles behind - over 2 years - with PAYE and VAT. And for me the "We were flooded in November 2009" angle does not cut it any more, they've been back up and running making profits for over a year. How hard can it be to at least print off some bank statements. Some of them don't even have the flooding excuse, they simply don't see why they should be arssed.

Yet it's people like the client who rang an hour ago being threatened with various things because she forgot to pay £2k of VAT on 7 August who get hounded more than the serial offenders. She's paid it today online but it's left a bad taste in her mouth the way she's been treated.

This is par for the course. The tough nuts go in the "too difficult" pile and folk a few weeks late get carpeted. "Taxi and P45 for Mr. Hartnett!"

ultrarunner

plenty of clients i work with (at a large payroll bureau) have paid PAYE late and been fined.

yet conversely i also know clients who have contacted HMRC and have made arrangements to delay payment due to cashflow, rather than just not paying.

BoGoF

chrismac1 wrote: »

I agree with you. I have clients who are miles behind - over 2 years - with PAYE and VAT. And for me the "We were flooded in November 2009" angle does not cut it any more, they've been back up and running making profits for over a year. How hard can it be to at least print off some bank statements. Some of them don't even have the flooding excuse, they simply don't see why they should be arssed.

Yet it's people like the client who rang an hour ago being threatened with various things because she forgot to pay £2k of VAT on 7 August who get hounded more than the serial offenders. She's paid it today online but it's left a bad taste in her mouth the way she's been treated.

This is par for the course. The tough nuts go in the "too difficult" pile and folk a few weeks late get carpeted. "Taxi and P45 for Mr. Hartnett!"

You seem to have a personal vendetta with HMRC and perhaps you need to take a taxi from this forum. For what it's worth Dave Hartnett is not the top man/woman in HMRC.

If I "forgot" to pay a £2k bill due almost 3 weeks ago I would expect some repurcussions.

chrismac1

All I am saying is that the repeat offenders in the "too difficult" pile get away more or less Scot free, whilst a stupidly aggressive policy line is taken with folk who are a few weeks late. There is no consistency other than a consistent level of bungling and jobsworthiness. It's not a personal vendetta in the sense that it is one shared by the majority of accountants in this country who have dealt with HMRC when it was properly run.

chrismac1

From BogoF:

If I "forgot" to pay a £2k bill due almost 3 weeks ago I would expect some repurcussions.

Back in the real world, in certain sectors it is highly unusual to pay suppliers within a month of the "due date" never mind within a few weeks of it. I have clients who routinely pay suppliers 3 months late never mind 3 weeks, I have clients who are still owed money from invoices raised 6 months ago never mind 3 weeks.

Those of you reading this forum who have these sorts of cash flow problems can take heart from the fact that at least one Tribunal judge is on your side, as per the ruling which went against HMRC in AK Construction, which I summarise below. The Tribunal judges are mostly from the real world not the HMRC fantasy one!


Some of the payments AK Construction made to HMRC were late which meant they failed the compliance test, despite that he was unable to pay because of cash flow difficulties. Judge John Walters ruled in favour of AK Construction saying that “the appellant had done all that he could to avoid this problem” and that was a reasonable excuse. Though HM Revenue & Customs still disagree with cash flow being a reasonable excuse, it depends on the tribunal judge you find yourself before.

BoGoF

With all due respect I do not think you can compare HMRC with a supplier. After all PAYE/NIC is money you have deducted from someone's salary, it is not the employer's money in the first place.

Re your tribunal reference, it's strange you berate HMRC for having no consistency when the Tribunals rulings are equally inconsistent, for every case you quote to support your case I could quote one for the opposite view for almost identical issues.

And we both know first tier cases set no precedent

chrismac1

I'll leave it to business owners to judge on the comparison. But consider this. Trade suppliers perform some sort of service for the business. Whereas it is the business which is performing a service for the country, collecting VAT and PAYE/NI on the UK's behalf. In return for this tax collection service, it never occurs to HMRC to thank the business and often occurs to HMRC to give the business a load of hassle and grief, much of it with minimal justification.

John_Pierpoint

Does anyone have the statistics for the bankruptcies in the business sector created by petition from HMRC as against those created by banks and those created by ordinary trade creditors?

Obviously some organisation has to pull the rug and put the workers of a no hope business on the dole - but I just wonder if the decision is made by a computer at HMRC ?

It will be quite interesting now that more and more of our services are run by PFI (Private Finance Initiative - ie borrowing from our kids) firms, when one of those goes bust - I wonder if they will get special treatment?

Back in the early days of my working life, I would get a new customer on the phone saying "Can we have a delivery of (say in today's money) 20K's worth tomorrow.
I would ascertain the location of the delivery address, in those days before computers, readily available business services (for medium sized businesses); Then I would have to say. I could send enough for you to set up your machinery if you can get a cheque to me by tomorrow morning. We need a bank reference and two trade references.

The most popular trace reference was Imperial Chemical Industries, a reference from ICI was probably meaningless, because they had a reputation for suing if a trader went over his terms. So their monthly statement got paid on time.

BoGoF

chrismac1 wrote: »

I'll leave it to business owners to judge on the comparison. But consider this. Trade suppliers perform some sort of service for the business. Whereas it is the business which is performing a service for the country, collecting VAT and PAYE/NI on the UK's behalf. In return for this tax collection service, it never occurs to HMRC to thank the business and often occurs to HMRC to give the business a load of hassle and grief, much of it with minimal justification.

When I used to work for IR (when it was properly run as you say ) I used to hear the unpaid tax collecter thing all the time from employers. Whether that's true or not the point is it's your legal obligation. With regards 'thanks' it's like me expecting a thank for not breaking the law.

MacMickster

runninglea wrote: »

Due to customers pay dates etc it is difficult to catch up this 10 days.

I fail to see what most of this payment has to do with your customers paying you. You have made deductions from your employees and merely have to hold these and pay them over. I accept that you have to find the employers national insurance.

If you choose to use this money, which is not yours, for other purposes, you can hardly complain if the taxman objects to this.