Why you can never trust HMRC even to know the law!

chrismac1

I can't believe the previous poster keeps posting that drivel. Technically it is accurate in that it is the politicians, backed up by HMT, who draft and then seek the votes for, Finance Bills.

But standing behind them and egging them on all the way are HMRC. To take just one highly topical example, we have Making Tax Diabolical which will involve 6 tax returns per year instead of just 1. This is probably the single stupidest tax proposal in the UK in the last 25 years, and when you consider just how stupid IR35 legislation has been that is really saying something.

And Making Tax Diabolical is 100% cooked up by the Numpty Department of HMRC. No discernable involvement from politicans or HMT, in fact most sensible politicians who've looked at it think it is just as big a pile of manure as I do.

polymaff

dori2o wrote: »

Its completely and utterly pointless pointing the finger at HMRC for the rules regarding the collection of tax.

I've said it umpteen times on here that HMRC do not write the rules regarding tax or the collection of it.

You have indeed and you were as wrong the first time as you are now.

The Finance Act comes out of HMT, but its interpretation and implementation is in the hands of HMRC.

dori2o

polymaff wrote: »

You have indeed and you were as wrong the first time as you are now.

The Finance Act comes out of HMT, but its interpretation and implementation is in the hands of HMRC.

You're correct, the implementation of the collection of tax is in the hands of HMRC, but that implementation has to be within the legislation set down in the Finance Act.

HMRC cannot simply ignore the Act and proceed as they please.

If the act in any one year brings in changes that restricts the amount of tax that can be collected, increases the amount of debt that can be codes, introduces a part of the MTD process, then HMRC has no choice but to oblige and make that change.

The changes happening from tomorrow which represent part of the MTD process are happening because the finance act stated they would happen.

HMRC works to deadlines set by HMT and the various acts and SI's they introduce.

IMO in many cases HMRC, and especially its front line staff, are often hamstrung by legislation put in force by HMT by people who have a vision, but have little idea of the scope and problems these ideas have on not only the taxpayer, but on the staff expected to observe the legislation laid down.

If more was done to utilise the experience and expertise of those staff who do the work on a day to day basis, then the whole system could be easily reformed.

What doesn't help anyones cause is when ministers who are called to select committee's panic and make unworkable promises to timescales and processes which either never have a hope in hell of being met, or which create delays to other area's of the business by diverting essential resources away from them.

IMO what has not helped HMRC over the past 20 years is the introduction of people into senior positions who have no idea of how the tax system works.

There is no doubt that these people are extremely intelligent and have most likely been chosen because of sucesses in their careers outside of HMRC, but IMO there is no substitute for experience and knowledge of the tax system from top to bottom.

A return to promotion from within and advice to HMT from not only experienced people within the department but also from experienced tax professionals would benefit everyone.

As it is we dont have that, and those who continue to be the punch bag for the public and professionals are those who have little to no say at all over the way processes are created and implemented.

bob_bank_spanker

dori2o wrote: »

You're correct, the implementation of the collection of tax is in the hands of HMRC, but that implementation has to be within the legislation set down in the Finance Act.

HMRC cannot simply ignore the Act and proceed as they please.
.

Hang on - that is literally what the judge said they did in this case.


"


The Tribunal considers that this guidance does not have the force of law and the


20 appellant was under no obligation to follow it,
"


Even if, as you claim, HMRC have no input as to what is on the gov.uk website, why are their employees pursuing these cases to the tribunal stage? Would it not be reasonable to expect Mr Udden for HMRC to recognise that as he could not evidence that a request to self-assess was sent, that this whole charade had no basis? A tribunal will cost many thousands of pounds to sit even for just a few hours.

chrismac1

One thing I wholeheartedly agree on with dori2o is that the quality of senior management at HMRC is mind-bogglingly poor. Arrogant, very unknowledgeable about tax laws and about how small business can possibly implement some of the daft stuff they come up with, and in some cases in recent years actively breaking the tax laws they are supposed to police by operating through limited companies instead of being on HMRC payroll.

This inept bunch are the ones to blame for MTD. They are the ones to blame when it all goes horribly wrong, but by then they'll all be on their next jobs somewhere else.

chrismac1

To underline this, version 4 of the 2017 tax return exclusions now contains 62 items. To be clear about this, what that means is that there are 62 areas where the tax calculation in the HMRC database will not conform with UK tax laws, so workarounds are needed.

This is what really annoys me about HMRC management. Scarce IT resource has been put on the ridiculous vanity project of MTD, whilst "doing the day job" - getting your tax system to actually agree to the law - is allowed to fall into total disrepair.

HMRC senior management is an absolute case study in how not to run a business.

polymaff

There's another point which puzzles me. HMRC have produced about 20 issues of their own 2016/17 SA processing software. They also produce test data that, I believe, third parties need to validate before HMRC finds their software approvable.

How did each HMRC version get through this test data?

Pennywise

polymaff wrote: »

There's another point which puzzles me. HMRC have produced about 20 issues of their own 2016/17 SA processing software. They also produce test data that, I believe, third parties need to validate before HMRC finds their software approvable.

How did each HMRC version get through this test data?

The technical spec given to their IT consultants was wrong, I believe. Their IT consultants prepared the software as per spec - it was tested as per spec. So the failure was with the people who instructed the IT consultants not the IT consultants themselves.

polymaff

Pennywise wrote: »

The technical spec given to their IT consultants was wrong, I believe. Their IT consultants prepared the software as per spec - it was tested as per spec. So the failure was with the people who instructed the IT consultants not the IT consultants themselves.

Quite, and there's been a shed-load of money wasted as a result

TheCyclingProgrammer

I'm not sure it's correct that HMRC have no control over the content of gov.uk - the whole point of the gov.uk architecture is that the content management is not centralised - each department has the ability to manage their own content.