An, as yet, unpublished part of the Taxing Wealth Report is on the governance of HM Revenue & Customs, which I have long felt to be dire, for reasons that I will explain.
I was looking at this issue yesterday, and noted this:
Try as I might, I can only spot six names in that list. The website is, however, quite sure that HMRC has seven commissioners.
So, I thought I might suggest some questions of the sort a tax inspector might raise during a tax investigation resulting from this obvious misstatement:
- You appear to be understating your Commissioners by about 14%, HMRC. Why is that?
- What else have you got wrong if you cannot get this right, HMRC?
- Might we assume that if this number is 14% understated your income is as well?
- If you wish to blame a software updating error shall we still assume everything is understated by 14%? After all, that must follow, mustn't it?
- You have clearly been careless in the presentation of your data. Shall we agree a 30% penalty is due on all resulting misstatements is appropriate, even if unrelated to this error?
- There will, of course, be an interest rate charge.
- Because we found your mistake the cost of this tax investigation will not be tax deductible, even if your error was innocent.
- Oh, and because of our staffing shortages we apologise fur changing the personnel dealing with this matter three times in two years, for losing your file and often not answering your correspondence for months, thereby stretching out the agony of this episode for you, but no, there is no compensation for that, including for the additional costs you incurred.
You don't believe me? You really should.
And what I would still really like to know is, who is the missing tax commissioner who so obviously ticked the box saying ‘no publicity' when applying for the job?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There were 7 commissioners mentioned in the latest HMRC accounts for 2022-23. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-annual-report-and-accounts-2022-to-2023
They were the six listed above and the seventh was Joanna Rowland, who has just moved to a new position at the Home Office this month. https://www.gov.uk/government/people/joanna-rowland
I expect someone took her name off the list but forgot to change the number (or perhaps a new appointment has just been or is about to be made and had not been added yet).
The error on the website is amusing but I expect it will be caught eventually, and the annual accounts (which is what a taxpayer’s return and liability would be based upon) will show the correct information.
You do not get my point: HMRC do not allow innocent error.
Of course this is something of the sort you suggest, but the reality is they would use something like this as evidence in a tax investigation.
I know. I have seen it happen.
“HMRC do not allow innocent error.”
Of course they do. They even refer specifically to this in their internal instructions when discussing penalties “A taxpayer can have made an innocent error even where the error is discovered in the first instance by HMRC.”
As a former HMIT (as was) Tax Inspector I would have never for a second written such a dramatic overblown letter over such a trivial and easily explained error as you have highlighted.
My example was ironic – if you didn’t get that, I am sorry
And my experience of investigations is obviously more recent than yours.
Maybe you need to update yourself.
There have been no episodes of The Invisible Man on the tele for decades. Clearly the star of the show gave up his acting carrier to become an HMRC Commissioner.
Probably a Tory party donor who is megarich and wants taxation to be as low as possible and ignore any HMRC discrepancies.
Not the best example simply because there is no financial consequence. Also the number is small so easy to imagine an innocent reason for the error. In the same veign using percentages when numbers are small is not a good idea and suggests you are deliberately trying to create the impression of a larger and more outrageous problem when in fact it is only small problem. In this case 14% equals the number 1. I am sure there are real problems with some of HMRCs governance especially given the staffing problems and moves to automation. I also follow you as you talk a lot of sense about taxation generally but please be careful how you present your arguments.
Do you understand irony?
“veign” ? That’s a knew won for me!
Mr. Langton,
Richard’s post was a total spoof like some skit one would see on the US television show Saturday Night Live or an episode of the UK’s Monty Python or a written article in the US publication “The Onion”.
For irony, think “Malcolm Tucker” in “The Thick of It” except that Richard Murphy is better looking than Peter Capaldi.
🙂
Thoughts, not argument or criticism:
HMRC is an agent of the Crown, not of government nor of “The State”.
The Crown does not and cannot get things wrong. (Well, for the little people, anyway.)
If the DWP gets a benefit claim wrong, it can only ask politely for overpayments to be returned. If HMRC overpays a Tax Credit award it will reclaim the money, immediately if it can.
And if HMRC gets its tax receipts wrong and can’t clear its own liabilities (including to the Consolidated Fund) then the Treasury will give HMRC funds to pay its bills – ironically enough, from the CF.
HMRC’s accretion of powers has always worried me, but then I ask my Republican self, “Would the State or the government be safer than the Crown?” I wish I had an answer to that one.
More to come on this….