Several Jobs PAYE Tax Problem Again

I wrote a while ago because my husband was working part time for two companies, re how his tax code should be handled. Some suggested splitting the tax code between the two jobs - we did this as it seemed the best way to go. Now due to the way contracts have been moved, he works for four different companies. His overall gross pay is £9079, and according to the tax calculator, he should only pay £520 tax on that, but as he now only gets tax allowance on one job, he will be paying *£2015* in tax (calculating that on 30%) and having to claim the excess back. We are still waiting for refund of tax from 2007-8! Is this really the only way to go about this? It seems ridiculous to me that he should have to wait for almost 25% of his earnings until perhaps

18 months after he earned it... Thanks for any advice.
Reply to
Maria
Loading thread data ...

Check that the NIC he is paying is correct.

formatting link
Why are you still waiting for a refund for 2007-2008? When did he submit the tax return?

He should get all the P60s by 31 May. Unless he is provided with P11Ds (should get them by 6 July) he can submit his tax return by then.

Reply to
PeterSaxton

18 months is far too long to wait. When I was younger I was in a similar situation. I wrote a letter to my local tax office explaining that I thought i`d overpair tax last year, and I had the cheque in my hand about 2 weeks later.
Reply to
Simon Finnigan

Simon Finnigan posted

Lucky boy. Last time I rang my tax office to follow up on a letter I'd written them, they said, "June? You sent it in June? Oh it won't even have been opened yet. There's a three month backlog on just opening our incoming post." Not you I kid.

Reply to
Big Les Wade

It was about 10 years ago now mind you :-)

Reply to
Simon Finnigan

od.heaven...

It depends on the tax office. It can take them a month or two to open letters now.

Reply to
PeterSaxton

It does make you wonder why. If the civil service is bigger now than it was, and they want to shrink it, why are there jobs like this that take ages to be done?

Reply to
Simon Finnigan

Because they have to fill in about five forms every time they open a letter.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

because they have been shrinking HMRC for the last 4 years. about 14000 staff have already gone and another 11000 are going over next two years.

They expect technology to b able to suport this loss but the process that will allow this benefit either does not work properly or will but not for a couple of years.

Reply to
Simon

It then begs the question where all the excess jobs are in the civil service. If they`re cutting jobs that help get money into the system, what is more important than that (and thus worth keeping)?

Reply to
Simon Finnigan

I dont know where people get the idea that the Civil service is getting bigger. There has not been a Government in the last 30 years that have not seen the size of the Civil Service as a scapegoat for excesive governement spending, and then announce pay freezes, department mergers and efficiency savings, and all the time stuffing their pockets with benefits and payments that they legislate no other employer can pay for without taxing it.

If they got their own house in order, we could at east staff my department properly, make sure that there is enough in the National Insurance fund to fund pensions. Instead they critisize fat cats without taxing them (probably because they dont want to screw up their non-exec directorships), blame the ills of the world on every one else when they are the ones that have an opportunity to do anything about it.

Reply to
Simon

If you read my post, I`m not disagreeing with you. I`m asking where all the excess jobs could possibly be, if they are cutting important jobs related to getting money into the system. I can`t see many more important jobs than those in terms of keeping the government running, at least within the normal civil service (not including Police etc).

No comment :-)

Reply to
Simon Finnigan

Why start with the civil service as such? There are much easier pickings in quangos (where staff are not subject to civil service pay restraint). You need to search each annual report for the full horrors. But some examples are readily available in eg

formatting link
formatting link
The head of Ofcom gets earns over 400,000.

The head of the Learning and Skills Council who left after the mishandling of the rebuilding programme was on 208,000.

That said, part of the problem is that work sorting out PAYE codes and doing end of year checks doesn't really bring in money. It's just part of the machinery to maintain the covenant from the 1940s that employees won't lose out through not getting a tax assessment after the end of the year because (now) HMRC will check it all for them. But then that's probably gone the same way as the covenant with the armed forces. And the unions don't have the clout to do anything about it. (Well, public sector unions might, but their members tend to be in stable jobs with employers who have good payroll sections so they do better than most.)

Reply to
neverwas

There?s a certain brand of politician (i.e. a tax raising one) that will always choose a complex tax system over a simple one.

Never before has this been true than today and Gordon Brown, who loves nothing more than to baffle us with his intellect (or is that an intellect that?s baffling).

Simple tax systems are only possible in low tax economies, of the sort that have Gordon reaching for the crucifix. Simple tax systems in high tax economies just increase the chances of riots.

So, we get a system that requires a qualified accountant to even begin to understand it (and I?ve met many an accountant that?s been reduced to shrugging their shoulders in bafflement to even a quite simple question) and armies of civil servant to administer it (badly) and we all get the privilege of paying through our noses for it.

You would be amazed how many taxes nowadays are costing more to administer than the revenue they bring in.

But it serves its purpose for New Labour?s PC middle classes who are never happier than when interfering and social engineering every aspect of our lives and thanks to things like tax credits in a way that can demand total conformity.

It really is such a pity then that the IR revenue hasn?t moved on from the days when everyone started work at 8am worked thirty something hours and than went home for tea, when we all know that only the Poles have jobs like that nowadays.

So, if it hasn?t already become apparent in so many other ways, we really do have a nation where the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

Reply to
allandetracy

The tax system we have is complex only because as soon as it is put in place, large numbers of even higher paid accountants spend hours trying to find loopholes for them to sell to their clients. Then the government of the day has to make the original simple legislation more complex to close the loophole and as soon as he does, those accountants are at it all over again.

Actually, it was Gordon who initiated the Tax Law rewrite to try to simplify the language to make it easier to understand.

Bloody stupid idiots start riots, not tax regimes.

Not surprising since its the accountants that made it more complex than it needed to be.

We did move on, why have you not noticed?

Reply to
Simon

Sorry but GB only continued what had been started by Ken Clarke and Michael Jack. See eg

formatting link

Reply to
neverwas

The day the tax system became unfair, i.e. not a system where ability to pay and payment without representation are the underlying principle, was the day organising one?s tax efficiency became a human right.

When you are guilty of using the tax system to modify the electorate?s behaviour don?t be so surprised that the electorate choose to behave differently.

Anyway, do you really deny that Gordon Brown long ago abused the privilege to tax?

The G20 had some very fine words to say on tax havens but I doubt very much that it will amount to anything more than words.

That is, once the penny drops that, for many major corporations, conforming to tax regimes away from those havens would be to their ruination, simply because of the unrealistic levels of business taxes that exist in most European countries, especially Britain.

Tax havens are just like MPs expenses, a nod and a wink away from the party political shop window that?s kept especially for the electorate?s visibility.

Finally, by way of an example, the story of LDV vans, not a very good company no profits for even the four years leading up to the credit crunch and now facing administration by the taxman.

Hang on, they haven?t made any money for years but that hasn?t stopped them being presented with a 20 million pound employer?s NI bill that they now cannot pay.

That?s the sort of Alice in Wonderland world the socialist inhabits.

Reply to
allandetracy

I've seen all the chat about who's to blame for why HMRC can't open a letter for a month or two but nobody seems to be accepting that HMRC are totally incompetent.

If I want to become an agent of a new client I am supposed to be able to enter some details about my client and my client will receive a letter with a code which they should tell me. I need to enter this code on the HMRC web site within 28 days. This letter, which is supposed to be automated, will not be sent to the client until after three weeks. By this time HMRC are telling me that the code hasn't been entered, I am asking the client whether they have received the letter and the client is telling me they haven't received the letter!

For the last tax year HMRC decided that if a business has sales of under £30,000 then they only have to state the total expenses and not submit the amount of each type of expense. If you try to do that online HMRC will reject your tax return. It would appear their programmers are not able to insert a simple subroutine into the program!

The above are two examples of the incompetence of HMRC. I would expect if they cannot do these two things properly there are very few things they can do properly.

Reply to
PeterSaxton

Complicated taxes have more loopholes than simple ones.

Road fuel duty is a very simple tax. It is a fixed amount of duty per litre. How many loopholes do you hear of in it? I'm pretty sure some large haulage and transport companies would love to find ways to cut the amount they pay.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

And you are perfect, but then if you are not then you cannot do anything properly.

Reply to
Alan Ferris

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.