are meetings mandatory

[edd11]

after 18months of fighting off my investigation. the investigator wants to arranged a second meeting to "bring everything to a conclusion" . well last time he gave me a grilling and tryed to catch me out!
Can i excuse myself from this by saying that althought i am willing to co-operate corespondance would allow me time to understand any quieries and therefore produce more accurate answers?

[Taxingtimes1976]

It is unfortunate when cases are handled like this by HMRC. It would be nice to think things could be handled in an adult manner but it doesn't look like the inspector you are dealing with is capable of this. I would not be surprised if the whole purpose of the second meeting is to try and catch you out again and increase the tax take.

The only problem with not agreeing to a meeting is that this could be used by the Revenue as an excuse not to mitigate any penalties resulting from the investigation by as much as they otherwise would (by arguing that you have not co-operated)

However, usually a second meeting should not be necessary, even in very complex cases. Often the Revenue will meet with the client once and then meet with the professional advisers after that if necessary.

If you are using professional advisers, I would suggest that the Inspector meets them rather than you. Then you can be shown to be co-operating but don't leave yourself open to being caught out again.

regards

taxingtimes1976@yahoo.co.uk

[wamstax]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Ok sorry for that bad taste joke on this Sunday morning.

Things may not be as bad as you and taxing.... fear. However of course there are tricky enquiry officers about. It is solely your prerogative to attend meetings or request correspondence - unless you are being dealt with by one of the CIF units where you have had COP9 issued. See my site for the detail of COP9 etc. Additionally if you have cooperated with having a previous meeting - and you were disappointed in the inspectors tricky ways - it would be sensible to ask for matters to be resolved - "brought to a conclusion" - by correspondence. If you are unrepresented - and as you have put it have been fighting off the investigation for 18 months - and the inspector hasn't found anything untoward in your records etc. then there should be little need for a meeting. If however you have been fighting it off and he has found something then of course reluctance to cooperate and make a disclosure will all be taken into the equation when the HMRC decide what they are going to do about you. Basically if you have a professional he/she should be able to determine which scenario is apt and if you are unrepresented and you know you have done things wrong but they haven't been discussed by the inspector yet YOU NEED A PROFESSIONAL if there are meaningful amounts to be negotiated.

When it all comes down to it if you have been leading the inspector a merry dance knowing that matters are not correct then you deserve the guile of HMRC being let loose on you.

If you ask for an agenda for any meeting HMRC have to provide it (and ask for it to be detailed to reflect fully ALL the items and details HMRC intends to cover) and surely if you have nothing to hide this would let you have some indication whether the meeting is truly to warp things up - or wrap you up if they have uncovered things you didnt openly tell them about.

Lastly firefighting HMRC "best of judgement" figures and penalties is a professionals bread and butter - assuming that we have full disclosure however belated - but it is far better to get your experienced professional on board at the outset. If there is nothing wrong in the enquiry then at least you will be able to claim your professionals tax fees against business profits. Of course if you have been as tricky as the inspector you don't get a deduction for the expertise you need to get you out of the hole

regards
bill@wamstaxltd.com
http://www.wamstaxltd.com

[edd11]

A huge thank you to all responces. The investigator has found a few discrepancies including dissalowed expences resulting in further tax liability of £3000. He has opened up the 7 years and is going throught 2 of them thouroughly.So if i were to decline a meeting he could argue that im not co-operating and of course penalties would worry me. Therefore it does seem that asking for an agenda would be appropriate. I would just like to add until a year ago i knew very little about accounts and tax and some could say stupidly allowed an accountant to as he said "lower my tax bill" by what he stated were allowable expences which was odviously not the case. i can only hope that my honest co-operation has satisfied the tax man and that he has disclosed all his intended additional tax and i am not going to be hit by some huge figure. only time will tell.

[edd11]

I have just been reading up in the forum. now im scared!! the tax man has so far only given exact figures on tax owed due to the dissalowed expences. he has had personal expenditure breakdowns and in the first meeting an oversight of buisness and how i handle personal monies. my self employed income has never been over 17k. could he have some ridiculous figure in mind??

[wamstax]

He could have some "slightly high" figure in mind for you to argue down or he may just be specific. Given your comment regarding an accountant lowering your figures by legitimate expenses you need to put this over to the inspector -if you honestly believed when you submitted the returns that what was done was legitimate.

If Inspector comes with high high figures then you need a professional - in fact given the alleged lowering advice by the accountant I would have thought you would have engaged another professional to consider your previous accountants actions. Of course if you knew you were chancing it then don't go down that line.
Remember you only get the professional help you pay for
regards
bill@wamstaxltd.com
http://www.wamstaxltd.com