Help / Advice - does ESC A19 apply?

markjb_2

Hi,

My wife received a P800 for the year 2008-2009 for underpayment. This was received on 22 March 2011.

Ever since then we have been trying to resolve this as my wife never received a formal tax code notification for that year, and was therefore completely unawares that the wrong tax code was being used.

I'd be really grateful for any help / advice.

Thanks in advance

MB

jem16

markjb wrote: »

Ever since then we have been trying to resolve this as my wife never received a formal tax code notification for that year, and was therefore completely unawares that the wrong tax code was being used.

Her tax code would be shown on her payslip.

I'd be really grateful for any help / advice.

You would really need to provide information such as how the underpayment arose. Why do you think the ESC A19 applies?

markjb_2

Hi - thanks for replying.

both my wife and I are complete tax novices and have no idea on tax codings or what they mean - it is only now having received the P800 that we now understand.

It looks as though my wife's employer were using the wrong tax code but my wife was not able to check as HMRC never sent her a formal tax notification for 2008 - 2009.

HMRC are claiming that it was her responsibility to check the codes to ensure her tax affairs were in order, but this was never sent. My wife never had a reason to doubt that her employer would not be handling tax incorrectly through PAYE.

I was wondering whether esc A19 applied as I have read that there is a limited time period for HMRC to write - in this case it was over 12 months.

In reality I guess the question I should be asking is are there any grounds for appeal and does ESCA19 apply in this case?

Many thanks for your help.

MB

chrisbur

What code was used and what code should have been used?
Do you know why the employer used the wrong code?

jem16

markjb wrote: »

I was wondering whether esc A19 applied as I have read that there is a limited time period for HMRC to write - in this case it was over 12 months.

We don't know as you still haven't really provided any detail.

With one income the normal tax code would be whatever the personal allowance for that tax year would be. If there is a reason why that tax code should have been altered, then you need to tell us what it is.

For example - did your wife receieve taxable benefits such as medical insurance etc. Was this her only income or did she also receive a pension or did she have a 2nd job?

Nicola_Ed

Hi

I think you should make a claim. You have nothing to lose after all! You have not given many details of the sources of income - did your wife have 2 jobs or job and a pension?

chrismac1

From HMRC Esc A19 terms and conditions:

"The circumstances are that HMRC should have used the information provided within 12 months after the end of the tax year in which it is received to notify the taxpayer of any arrears."

So if we count 2008-2009 payroll submissions as "information" - HMRC try not to but they lose Tribunals on this issue - HMRC had this in May 2009.

That is in the 09-10 tax year ending on 5 April 2010. Esc A19 very generously gives HMRC until 5 April 2011 to use this, so in this case they made it by 14 days.

If you think this is bad, HMRC are currently trying to move the Esc A19 goalposts to make it even harder to claiim against them for their ridiculous delays in processing simple information.

So in this case I suggest you check they've done their sums right in the calculation, as the strapline to every post I make suggests their error rate is very high.

If the sums are right by all means try Esc A19 but the odds are you'll write 5 letters and the answer will still be No.

System

chrismac1 wrote: »

From HMRC Esc A19 terms and conditions:

"The circumstances are that HMRC should have used the information provided within 12 months after the end of the tax year in which it is received to notify the taxpayer of any arrears."

So if we count 2008-2009 payroll submissions as "information" - HMRC try not to but they lose Tribunals on this issue - HMRC had this in May 2009.

That is in the 09-10 tax year ending on 5 April 2010. Esc A19 very generously gives HMRC until 5 April 2011 to use this, so in this case they made it by 14 days.

If you think this is bad, HMRC are currently trying to move the Esc A19 goalposts to make it even harder to claiim against them for their ridiculous delays in processing simple information.

So in this case I suggest you check they've done their sums right in the calculation, as the strapline to every post I make suggests their error rate is very high.

If the sums are right by all means try Esc A19 but the odds are you'll write 5 letters and the answer will still be No.

I don't want to sound like I'm nitpicking but.

1) ESC A19 concerns arrears resulting from HMRC's failure to act on information. The 2008-09 'payroll' information (P35 & P14) could not could not lead to HMRC causing a 2008-09 underpayment. The 2008-09 tax year has already ended before HMRC received the info you are talking about.

2) The Tribunal service has no jurisdiction over ESC A19. The concession is 'extra-statutory'. You might be thinking of the Adjudicator's Office. They will review a case to see if HMRC has acted in line with its published guidance. The 'information' you are talking about is specifically excluded by PAYE95055

3) The 12 month time limit only applies when HMRC have caused an under payment by failing to act on information. See point 1.

4) TMA 1970 gives HMRC four years to check an employers return (P35/P14) and notify an individual of arrears of tax. Meaning it has until 5 April 2013 to notify underpayments based on the 2008-09 P14s.

OP you need to establish precisely how the underpayment arose before anyone can advise if you have grounds for making a claim under ESC A19.

chrismac1

All I will say about the last post is that you can find examples on this site - and I have clients as well - where you would just have given up if you'd followed it. But in the end HMRC have backed down and coughed up.

In essence esc A19 contains silly rules which fly in the face of common law definitions of, for example, what "information" is. Follow the silly rules to the letter and HMRC always wins, hence they always reject more or less every Esc A19 letter on the first round.

Go beyond the silly rules and make it clear you are not going away - in other words, play poker with HMRC and play your hand long - and very often they throw their hand into the muck. Where it should have been from the moment it was dealt.

System

chrismac1 wrote: »

All I will say about the last post is that you can find examples on this site - and I have clients as well - where you would just have given up if you'd followed it. But in the end HMRC have backed down and coughed up.

In essence esc A19 contains silly rules which fly in the face of common law definitions of, for example, what "information" is. Follow the silly rules to the letter and HMRC always wins, hence they always reject more or less every Esc A19 letter on the first round.

Go beyond the silly rules and make it clear you are not going away - in other words, play poker with HMRC and play your hand long - and very often they throw their hand into the muck. Where it should have been from the moment it was dealt.

I don't begrudge anyone giving it a go. After all, what have they got to lose? But the advice you've given is going to unrealistically get people's hopes up. In reality its, more likely than not, just going to waste their time and stationery.

chrismac1

Just look up all the threads on this site about Esc A19 over the past couple of years. Then look at the postings from the various HMRC stooges - who have all now disappeared in defeat - saying I, and others, were talking rot and getting peoples' hopes up unduly.

Then look to the bottom of the threads when the posters returned months - or even years! - later saying "Thanks, they coughed up."

Then tell me it's a waste of time. My advice is based purely and simply on statistics and I estimate an 80% strike rate. Whether that is a waste of time is up to the poster. if it takes 10 letters for an 80% shot to get back £3,000 most people will consider that time well spent, if it is £100 they won't.