HMRC at it again?

[etf]

Back in 2014, I contacted my professional body as I believed HMRC were asking unnecessary ties information from a large cohort of non-resident taxpayers that they did not require.

They approached HMRC on my behalf and it was agreed that the ties question contained in the residence section of a tax return did not have to be answered where non-residence was claimed under an automatic overseas test. HMRC subsequently changed the tax return guidance notes in following years to reflect this standpoint.

The notes for box 12 in the 2018/19 residence pages have reverted back to their original plan A. Why has HMRC done that....does their original guidance reproduced below still stand?

HMRC was aware that some agents and taxpayers felt that the SA109 asked for unnecessary or duplicate information. HMRC explained that this additional information was useful because it would allow HMRC to consider whether the claimed residence status was correct even though the basis of the claim was incorrect, e.g. an individual who failed to be automatically non-resident might not have sufficient UK ties or days of presence to be resident, and vice versa. HMRC made clear that an individual had no obligation to answer question other than those they believed to be appropriate to their circumstances.

[etf]

Just to add to my post yesterday, I have copied below HMRC's acknowledgement that they didn't get things right for 2013/14:

HMRC acknowledged that the 2013-14 SA109 is not perfect but explained that the window of opportunity for making changes was very small. HMRC has taken on board stakeholders’ comments in respect of the 2013-14 form and that they will use the information to inform the 2014-15 form and guidance notes. HMRC confirmed its commitment to listening to the views of stakeholders.

To quote Toyah 'it's a mystery' why they appear to be asking taxpayers to undertake significant analysis for in most cases no reason. What is the point of listening, if HMRC is going to have a case of amnesia after 5 years.

Or am I missing something here?