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

pawncob
Posts:4701
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:06 pm
Location:West Sussex
Re: NRCGT return

Postby pawncob » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:08 pm

It's not just NRCGT return appeals. In the last ten years I've received more than a dozen penalty notices for late sub contractor returns. Every appeal has been allowed, even when the appeal evidence is transparently inadequate to justify an appeal. 100% success beats a mere 96%!
With a pinch of salt take what I say, but don't exceed your RDA

Lambs
Posts:1558
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby Lambs » Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:15 pm

Dear E,

Why, thank you. (I think)

I am quietly confident that if you are happy to put together an article summarising your key findings from NRCGT in light of HMRC's roll-out to UK residents, then it will be published on TW.

Regards,

Lambs

etf
Posts:742
Joined:Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:42 am

100% success beats a mere 96%!
Without being pedantic, up to 97% and I suspect the remaining 3% spelt their name wrong thus negating a successful appeal. Pawncob, perhaps you are right, in this crazy world that we live in, you require a swing from 0% to 100% for the tax scribes to become half interested.

Lambs, I appreciate your efforts which appear to have met deaf ears on this occasion (or an indication of why this is thought to be a non-story). We have a situation where HMRC promise something which they spectacularly fail to deliver i.e. treating taxpayers even-handedly. When this is pointed out to HMRC's man at the top, he doesn't investigate it properly...evidenced by one of his top aides suggesting I was Goochie's tax adviser (did the aide even open a file?). The top man then vacates the role pretty quickly and HMRC suggest that the promise/right for taxpayers to be treated even-handedly should be removed from the Taxpayer's Charter. I would describe it as LaLaLand.

rbk123
Posts:26
Joined:Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:00 am

I am trying to report NRCGT for a property in the UK disposed of last week. When I follow the links, and log in using my Government Gateway ID it says says "sorry we are experiencing technical difficulties". I have reported this to them and asked for help and they have sent me a link which takes me to exactly the same place. I have searched HMRC for NRCGT and have found 106 entries, none of which seem to cover a disposal after 6 April 2020. I found a form here www.tax.service.gov.uk/shortforms/form/NRCGT_Return but it clearly states it is not to be used for later disposals " You should use the Capital Gains Tax UK Property Disposals service found on gov.uk If I follow this link it eventually takes me back to where I was. That is the "experiencing technical difficulties" page. Given the 30 days clock is already ticking, how do I go about reporting this for NRCGT purposes. I don't owe any tax. Having already taken on HMRC over NRCGT and the huge fines they imposed which were written off by the First Tier Tribunal, I am not sure my blood pressure can take another 20 month battle with HMRC over a tax where I owe nothing! Can anyone help?

pawncob
Posts:4701
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:06 pm
Location:West Sussex

Re: NRCGT return

Postby pawncob » Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:19 am

There's still the good old fashioned way of doing things, called snail mail.
Write a letter to the HMRC giving them details. Forms are for convenience and are not essential.
With a pinch of salt take what I say, but don't exceed your RDA

rbk123
Posts:26
Joined:Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:09 am

Thanks for that, but I am a non resident. Paperwork for the sale of the property sent by courier was taking in excess of 30 days to be delivered due to Covid-19.
By the time a letter arrived I would be looking at fines which are "not punitive but designed to encourage compliance".

etf
Posts:742
Joined:Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:33 am

Sorry you have had to return to this thread rbk123, but thanks for highlighting this issue for others. Earlier in this thread the Thompson/Harra combo used the phrase "world class" to describe their digital-first tax authority.

Jon Thompson, Permanent Secretary at HMRC, said:
I am delighted that Jim has taken up this post in HMRC. There are some enormous and important challenges ahead for HMRC: our transformation programme to make us a world class, digital-first tax authority;


Where have I heard that "world class" phrase before? Does Cummings write all of their soundbites?

HMRC has its own version of this forum where their own staff answer the public's tax questions. I would thrust the problem back into HMRC's court using full thrust (otherwise known as a Bryson DeChambeau) and tell them their own clock is ticking. They have nowhere to hide from the problem if you post your experience there.

https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/forums/customerforums/

PS I have taken to daily 2 mile runs to counteract the medical issues flowing from working alongside HMRC. Not sure I'll be able to keep that up for 20 months though.

rbk123
Posts:26
Joined:Tue May 30, 2017 1:27 am

Re: NRCGT return

Postby rbk123 » Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:48 am

Good to hear from you etf and thanks for link.

etf
Posts:742
Joined:Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:58 am

A response to HMRC's drive to dilute the Taxpayers Charter. If the top guy at HMRC tells you after an alleged review of a failed appeal case that he is happy with HMRC's behaviour and you then submit two further appeals on the same grounds that are successful (i.e. 100% U-turn from HMRC) you have to ask yourself is all this effort worth it? Still an apparent reporting ban from the tax press on this subject/lack of leadership from Harra to remedy the situation.

Our response to the government review of the HMRC Charter focuses on the lack of negative consequences for HMRC if they fail to meet their Charter obligations and suggests consideration should be given to penalising HMRC for their failure to adhere to their own Charter obligations, including requiring them to financially compensate taxpayers where delays, inconvenience or additional costs have resulted, so as to make the Charter effective. The CIOT has submitted a wide-ranging response to the government review of the HMRC Charter.

The Charter sets out the standards of behaviour and values that HMRC aspires to when interacting with taxpayers and vice versa. HMRC’s Charter reflects a legal requirement under FA 2009. The legislation states that the Charter ‘must include standards of behaviour and values to which HMRC will aspire when dealing with people in the exercise of their functions’.

HMRC began work to review the Charter in September 2019. Its ambition is for the revised Charter to set out more clearly the experience that it wants to deliver to its customers. This supports the recommendation made by the Loan Charge Review in December 2019 that HMRC’s Charter be reviewed ‘to set higher expectations of performance during interactions with members of the public and ensure that staff are offered training on how to deliver it’.

This Charter review also supports recommendations from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report ‘The powers

of HMRC: treating taxpayers fairly’ in December 2018.
This report recommended that ‘the Charter is amended to clarify HMRC’s responsibilities towards unrepresented taxpayers including that issues are clearly set out, legislation is explained and rights to review and appeals are made accessible’.

Our response commented on the few, if any, negative consequences for HMRC if they fail to meet their Charter obligations, and their performance targets. We said that it is hard to see how these aspirations can be effective without sanctions, noting that this is well understood as regards taxpayers: there can be significant negative consequences, including interest and penalty charges, if taxpayers fail to meet their general obligations to file tax returns and pay tax on time.

We suggested that if there is to be a true partnership between HMRC and their customers, as envisaged in the proposed Charter, both should accept that they may be appropriately penalised for their failures. In the case of HMRC, we said that this should include being required to financially compensate their customers where delays, inconvenience or additional costs result. Without this, the impression that there is one rule for HMRC and another for taxpayers creates a sense of unfairness and is damaging to willing and effective compliance.

The CIOT’s submission states that the Institute does not support the proposed new Charter as currently drafted. This is because while the wording of the proposed updated Charter might be considered more ‘user-friendly’, it lacks the clarity and hence the authority of the existing Charter. Not only does the proposed wording appear to ‘lower the bar’ in terms of HMRC’s obligations, it excludes a number of key elements which are present within the existing Charter, such as commitments by HMRC to keep any costs to the taxpayer at a minimum, and make sure that the taxpayer is dealt with by people who have the right level of expertise.

The CIOT believes that the existing Charter, with a few modest updates, would provide a sound basis for the future and would set out adequately the values and principles of HMRC, and customers’ rights and obligations when dealing with HMRC. In particular, the CIOT favours the ‘two-way’ approach, setting out separately both HMRC’s obligations and those of its ‘customers’ (taxpayers).

The CIOT also said that there should be greater efforts to promote the Charter within both HMRC and the wider public.

We said that there needs to be greater awareness of the Charter. Some of the conduct we have seen suggests that some HMRC officers are not aware of, or are not implementing, the Charter behaviours. We said that this needs to be addressed. Awareness among taxpayers also needs reinforcing, particularly among individuals and small businesses.

The CIOT suggests that awareness of the Charter and its implementation could be gauged within HMRC’s Civil Service People Survey and their annual Individuals, Small Business and Agents Customer Surveys. Our response argues that HMRC’s performance measures should focus also on delivery of their Charter obligations, and could be measured through a variety of means such as Webchat feedback, GOV.UK customer feedback ratings and ‘cold’ reviews of a sample of interactions between HMRC and its customers; and that the NAO could monitor and report on HMRC’s performance against its Charter as part of its audit of HMRC’s annual report and accounts.

etf
Posts:742
Joined:Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: NRCGT return

Postby etf » Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:01 pm

HMRC-are they hiding something? Why did they not confirm the number of late filings in the 1st quarter...was it embarrasingly large? They have previously always been willing to answer these questions on a quarterly basis-why the change of policy?

Thank you for your request, which was received on 1 October, for the following information:
“I should be grateful if you would confirm for the following periods:
Quarter ended 30 June 2020
Quarter ended 30 September 2020
i) How many property capital gains tax returns were filed; and
ii) How many of the returns were late filings; and
iii) The number of appeals received and the percentage of reviewed appeals accepted (for
the second period only)
iv) The amount of late filing penalties charged (for the second period only)”

With regards to the first part of your request, we can confirm we hold the information you
seek, but it is being withheld under section 22(1) of the FOIA as it will be published as part of
our Capital Gains Tax (CGT) National Statistics in 2021 after the conclusion of the current
tax year.
Section 22(1) applies if three conditions are met:
a) there was an intention to publish at the time the request was received; and
b) it is reasonable to withhold the information until the planned publication date and
c) it is not in the public interest to disclose the information earlier.
In considering (b) and (c) above we have taken account of the following factors.
We accept it is reasonable and in the public interest that information regarding disposals of
CGT liable residential property under the new rules effective from 6 April 2020 is made
publicly available. But the public interest will be met by our planned national statistics
release.
There is a clear public interest in government departments being as open and transparent as
possible, so as to increase accountability and inform public debate.

2
OFFICIAL

But it is also reasonable to allow authorities, within reason, to determine their own
publication timetable to accommodate the necessary preparation and administration
involved in publication. It is in the public interest that authorities can plan publication activity
so as to ensure the best use of public resources.
Premature disclosure could undermine any relevant pre-publication procedures, such as
consultation with or pre-disclosure to particular bodies.
Taking these factors in to account, we consider that, on balance, the public interest in
withholding the information within scope of your request until after the conclusion of the
current tax year in 2021, outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.

With regard to the other parts of your request, we can confirm we hold the information
requested.
Quarter ended 30 June 2020
ii) To help customers familiarise themselves with the change in the rules from 6
April 2020 regarding the reporting of an interest in the disposal of a UK
residential property and a new on-line process HMRC did not issue late penalties
to any transactions completed between 6 April and 30 June 2020, provided the
gain was reported and any tax due paid by 31 July 2020.

Quarter ended 30 September 2020
ii) 3,764 of the returns that have been processed were late filings.
iii) We have reduced resource in our offices due to the current coronavirus
measures in place, and the resource that would normally be dealing with
processing of appeals is supporting priority demands across the department. For
this reason, we cannot answer this question.
iv) 3,764 late filing penalties were charged.
If you are not satisfied with this reply you may request a review within two months by
emailing foi.review@hmrc.gov.uk, or by writing to the address at the top right-hand side of
this letter.


Return to “Capital Gains Tax, CGT”