• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Taxman Bankrupt man over 88p, realise it was mistake but still want him to pay costs

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    I'd better pay up that 96p they say I owe them after looking at my self-assessment, even though my accountant says they rarely ask for payment for anything so small.

    Can't remember if I ticked the box saying they could take anything I owed via my PAYE over the next year.
    Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
    Feist - I Feel It All
    Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

    Comment


      #12
      What's really ludicrous is the £45 interest and £2000 costs they're after him for!
      McCoy: "Medical men are trained in logic."
      Spock: "Trained? Judging from you, I would have guessed it was trial and error."

      Comment


        #13
        Back in the 80s, I knew a businessman who was under investigation for four years. It was only after it came to light that half his records were with one office, and half with another that the revenue left him alone.

        Of course, with the systems EDS/Crapita/etc. have built for the government since then, there's no way this could happen now.
        Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
          snaw is bored by anything that may reflect bady on New Labour and Socialism.
          Eh? I've never voted labour in my life.

          It's just a dull story - posing a link about a guy and IR having a fight over 88p, with a 2k bill. So what, who gives a sh!t - these things happen all the time, no matter who's in charge. 200K bill would've been interesting, 2k bill is a slow news day indeed.
          Hang on - there is actually a place called Cheddar?? - cailin maith

          Any forum is a collection of assorted weirdos, cranks and pervs - Board Game Geek

          That will be a simply fab time to catch up for a beer. - Tay

          Have you ever seen somebody lick the chutney spoon in an Indian Restaurant and put it back ? - Cyberghoul

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by tim123 View Post
            Stunts like what?

            Assessing you for a randon (large) amount of tax, leaving you to contest it and bankrupting you if you don't?

            They most certainly did have that power (and they used it).

            tim
            Yes, but before if they made mistakes they were in trouble, so they tended to take a lot more care before bankrupting someone, generally only if the tax payer asked for it. (Ref. that comedian chappy)

            Yet since Neil Martin Ltd v Revenue and Customs ( I refer tim123 to Comrs [2006] SWTI 2260, [2006] All ER (D) 137 (Sep)) they've been pulling this stunt with way more regularity, and with such obviously poor documentation, so much so that there are now new law firms jumping up to help people out.
            Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
            threadeds website, and here's my blog.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by threaded View Post
              Yes, but before if they made mistakes they were in trouble, so they tended to take a lot more care before bankrupting someone, generally only if the tax payer asked for it. (Ref. that comedian chappy)
              I think that you live in a different world (or at least in another country). It used to be worse that it is now because they NEVER EVER had to pay the other parties costs when they were wrong.

              Now they can have costs awarded against them if they are grossly negligent (which still doesn't stop them being very negligent).

              tim

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by tim123 View Post
                I think that you live in a different world (or at least in another country). It used to be worse that it is now because they NEVER EVER had to pay the other parties costs when they were wrong.

                Now they can have costs awarded against them if they are grossly negligent (which still doesn't stop them being very negligent).

                tim
                OK I see what you're saying, but I say because of combined Tax and Customs, and the judgement I mentioned previously, they are far more sloppy about ruining peoples lives than they ever previously were.
                Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
                threadeds website, and here's my blog.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by threaded View Post
                  OK I see what you're saying, but I say because of combined Tax and Customs, and the judgement I mentioned previously, they are far more sloppy about ruining peoples lives than they ever previously were.
                  And that is why people should give a sh!t. They ruin somebody’s life and then move onto their next victim. In this case they were actually looking for 12k before being brought down to 88p. But because things have taken so long with the IR refusing to believe that they could be wrong, interest and costs have been incurred. Had they got their facts right at the first stage and asked for 88p then I suspect the person in question would have paid up.

                  I presume because the taxpayer owes something greater than 0p is why he has to pay costs.
                  Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

                  I preferred version 1!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Hmm from this article we are up the sh!tter

                    I have been very suspicious of the amount UK Govt. owes in total , suprising how much spin is put around anyone who ask's
                    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2781451.ece
                    Warning unicorn meat may give you hallucinations

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by motoukenin View Post
                      Hmm from this article we are up the sh!tter

                      I have been very suspicious of the amount UK Govt. owes in total , suprising how much spin is put around anyone who ask's
                      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2781451.ece
                      From The Times November 1, 2007

                      Last November a study by the World Bank also found that Britain’s tax system was the second-most complex among 20 of the world’s largest economies, despite a relatively low overall level of corporate taxation.

                      That was then, this is now. I'm sure government stats tell the true tale.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X