Can HMRC request this??

quietriot

chrismac1 wrote: »

when you make it clear that you are prepared to damage his or her career prospects if they keep on asking daft questions, it normally gets the job done and they write a closure notice instead.

Question: If an inspector from HMRC acted that aggressively towards you and threatened to damage your career prospects, how would you react?

Coneygree wrote: »

That's because there isn't one, and before you come back with an act, iv said countless time, he has to consent to an act....

UK law is formed via acts of parliament. The people subject to these laws do not have to consent to these acts to be governed by them. You may have said countless time (sic) that consent is required, but that doesn't make it even remotely correct. You have offered not one shred of evidence to back up your position. If I state 'countless time' (sic) that 2 + 2 = 46, that doesn't make me any less of a cretin for holding that view in the first place.

Slinky

Even if the stepson were to provide his bank statements, how can they judge whether the money passed over is income or not? The stepfather could have been doing work 'on the side' for his stepson and this could have been payment for that work. On the other hand it could be to cover household bills and be normal expenditure as the stepfather is claiming. How does HMRC seeing the stepson's bank statements prove anything one way or the other?

Coneygree

No, there is legal and lawful, a law is something that can be enforced, an act cannot, it is governed by consent, he has no legal obligation to provide his step sons statements.

Quiet riot, instead of rambling on , why don't you do the one thing that will win your argument, SHOW ME THE LAW where it's states hmrc can force him to provide his step sons bank statements, not an act, the actual law where hrmc have the right to FORCE him to provide.

Oh no wait , there isn't one....

And you can reply with your sarcasm and wit, and belittling manner, but you still cannot provide me with the law for this , therefor you are talking cack

quietriot

coneygree wrote: »

and you can reply with your sarcasm and wit, and belittling manner, but you still cannot provide me with the law for this , therefor you are talking cack

2 + 2 = 46

Coneygree

You found that law yet.....

antonic

I dont normally agree with Chrismac1 ( see my previous posts) but on this I totally agree with him.

Tell HMRC you will only provide information when they issue a disclosure notice, as Chrismac1 has said, this *should* shut them up.

Good luck !

chrismac1

HMRC staff like to hide behind "the system" and take personal responsibility for nothing. That culture can really get you down if you accept it and let it. To retain your peace of mind, you need to use it to your advantage. In my case, once I reasonably believe I am dealing with someone who is pretty clueless, I attack and make it clear to them that if I raise a Complaint, Compensation Request, write to Lin Homer or George Osborne or my MP, that person's name will be mentioned each and every time.

Suddenly you are putting that person on the spot. Do I really want to carry on asking questions this guy regards as daft? Am I really confident they are not daft?

Note that I will have spoken to that person at least once on the phone. In most cases, in the course of that phone call I will have demonstrated that I know more about the specific area of tax law relating to the case in hand than he or she does.

HMRC staff by definition are in general reactive people who take the path of least resistance. My aim is simply to make that path the one where they write the closure notice.

As per my earlier post, this is definitely not my preferred way of doing business, and I never use it when dealing with people I consider to be suitably qualified and experienced.

Coneygree

People should be more like the poster above, standing up for themselves and not just agreeing with what they are being told. Maybe the governments police forces and politicians of this country would star taking note.

sunshinetours

Coneygree wrote: »

People should be more like the poster above, standing up for themselves and not just agreeing with what they are being told. Maybe the governments police forces and politicians of this country would star taking note.

Only where they are suitably experienced and trained to be able to follow through.
Online warriors and free radicals who challenge everything and accept nothing are not the same.

In the case the OP posted I partly agree with ChricMac, but if this is the final piece to get the case closed I would go part way to meeting the request and provide minimum required to show the pattern of payments

Picking your battles is key with HMRC, as is getting good advice

Coneygree

Online warriors n free radicals ... Lol hahaha

No just members of the public who know enough not to falsely lead by laws an acts that mean !!!! all