Sean Wakeman relates a tax case that highlights how HMRC’s inflexibility and intransigence betrays the interests of all taxpayers.
The recent case of Majid v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00491 (TC), gave us a ‘David and Goliath’ situation where HMRC took a full-blown case to the First Tier Tax Tribunal for disputed penalties of just £1,152.
Mr Majid was unrepresented and had, by the time of the hearing, already offered to pay the penalty at £100 per month. Taking such a case through the various layers of decision, independent review, ADR and Tribunal showed not only a lack of common sense but also a blatant disregard for and waste of public funds. It was somewhat ironic, and perhaps out of a sense of sympathy with the taxpayer, that the case was dismissed on the grounds that HMRC had not satisfied the necessary burden of proof.
How many professionals reading this article (I hazard all) will have had the pleasure of dealing with the collection service of HMRC? Of course, by the time liabilities reach this stage they are set in stone, which does not always mean they are necessarily correct. How many times have officers (formerly known as Inspectors of Taxes) been heard to say in cases of genuine lack of means to pay, ‘I note what you are saying but you will have to tell that to the Debt Management team’ (formerly Collector of Taxes)? When you do so, you are usually met with the totally inflexible line of ‘I cannot accept anything but full payment of the outstanding’ debt!
Download the full article below: