A country’s tax collecting
regime under, by its nature is not going to be a popular organisation,
particular in the eyes of taxpayers. However, the United Kingdom currently
seems to be adopting tax and benefit policies that favour the feckless and
feral, over society’s productive individuals with family values.
It is rather ironic in the
United Kingdom that so many taxpayer funded resources are directed at ensuring
that the lazy unemployed do as little as possible whereas for the hardworking
taxpayer the state appears to assume they have unlimited time to do additional
The United Kingdom’s HM Revenue
& Custom’s (HMRC) department is indeed a monolithic bureaucracy, and exhibits
the classic signs of an organisation akin to a living organisation growing to
increase its size and assumed importance with scant regard for efficiency or
fitness for purpose.
Datalite UK Ltd has experienced
several first hand examples of adverse experiences with dealings with HM Revenue
& Customs. To spare the fine details, recent such experiences are summarised
requesting information with a clearly defined deadline, only to harass well
before said deadline with various threats of fines etc.
of a small Tax Rebate due to some as yet unknown HMRC error. This
resulted in three different effective dates, including illogically one set in
the past due to a ‘quirk’ in their computer system. One section of HMRC
used this past date to illogically proffer threats of bailiff and confiscation
action; bullying which resulted in re-payment of their error three weeks prior
to HMRCs own promulgated due date.
- Inconsistent information
depending on which section and to whom spoken to within HMRC. To be fair
the current tax system in the UK is so complex, it is extremely hard if not
impossible for anyone to fully understand it!
These dealings prompted a
letter to HM Revenue & Customs outlining grievances and requesting answers to no
less than 59 questions! Selections of these questions which are of general
interest are listed below.
Why does HMRC on discovering they made a mistake, attempt to pass the blame
to the taxpayer for not detecting their mistake!
Why does HMRC send out letters threatening legal action and bailiffs on
celebration days such as 31st December? Welcome to the New Year
courtesy of HMRC!
An explanation is requested why HMRC promulgates deadlines on correspondence
and then send threatening hastening letters well before expiration of the
HMRC is requested to provide a solution on how an allegedly overpaid tax
rebate could be repaid around six weeks before it was known about! With
HMRC’s solution (which presumably would need to involve time travel), the
procedure and protocol is requested to pay HMRC money that is not yet
acknowledged as due or even known about.
Why does HMRC staff persist in blaming 'the computer' as if this has nothing
to do with HMRC.
Who is actually responsible for the output and processing of HMRC computer
Why does the UK government commission awful computer programs and continue
to use the discredited outsourcing company EDS?
Why did HMRC not take better care of data and encrypt as standard? As a
result of this loss of full personal details, HMRC has compromised the
financial security and safety of 25 million people.
Why by law are companies required to collect tax (VAT and PAYE) with no
compensation on behalf of the government? For this task HMRC do not even pay
minimum wage, in fact they are being forcibly employed by HMRC for nothing.
This is in stark contrast to the five million or so benefit claimants; whom
are being paid using taxpayers' monies for doing nothing!
Why does HMRC produce such obvious waste as its Child Tax Credit
notification paperwork? Following an annual assessment tax payers
invariably receive in two separate envelopes a long winded computer tax
credit section encompassing the current and forthcoming tax year. Spouses
also receives a duplicated set. This wastes:- time, taxpayers money, and
resources; as well as adding confusion and reducing security (not HMRC's
forte!) due to increased identifiable waste. Multiplied across all Child
Tax Credit claimants this amounts to an enormous bureaucratic waste.
Why are taxpayers forced to have their earnings confiscated to fund the UK
criminally illegal practice of bigamy? It is bad enough to force taxpayers
to pay for the feckless, feral and long time lazy unemployed without having
to support activity that is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.
HMRC has paid a reported £l00K of taxpayers’ money to the convicted
fraudster Heinrich Kieber in exchange for the stolen details of LOT bank
clients. There is an offence in the United Kingdom called 'handling stolen
goods'; can HMRC explain how they have circumvented this basic criminal law?
HMRC s action also appears to negate the proceeds of crime law.
Why does HMRC fine £100 for a late tax return even when no tax is due? This
penalty apparently is applied even when delay is due to Royal Mail error,
and it is understood that HMRC do not accept proof of postage, recorded
delivery, or provide receipts of tax returns received. All this stacks odds
against the honest and innocent busy taxpayer.
HMRC’s fine of £100 for a late submission (even if not the taxpayers fault)
can be compared with the £80 fixed penalty for the criminal offence of
shoplifting (i.e. stealing). Could HMRC explain, why they treat what often
can be an administrative oversight (noting that HMRC seem to have a
particular forte in this field) with a harsher punishment than the criminal
act of theft?
Why does HMRC indulge in the bigoted practices of Political Correctness? The
majority of marital couples are absolutely offended by the use of the term
'partner' (which is easily confused for tax matters due to existence of
partners in business); whatever the PC brigade might think, the correct
terms are: wife, husband, or spouse. Inland Revenue were also the department
who banned a charity collection of toys from its staff because of the
Samaritan's Purse charity's Christian links. There are countless other
examples. All this is deeply offensive.
Why does HMRC discriminate against men? Child Benefit is payable by default
to the wife or for an unmarried couple to the mother. On Child Benefit
application forms HMRC list the term Mr last and out of alphabetical order,
displaying the hypocrisy of the 'inclusiveness' of PC ideology. HMRC
recently distributed a leaflet from the 'Department For Children, Schools,
and Families' pictures of 'Mum' and the word 'Mum' are used throughout,
airbrushing any hint of a father figure out.
The HMRC website states: We have a significant part to play in
implementing the Government's policies on diversity and equality. Our high
profile activities bring us into contact with the majority of the population
and make it essential that we take a strong lead. We have set representation
targets for the employment of people from black and minority ethnic
communities, women and disabled staff. These targets are stretching but
achievable. What on earth has this Political Correct
nonsense got to do with efficient collection of tax? HM Revenue and Customs
should be picking people purely on the basis of merit; anything else is a
waste of resources funded by taxpayers.
- Why did HMRC employ a 'Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Coordinator', and
what had this posting to do with the task of collecting tax?
Political Correctness is indisputably a left wing ideology. Why are HMRC
indulging in and supporting the politics of the current Labour government,
it is expected of a government department to be politically neutral.
It is understood that HMRC Tax inspectors are being offered bonuses of up to
£ 2,000 to collect more tax. They can earn up to three per cent of their
salary if they track down more unpaid tax. An explanation is requested of
how this policy is commensurate with a neutral government department.
Why does HMRC appear to assume taxpayers are guilty of tax evasion by
default, with the onus on the taxpayer to prove otherwise? This goes against
the accepted common law assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Why does HMRC treat honest hard working law-abiding taxpayers in such a
On the Isle of Wight there are over 2000 individual's unemployed (and this
figure excludes single parents claiming benefit and those on incapacity
benefit). Many of these are long term unemployed. When Datalite UK Ltd
recently advertised for a part-time packer/admin assistant with full
training and pleasant working conditions at wages above minimum wage,
Datalite received less than a dozen applicants despite including Job Centre
in the advertising campaign. Can HMRC explain why honest hard working tax
payers in the UK are subsidising lazy individuals on benefits who won't even
be bothered to apply for a job vacancy?
It is a source of immense irritation to hard working honest tax payers that
they appear to be treated as criminals until proven innocent by HMRC,
whereas individuals playing the benefits scam (take tax - not pay tax) are
not targeted with the endless threats of fines, penalties, and unjustified
bullying threats of HMRC debt collectors. Comments are requested on the
apparent injustices burdened on taxpayers.
Why does HM Revenue and Customs charge taxpayers premium rates for
telephoning HMRC by using a 0845 number for general enquiries? The deception
is complete with the discovery of alternative unadvertised National and
Freephone numbers available.
Does HMRC agree that the most effective way of not being threatened,
bullied, and harassed by HMRC is to either illegally not declare taxable
income or to lead a feckless lazy lifestyle supported by benefits?
For an honest hardworking taxpayer, ultimately is the only way of avoiding
threatening intimidation from tax authorities is to abandoned the United
Kingdom and move to a country that actually encourages honest enterprise?
Does HMRC think honest law abiding taxpayers should get the word 'GUM'
tattooed on their foreheads with a backward 'G'? This will then serve as a
constant reminder of how HMRC views them.
Why does tax (in the United Kingdom) have to be so taxing?
These are roughly half the questions asked of HM Revenue and Customs, a few are
‘tongue and cheek’, but the majority are pertinent questions. A reply is
awaited from HMRC and this article will be updated with their responses once
Governments do not create
wealth; they spend the monies generated by the work, initiative and
entrepreneurial skills of taxpayers. The least a taxpayer can expect whilst
earnings are confiscated is to be treated fairly, efficiently, and with
respect. Sadly it is concluded that HM Revenue and Customs in collusion with
the current United Kingdom government are treating taxpayers absolutely
disgracefully. Many UK productive tax payers have already voted with their feet
and left the country, to be replaced with a growing number of incoming welfare
migrants (tax spenders). There is a story about killing the golden goose…..
HMRC has replied to the letter
sent to them. Needless to say the majority of the 59 questions were unanswered.
Of the few that were their basic line is that the Tax system is complicated,
particularly when multiple streams of income are involved. The onus and
responsibility is on the UK Taxpayer to discover HMRCs errors, whilst being
penalised by fines etc. if the taxpayer makes an innocent error. Therefore
if HMRC make an error is the taxpayers fault, if the taxpayer fails to discover
an error made by HMRC it is the taxpayer's fault, if a third party (such as the
current diabolic Royal Mail regime) makes a mistake it is the taxpayers fault.
To be fair HMRC acknowledged limits of their computer software, which we
sympathise with (public sector sponsored software is consistently rubbish,
particularly in the UK), and sent a small cheque as acknowledgement of the
admittedly early threats of bailiff action!
From this saga, one can only
surmise that for some perverse reason, the current UK government and hence HMRC
appears to regard honest hardworking taxpayer as absolute fodder with an ever
increasing tax burden, both monetary and administratively. Can it be any
wonder that under such a regime increasing numbers have opted out, to scrounge
off benefits, and to reproduce increasing numbers of feckless welfare claimants
for future taxpayers to pay for. In business a company that invests in
failure and penalises success will ultimately be bankrupt; such a policy is
currently being undertaken by the UK government. One can only concluded
that if this is not rapidly reversed the United Kingdom is heading towards