1. Home
  2. UK Finance Discussions
  3. Section 336 claim (expenses)

Section 336 claim (expenses)

I've had a Section 336 claim to have expenses treated as wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for business purposes bounced as it was claimed that it was a photocopy and not signed (it wasn't and it was, respectively but that's by the by).

My first thoughts were, are there really teams of HMRC staff going over these claims with magnifying glasses and alternate light sources to check the validity of the signatures? It seems a bit of a waste of resources.

The claim was submitted at the same time as the employee's P11D and that was returned too, bearing the pencil annotation 'not signed'. I'm surprised that the P11D was returned as it of course does not require a signature and I view the enclosure of the Section 336 claim with it was an administrative convenience rather than a requirement.

I'll reprint the claim, re-sign and return it with the P11D but I'd like to check on the requirements before I get too apologetic over the (non)error.

Any opinions on the returned docs and the submission requirements?

Reply to
Peter Walker
Loading thread data ...

I think an unsigned letter is pretty easy to spot.

I am surprised by the return of the P11D but that may just be an error.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Peter Saxton wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

That's the thing, it was signed. I think they were claiming that it wasn't an original signature, ie a photocopy.

Thanks for that, that's the sort of confirmation I was hoping for from someone in the business, it will raise my confidence when writing my reply.

Thanks for your reply.

Reply to
Peter Walker

Sorry for the confusion - too many negatives!

Usually you can phone up and get it sorted out. It does depend on the person you talk to though.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Peter Saxton wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

True, my bad.

Think I'll write, get proof of posting and keep any reply for our records. Excuse the cynicism but I smell a dubious penalty determination in the offing.

Thanks again.

Reply to
Peter Walker

fsdfsd

Reply to
googlenospam

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.