This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

NRCGT return

etf
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:03 am

More wise words below, this time from Peter Vaines (my bold):

Non Resident CGT and Penalties

I have made frequent reference to the penalties for the failure to submit a Non-Residence Capital Gains Tax return and the excessively onerous nature of the obligations which seem almost to be designed to assist taxpayers to fall into error – which of course generates penalties for HMRC. (So, bad motivation or bad design? Either way, it must be wrong).

The penalty cases continue – on and on. There is an increasingly long list. The subject has gone completely mad. There are some judges who consistently and regularly say there should be no penalties for a number of reasons, both technically on the grounds that the penalty is not properly chargeable and even if it is, there is a reasonable excuse or there are special circumstances to eliminate the penalties. However, there are other judges who equally consistently and regularly take exactly the opposite point of view.

It is little short of scandalous that anybody appealing against the penalty knows whether they will win or lose depends entirely upon which judge they get. (This would seem to be the modern version of “Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot" which I thought was condemned (and corrected) in the 17th century). It is certainly deserving of the cry “something ought to be done”. I do not suppose that anybody minds which is the correct view – but we really are entitled to know what the right view is.

Although the amounts involved are important to the taxpayers involved, they are rarely enough to warrant an appeal (and the inevitable risks about costs) but I dare say that will happen in due course.

The sensible course would be for HMRC to make an amendment to put the matter beyond doubt, thereby eliminating a whole load of appeals to the Tribunal and a lot of reputational damage into the bargain.

etf
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:46 pm

What was it about the particular circumstances and attributes of Goochie's situation detailed in his accountant's appeal letter that allowed his NRCGT penalties to be cancelled whereas Dr Wong had to pay up? The accountant's letter is very short and concise and so shouldn't take long to analyse.

There has been a deafening silence to my question above. I therefore presume nearly everyone agrees HMRC has not dealt with taxpayers even-handedly when dealing with NRCGT appeals. This means they are not adhering to the Taxpayers Charter.

The paragraphs below suggest HMRC can be persuaded to review matters when they sugar things up (why do cost constraints...an excuse used by Mr Thompson when I asked him to review the reasons why HMRC accepted 771 NRCGT appeals...not stop this review taking place?....another example of HMRC's uneven playing field behaviour?)

HMRC has announced that it is reviewing cases where a ‘Failure to Notify’ penalty was issued for the tax years 2013 to 2014, 2014 to 2015, and 2015 to 2016, to customers who did not register for the High Income Child Benefit Charge.
The department will review cases for these years and issue penalty refunds if it finds the customer had a reasonable excuse for not meeting their tax obligation.
A reasonable excuse is something that stopped someone from meeting a tax obligation which they took appropriate care to meet. Decisions on what constitutes a reasonable excuse are based on an objective assessment of individual circumstances.
Normally customers have to explain why they have a reasonable excuse, however following feedback HMRC is proactively reviewing these cases.

I look forward to reading a similar announcement concerning NRCGT penalties. Adopting Goochie's ruling, a penalty refund bonanza will surely result. Mr Thompson of HMRC, the ball is in your court.

bd6759
Posts: 3010
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby bd6759 » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:35 pm

I therefore presume nearly everyone agrees HMRC has not dealt with taxpayers even-handedly when dealing with NRCGT appeals. This means they are not adhering to the Taxpayers Charter.
Don't presume on my behalf. The reason was given earlier.

Your posts highlight that everyone who agrees with you is good and wise, and those that don't (presumably) aren't.

Lambs
Posts: 1415
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby Lambs » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:48 pm

One might infer that you take issue with that assumption.

bd6759
Posts: 3010
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby bd6759 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:10 am

One might infer that you take issue with that assumption.
To be fair, it was a presumption, not an assumption.

rbk123
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:11 am

To bd6759. This forum has helped people take on HMRC and win their case when they thought they were the only ones being unfairly treated. I understand that you want to defend your HMRC colleagues but your latest comments are not necessary. Please desist from behaving like an Internet troll.

Lambs
Posts: 1415
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby Lambs » Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:10 am

R, in nearly 20 years, we haven't had trolls. We have had many, many differences of opinion, and they have sometimes been quite heated. But that doesn't mean one side must be a troll. B is not one. He has an acerbic sense of humour and a contrary nature. But we all do when we get to a certain age. And he is also well versed in tax, and he has helped many people with their tax queries.

When you get to a certain level in tax, if everyone agrees with you, you should smell a rat. Or a glitch in the Matrix. Whichever makes more sense.


Regards all,


Lambs

rbk123
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:39 am

Didn't say was a troll, only behaving like one. Because of the way HMRC have introduced NRCGT thousands of people have been put in a very difficult and stressful position. If you can can to a position in tax where you find this amusing ........

etf
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:22 am

Thank you all for the contributions.

I have a few follow up comments to make:

-I did specifically insert 'nearly' into my statement to cover bd6759's known position.

-I'm still none the wiser what part of Goochie's accountant's appeal letter got him off the hook. Can someone be specific and advise me what section of that letter rescued him (it is clear there was no additional dialogue).

-I struggle to understand why people defend HMRC's behaviour in the light of the following long charge list (if HMRC agree they sugared areas up, be honest, apologise and confirm you'll try to do better going forward):

1) Failed to take account of warning feedback from the consultation that a 30 day filing deadline is unworkable (Parliament rather than HMRC here as bd has previously flagged).
2) Mounted a totally ineffective NRCGT publicity campaign in stark contrast to their efforts in other areas. Where was Moira Stewart when needed?
3) Failed to publicise their penalty amnesty commencing and ceasing.
4) Cancelled their penalty amnesty just in time for £1,600 penalties to kick in straight away.
5) Were less than candid with the reason why they cancelled daily penalties.
6) Failed to maintain records detailing why the 772 successful appeals were successful (appeal letters similar to Goochie's?).
7) When asked to review the 772 successful appeals they have twice refused on the grounds it will cost too much (and yet reviews of child benefit penalties/2016/17 tax return calculation errors are allowed to proceed which are much more costly).
8) Failed to adhere to the taxpayers charter pledge that all taxpayers will be dealt with even-handedly.How can you tell you are being even-handed if you don't know why appeals have been successful?
9) On the receiving end of heavy criticism from Tribunal judges of their behaviour.

etf
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:19 pm

I can confirm HMRC holds information which falls within the scope of your request and this has been provided below:

i) 3,632 Non-Resident Capital Gains Tax (NRCGT) returns were received during the three months ending 30 September 2018 of which 1,406 returns are waiting to be processed (my comment-it looks as though HMRC staff are struggling to cope with the volume).

ii) 677 of the above returns processed were late filings (my comment-over 30% of processed returns were filed late).

iii) 115 appeals were received in the three months ended 30 September, of which seven (6.08%) were accepted (my comment-down from a 32% high)


Return to “Capital Gains Tax, CGT”