Legal action against HMRC for lack of due care and attention

[handyandy]

True - although I think it's an excuse they'll keep using for a while yet.

[webberg]

Arriving late on the scene, I would agree with most of the responses above.

HMRC does publish their views on Contractor schemes (the latest Sept 15) and have changed the law for contractors regularly since 1999.

The key word in our tax system is SELF as in self assessment.

HMG writes the rules and expect the people who voted them in, to follow the rules.

HMRC's job is to administer the rules. It's not their job to ensure that everybody follows the rules.

[LandRover]

Arriving late on the scene, I would agree with most of the responses above.

HMRC does publish their views on Contractor schemes (the latest Sept 15) and have changed the law for contractors regularly since 1999.

The key word in our tax system is SELF as in self assessment.

HMG writes the rules and expect the people who voted them in, to follow the rules.

HMRC's job is to administer the rules. It's not their job to ensure that everybody follows the rules.

Is it not the case that HMRC being the adminstrators have performed their duties inadequately?

Where were the warning letters(spotlights) being sent to people on these schemes? Why did they allow people to continue without any warnings?

Surely on publishing the Spotlight then that is the date when they could say that people were warned and action should have been from this point onwards?

There is a human rights and "due care argument" to be made. Any reasonable judge who looked at HMRC lack of actions over many many years would question the ethics and due care taken?

[SueEllen]

HMRC owe no duty of care to any tax payer whether they are a human or other legal entity. It's been tested in the courts.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

HMRC owe no duty of care to any tax payer whether they are a human or other legal entity. It's been tested in the courts.

Well, actually......http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/article...gligence-20982 Not sure if this case went to the HOL but, at this stage, it was found that HMRC had a duty of care in certain circumstances

[webberg]

There is a duty of care in some limited circumstances. We've investigated and whilst there is a glimmer of a chance of making that work, frankly I'd be a fraud if I took money from people to run that argument as it's weak.

More promising is whether maladministration can lead to a claim is some harm comes from that.

Number of hurdles there.

1. What constitutes maladministration? If HMRC published a Spotlight and it's held that a taxpayer has an obligation to educate him/herself, then is there a claim? If there is, from what date? HMRC would certainly argue that the original IR35 rules were a clear signal. we might say that until Spotlight 25 (Sept 15) there was uncertainty. Arguably that uncertainty continues even now.

2. Where is the "harm"? Normally these cases depend on some financial/person injury. If HMRC eventually win the tax argument, then the only financial harm is interest and penalty. Given that we have not seen a penalty (yet) that might be hard. interest charges will be applied ONLY on final agreement, so not seen those either.

Interesting though and worth thinking about.

[LandRover]

There is a duty of care in some limited circumstances. We've investigated and whilst there is a glimmer of a chance of making that work, frankly I'd be a fraud if I took money from people to run that argument as it's weak.

More promising is whether maladministration can lead to a claim is some harm comes from that.

Number of hurdles there.

1. What constitutes maladministration? If HMRC published a Spotlight and it's held that a taxpayer has an obligation to educate him/herself, then is there a claim? If there is, from what date? HMRC would certainly argue that the original IR35 rules were a clear signal. we might say that until Spotlight 25 (Sept 15) there was uncertainty. Arguably that uncertainty continues even now.

2. Where is the "harm"? Normally these cases depend on some financial/person injury. If HMRC eventually win the tax argument, then the only financial harm is interest and penalty. Given that we have not seen a penalty (yet) that might be hard. interest charges will be applied ONLY on final agreement, so not seen those either.

Interesting though and worth thinking about.

So what are Spotlights for? Why are they published?

For example spotlight 26 https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ood-to-be-true published 16 September 2015

So it was only by 16th Sept 2015 that HMRC deemed it appropriate to warn us all about Contractor loan schemes?

[webberg]

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...y-3-march-2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...23-august-2011

Well HMRC might also point to these in March and August 2011?

It's very grey.

[Tweedle]

And those of us that were in a scheme from '04 til the rules changed in 2010 when it was clear to me it was time to get out??

I've been told by an "expert" , well, one of the many I've paid to try and help me wade through this mire, that there was NO obligation on the schemes to tell the participants that they had registered your scheme as DOTAS.
Also that the scheme providers accountants weren't obliged to add the DOTAS number to my SATR.
- If anyone believes either of these statements to be incorrect I'd love to hear from you.

And yet it seems I'm obliged to disbelieve everything I was told by "professionals" about how compliment the scheme I joined was and I'm obliged to be able to judge a professional piece of advice and know whether it's true or not.....

I've had all these arguments with various advisors and all of them end up telling me " it's not logical, that's just how it is".
Good to see others are still going through all these arguments, I'll watch with interest to see if they progress to the same conclusion....

[demby]

I've never heard of Spotlights before reading this thread - what is everyone suppose to do? Trawl through the HMRC website everyday on the off chance one might be published that effects you?

And with HMRC armed with names and addresses they didn't think it a good idea to write to them directly.