Court wants to know my NI number..

I completely agree, but that means that they are not confidential in the sense that they may never be disclosed, indeed they may be taken as *less* confidential than (say) a policeman's informant or a journalist's informant. A court can always order the disclosure of the relevant information and it will always be given. Journalists have a track record of not disclosing such information easily, even following a court order.

And several branches of government have the right to see your tax records, not just HM R&C.

There is of course also this:

Interestingly the government advice on disclosure of NI number appears to indicate that one does not have to give that number to a court:

I'd like to see what happens if someone refuses to give that information.

This may help:

Does "means" mean earnings (i.e. income) or does it also take into account savings?

The NI number is not used to prove income. It is only used if a deduction from benefits or earnings is subsequently needed when collecting any resulting fine.

>

Of course I agree they are not confidential in the sense they can never be revealed. What I cannot agree with is your comments that several branches of government have the right of access to tax records - this is not true. For example the DWP can request information for the purposes of their work but that does not give them the right to tax records / any information held. So for example they may require specific information but there are limits on what information can be disclosed - it will be restricted. Other government departments don`t have the right of access - but what departments are they ? There may be joint working but to indicate there is a general right of access is wrong. Yes - I know all about browsing celebrity records ( but it is what is in the files which is more interesting : ) Information disclosure and right of access are not the same.

Can you clarify: Are 'profits' calculated *after* deduction of basic living expenses (food, mortgage interest payments, council tax, utility bills)?

If I were self-employed and making a loss every year, sliding gradually ever deeper into debt, then I'd be exempt from having to pay NI, correct? Would I also be exempt from income tax? And would I still be legally obliged to send in a tax return each year?

Jim D

You seem to be arguing that OGDs do not have right of access because that access is restricted on a need to know basis. That, to me, is right of access.

IIRC interest on savings has to be declared as income.

I think we may be splitting hairs here and it is the way I was reading "right of access". They don`t have general access to all computer systems / databases / financial information etc held by HMRC - this will cover a vast area of information held.

If you mean they have the right of access to information because it can be requested for various functions then of course you are correct and I agree with you - it think it is the terminology used. They don`t however have the right to all information held.

That's of value! Thank you.

Thanks to the others too.

Luke S

I intrigued. How come they know you as three people.

Is this a mistake or is there some special status that allows this (like getting 2 passports)

tim

perhaps.

who would you find to loan you this money if you had no income.

Probably. You need to 'register' the loss as you can claim it against future profits - no-one runs a business that makes a loss forever. It would be a stupid thing to do (certainly in the eyes of the revenue)

tim

Means doesn't just look at income (both earned and non-earned) but capital also.

What does "they know you as three people" mean?

Donno about that poster, but consider a doctor who (a) Is part of a GP/health trust (partnership) (b) also does NHS hospital work (employee) (c) also does Police Surgeon/private medical exams, etc. stuff (self-employed - in the true sense)

rgds, Alan

Indeed not. They are after deduction of legitimate expenses *of the business*, not of personal living expenses.

Unlikely, except inasmuch as consumption of utilities can be attributed to the business.

He might have had the loan prior to becoming self employed.

No, it depends. His business might be making a taxable profit, but it might still not be enough to cover *living* expenses. In such case he would still have to pay tax.

You always have to complete a tax return when asked, no matter whether any tax ends up being due or not.

The eyes of the revenue are irrelevant, and it's not necessarily all that stupid. For a person who has virtually no living expenses (such as the unemployed spouse of a "normal" earner, for example) it might perfect sense to run a business at a loss for years (it might be little more than a hobby and hobbies *usually* run at a loss), and simply to accumulate the losses in the books just in case the business become serious one day, because *then* these old losses can be set against present earnings, to defer the time at which actual tax becomes payable.

Of course losses from such a "funny business" can't be carried sideways against other current earnings, at least not without attracting the revenue's attention.

That's hardly surprising because interest on savings *is* income. What I was wondering is whether they ask for information about one's assests as distinct from one's income.

He probably has three different "unique" tax references. Given how incompetent you believe HMIR to be, it should hardly surprise you that they should assign new codes to existing people from time to time.

You'll have to ask someone who has been fined in court.