Lost Appeal Against Late SA

kendall17

So in the 6months after 31/1/xx you didn't receive one piece of post from HMRC notifying you for their fines and penalties?

Your 'excuses' are feeble.

Pay the fines like everyone else would.

chrismac1

Was any tax actually due? The reason I ask is because we are all in new territory here with these massive fines. These came in for the first time in the 2010-11 tax returns, I expect them to get a thorough legal testing in the Tribunals and probably the Courts in the end, for taxpayers with tax investigation insurance. Fining someone £900 on a tax bill of £0.00 is a different kettle of fish to a tax bill of £10,000.

I would appeal this at least one more time, highlighting the issues already mentioned in this thread and going with the line that you are an unrepresented taxpayer who does not have a full grasp of English, has been let down by the post Office and so on.

For a later round - this can obviously not come from someone claiming to be unrepresented - there is a precedent from other taxes, especially PAYE for employers.

In that tax, HMRC know for sure that someone has filed late in May - £100. But they wait until September before the letter goes out - £400 instead of £100. Various judges have thrown this out in 2011 and 2012.

This is not a direct precedent because these swingeing fines have only just come in. But as a matter of fairness there is a clear parallel between fining someone £1,300 in August for a personal tax return 6 months late, and £400 in September for a PAYE return 4 months late.

No doubt the HMRC stooges on this site will proclaim these two situations are completely different. I expect such HMRC views to get a very detailed examination in the Tribunals and Courts in the next year or two.

ILW

chrismac1 wrote: »

Was any tax actually due? The reason I ask is because we are all in new territory here with these massive fines. These came in for the first time in the 2010-11 tax returns, I expect them to get a thorough legal testing in the Tribunals and probably the Courts in the end, for taxpayers with tax investigation insurance. Fining someone £900 on a tax bill of £0.00 is a different kettle of fish to a tax bill of £10,000.

I would appeal this at least one more time, highlighting the issues already mentioned in this thread and going with the line that you are an unrepresented taxpayer who does not have a full grasp of English, has been let down by the post Office and so on.

For a later round - this can obviously not come from someone claiming to be unrepresented - there is a precedent from other taxes, especially PAYE for employers.

In that tax, HMRC know for sure that someone has filed late in May - £100. But they wait until September before the letter goes out - £400 instead of £100. Various judges have thrown this out in 2011 and 2012.

This is not a direct precedent because these swingeing fines have only just come in. But as a matter of fairness there is a clear parallel between fining someone £1,300 in August for a personal tax return 6 months late, and £400 in September for a PAYE return 4 months late.

No doubt the HMRC stooges on this site will proclaim these two situations are completely different. I expect such HMRC views to get a very detailed examination in the Tribunals and Courts in the next year or two.

The more HMRC get from fines etc, the less tax the people who do it correctly have to pay. It all goes into the pot.

John_Pierpoint

You mean the less worried the foreigners need to be about getting their interest on the country's massive overdraft?

Poppie68

Surely not having a full grasp of English is not an excuse, he understands enough to know he has to complete a SA and had someone else help him complete it.

John_Pierpoint

I think the point being made is that the system is similar to penalties applied by banks for errors in managing a bank account rather than a tax account.

In the case of banks letting a customer go over drawn and then bouncing a whole pile of direct debits while fining the punter 25 quid a time has been ruled illegal - I am all in favour of the short sharp shock for the can't pay/can't be bothered tax payers, to make them face up to their adult responsibilities. But letting penalties snowball without pestering the payer, is like the former banking behaviour.

The penalties become totally out of proportion to the debt.

System

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I think the point being made is that the system is similar to penalties applied by banks for errors in managing a bank account rather than a tax account.

In the case of banks letting a customer go over drawn and then bouncing a whole pile of direct debits while fining the punter 25 quid a time has been ruled illegal - I am all in favour of the short sharp shock for the can't pay/can't be bothered tax payers, to make them face up to their adult responsibilities. But letting penalties snowball without pestering the payer, is like the former banking behaviour.

The penalties become totally out of proportion to the debt.

Wasn't that more to do with the banks claiming they were admin charges rather than penalties? If so I'm not 100% the same principle would apply here.

ic

aakkoo wrote: »

Can u plz give me good excuses.

Your dog ate it.

John_Pierpoint

ceiberman wrote: »

Wasn't that more to do with the banks claiming they were admin charges rather than penalties? If so I'm not 100% the same principle would apply here.

In normal commercial law one party finds it very difficult to apply "penalties" against the other (weaker?!) party, hence calling them "admin" charges. However the latter are meant to be related to the costs involved.

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ............."

I suppose an oppressive government, claiming an excessive share of GDP, while losing control of public spending, can do what ever it wants, as long as it can pass the appropriate laws.

John

....... any one know why this word: !!!!!!!!! meaning is unacceptable to the MSE thought police?

ic

Aren't these fines a bit different to an administration fee? They are laid down in law, and are no different to say a speeding fine - they exist to deter people from breaking the law, and are not to do with the underlying cost of chasing the late payment. The HMRC are part of the government - they're not a car clamping outfit. If everybody were late paying their tax, the country would fall to pieces.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/penalties.htm