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

[tim123]

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

But it wasn't just the IR refusing to believe.

They convinced a judge as well.

My guess is that the guy was an ostrich who just refused to deal with the matter hoping that it would go away.

ISTM he would not be where he is now if he had had proper representation at the Bankruptcy hearing.

tim

[DimPrawn]

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.

[motoukenin]

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

[BoredBloke]

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.

[threaded]

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.

[tim123]

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

[threaded]

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.

[snaw]

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.

[NotAllThere]

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.

[lilelvis2000]

What's really ludicrous is the £45 interest and £2000 costs they're after him for!

[PAH]

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.

[tim123]

Well, you're bang out of order there, as when the previous lot were in charge the Inland Revenue didn't have the powers to pull stunts like this.

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

[tim123]

You're not trying to suggest the Civil Service are politically impartial are you?

Those days are long gone...

When it comes to collection, yes.

tim

[threaded]

It's got nothing to do with NL.

The Tax man acted like this when the previous lot were in charge.

tim

Well, you're bang out of order there, as when the previous lot were in charge the Inland Revenue didn't have the powers to pull stunts like this. It is only with the meddling of the New Lie by slamming Customs into the mix that they've got these powers, which they absolutely should not have as the front line staff just don't have the training that a Customs officer receives. It is essentially just another New Lie created screw-up, no more, no less.

[ratewhore]

It's got nothing to do with NL.

The Tax man acted like this when the previous lot were in charge.

tim

You're not trying to suggest the Civil Service are politically impartial are you?

Those days are long gone...