Tax Demand

I submitted both my and my partner's tax returns for 2002/3 back in August, in the belief that any tax due would be collected via an adjustment to our coding as the returns were in before the end of September. Both of us received demands for payment, in my partners case on Friday, mine a couple of weeks ago. (Bit rich on my partner, I tell them how much she owes in August and they get round to making a demand for it a week before it's due!)

I phoned the tax office when my demand came in, and they were happy to collect via my tax code, but completely evasive as to why they hadn't done this in the first place. Now I'm going to have to do the same for my partner. Have I misunderstood something, or this just IR being crap as per usual?

F
Reply to
Ferger
Loading thread data ...

Of course. They are totally disorganised.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

.. my partner's and my ..

Probably the latter, but perhaps you have.

Getting the return in by September means they will calculate the tax for you, so you needn't have bothered working it out yourself. Getting the tax collected via the tax code is not triggered by getting the return in by September (though it is a condition), but by asking for this to happen by *NOT* ticking box 23.1. Could you have overlooked the little word "not" and ticked the box in the expectation that this *would* cause collection via the code?

Also, the amount owing should be less than £2000, or they'll be reluctant to collect via tax code.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

As long as you trust them to do it correctly, which I don't :-)

Mea culpa :-( I actually submitted the returns via Taxcalc, and I can't remember it ever asking this question, but it probably did at some point and I missed it.

Why?

Reply to
Ferger

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Hehe - I lodged my tax return (by internet) on Jan.17th (a Saturday) and had the refund in my bank a/c by Friday (23rd) !! Perhaps no so disorganised after all ...

Reply to
Tim

We have had a couple of these at work where we have a copy of the signed return and the revenue have cocked up with their data entry, roll on next year when we will have rolled out online filing

Of course you could view it as consipiracy to catch people with penalties for non payment!!!

Reply to
Chris

Is that the extent of your dealings with the Inland Revenue?

They have been able to avoid human intervention in the example you give.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

If they make a mistake, you can have it put right. But if they catch you making a mistake, you risk a penalty.

Doesn't it keep a record? Tsk.

It's bad manners to list oneself first.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

It does, which is how I know the error is on my side. I just don't recall being asked the question in the process of populating my file. Equally, I may have been, may have misinterpreted it and subsequently forgotten about it. Without going through the process of completing a dummy return to find out, I'm not going to know

It reads better, and the object of the sentence is our tax returns, not ourselves. So I disagree :-)

Reply to
Ferger

You can get it put right eventually but the Inland Revenue seem to have stopped replying to letters now. To get anything done you have to phone and if something in writing is needed you have to get the name and fax number of the person you are talking to for them to deal with it.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Can't you look at the file you actually completed if you didn't print a copy for your own records? We are trying to determine whether you made the right entry on the tax return or whether the Inland Revenue got it right or wrong not whether TaxCalc asked the question.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I'm sure I read in some IR literature (a few years ago), that you are responsible for your own tax return - even if the Revenue do the calculations. It said you need to check their figures, as they are "simply acting as your agent". Specifically, even if *they* make a mistake, *you* end up having to pay a penalty!

So - as long as you are going to have to go through all the calculations yourself to check that they're OK (to avoid any penalty) - my position is that you might as well calculate them yourself anyway, doing it all at once! [Especially if you use professional tax software such as TaxCalc.]

Reply to
Tim

I already said, the error is on my side. Whetehr it was a failure in Texcalc or my slipup, the return that was submitted had the box checked.

Reply to
Ferger

Sorry.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

That's alright. My response reads a bit tetchy, wasn't meant to be :-)

Reply to
Ferger

I don't buy it.

An agent is usually a third party interposed between two principals, or between one principal and th other principal's agent. It is a seriously questionable state of affairs for No.2 principal to act as No.1 principal's agent in his dealings with No.2 principal. There's a clear conflict of interest. It's a bit like the same lawyer acting for both the prosecution and for the defence in the same case.

That apart, there is an implied contract between any principal and his agent, and so if the agent makes a c*ck-up, the principal should be able to require compensation for any ill effects arising therefrom.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Not a problem. It's the medium - I understand.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Never heard of "chinese walls"? With an organisation the size of the IR, it can have many, many departments - and "chinese walls" could easily be set up between them (even if they aren't automatically there, because the people don't talk to each other anyway!).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Which can happen sometimes - the same law firm acting - with an artificial "chinese wall" set up & imposed between the two groups/individuals (within the same lawyers firm) who are acting for opposing parties ...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

But what if that contract specifically states "no compensation" ? :-(

Reply to
Tim

Who cares? You don't sue a department, you sue the whole organisation. It'll be up to their internal lines of responsibility as to which heads in which departments roll as a consequence, but that's no concern of the plaintiff.

The clause would be an Unfair Contract Term and therefore voidable.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

I am surprised that anyone would just accept the IR's calculation without checking it themselves. It is like going to a used car dealer and buying a car without seeing it.

Steve

Reply to
Steve

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.