Dividends from 14/15

Darksparkle

polymaff wrote: »

You seem to be missing my point - that a "reasonable excuse" is the only hope of mitigation of the penalty.

It is not the only hope for a failure to notify penalty.

A non-deliberate penalty applies if the behaviour is not deliberate and there is no reasonable excuse.

A non-deliberate penalty can be charged at 0% if unprompted and within 12 months.

It shows here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473383/CC-FS11_10_15.pdf

And here - https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch72200

polymaff

Darksparkle wrote: »

A non-deliberate penalty can be charged at 0% if unprompted and within 12 months.

.

Maybe - but my point still stands. Making a careful, comprehensive disclosure - as soon as possible - is the only path to mitigation.

OP - I'd emphasise the word "careful" as once data is disclosed to HMRC then the issue of "carelessness" arises.

Looking at recent HMRC actions in this field, I'd imagine that HMRC would take a jaundiced view of a taxpayer who fails to understand the implications of being a higher rate taxpayer when it comes to taxable savings income - or who thinks that income from an investment doesn't need to be reported.

[Deleted User]

polymaff wrote: »

.



Looking at recent HMRC actions in this field, I'd imagine that HMRC would take a jaundiced view of a taxpayer who fails to understand the implications of being a higher rate taxpayer when it comes to taxable savings income - or who thinks that income from an investment doesn't need to be reported.

And that is the crux of the matter.

Darksparkle

polymaff wrote: »

.

Maybe - but my point still stands. Making a careful, comprehensive disclosure - as soon as possible - is the only path to mitigation.

You said reasonable excuse was the only hope, that was not correct. I had already clearly said that an unprompted disclosure within 12 months would be beneficial to the OP but this is not the same as a reasonable excuse.

polymaff

Darksparkle wrote: »

You said reasonable excuse was the only hope, that was not correct. I had already clearly said that an unprompted disclosure within 12 months would be beneficial to the OP but this is not the same as a reasonable excuse.

An unprompted disclosure sets the penalty bounds. The presentation of a reasonable excuse therein will be a factor - the key factor, I suspect - in the determination of the actual penalty within those bounds.

Time to move on, Darksparkle.

Darksparkle

polymaff wrote: »

An unprompted disclosure sets the penalty bounds. The presentation of a reasonable excuse therein will be a factor - the key factor, I suspect - in the determination of the actual penalty within those bounds.

Time to move on, Darksparkle.

Why should I when it is you that keeps changing your mind about the OPs "only hope".

A reasonable excuse is not the only hope.