When I last wrote about the taxpayers charter, I complained that MPs had been allowed to see the revised draft, but that you and I had not. It was possible, however, from the Finance Bill debate to see what changes had at that point been incorporated into the draft.
The new draft of the proposed HMRC Charter is 'less than tax professionals hoped, but much better than we feared', according to tax disputes expert Rupert Shiers.
On 23 June, in the Finance Bill Committee, the Conservative Treasury spokesman David Gauke said: ‘I thank ministers for producing a draft charter last week, as it is helpful for the committee to have it in front of us.’
Most people tend to practise the ‘golden rule’, even if they do not know it by name. Perhaps the most common expression of the golden rule (irrespective of religious beliefs) is: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. It is the ethic of reciprocity, if you prefer.
So, what went wrong? How on earth did we get from ‘aiming to improve the relationship between the department and its customer base’, which was one of the expectations referred to in the first consultation document on the taxpayers charter, to ‘pursue relentlessly those that break or bend the rules’, which is one of the proposed principles in the draft charter as issued in February this year?
HMRC published a business plan for 2009/10 in April, entitled ‘Delivering our vision’. It refers to HMRC’s ‘Purpose, vision and way’ (PVW), a document which the ICAEW described as ‘published, without public consultation, by HMRC and its new senior management team in November 2008’.
Despite the relative brevity of the Chancellor’s speech, the Government still had enough announcements to occupy 93 Budget notes, among the other reams of former trees made available after the speech. (Surely, if the Government really wants to tackle global warming and reduce the cost to the public purse, all that needs to be done is abolish this now twice-yearly Budget/Pre-Budget Report ritual.)
The background to HMRC’s powers to inspect business premises (as defined) which are due to come into force on 1 April 2009 was set out in my previous two articles on the subject: Knock knock and Before the knock. This final article in the series considers the options available to taxpayers when an Inspector calls. All statutory references are to paragraphs of FA 2008, Sch 36.
HMRC’s mooted taxpayers’ charter has prompted extreme reactions from tax experts – both in favour and against the document, which was published in draft form last week.
Twenty-three years after the first taxpayers charter was introduced (then reborn in 1991, and consigned to the bin in 2000), HMRC have published their proposals for a new charter.
HMRC has announced the appointment of four new non-executive directors. There is no point here in reciting the multiplicity of appointments they all hold in the public and private sectors : if you are very keen you can look at the press release.
The theme of Jonathan’s presentation encourages me to comment on two key issues surrounding the powers of HMRC and on the increased disclosure of all manner of personal and financial details.
There’s no pleasing some people. All this time Taxation has been campaigning for a taxpayers' charter that is introduced by an enabling statutory provision, but when the PBR announces that is exactly what is going to happen, we don’t crack open the champagne and drink a toast. Bah, humbug!
‘One cannot but marvel at the influence of English common law values on the way modern democracies operate’, said Jonathan Schwarz, barrister in his Hardman Memorial Lecture for the Tax Faculty of the ICAEW on 18 November 2008.
Much has been written in recent months about the expansion of HMRC’s powers (many of which are contained within FA 2008, Sch 36). Despite some comments to the contrary, I have no doubt that for the main direct taxes, HMRC powers have increased and safeguards have been reduced.
HMRC is to set up a new joint forum with representatives from the private sector to oversee the implementation of the legislative outcomes of the review of the taxman's powers, deterrents and safeguards.
