Tax Return

Ron Stuart

This came to me via email and I couldn't resist sharing....

The HMRC has returned the Tax Return to a man in Evesham after he
apparently answered one of the questions incorrectly.

In response to the question, Do you have anyone dependant on you?

The man wrote: "2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million crackheads,
4.4 million unemployable Jeremy Kyle scroungers, 900,000 criminals in
over 85 prisons plus 650 idiots in Parliament and the whole of the
European Commission"

The HMRC stated that the response he gave was unacceptable.

The man's response back to HMRC was "Who did I miss out?".

:P :P :P

CambsNewbie

Ron Stuart wrote:

This came to me via email and I couldn't resist sharing....

The HMRC has returned the Tax Return to a man in Evesham after he
apparently answered one of the questions incorrectly.

In response to the question, Do you have anyone dependant on you?

The man wrote: "2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million crackheads,
4.4 million unemployable Jeremy Kyle scroungers, 900,000 criminals in
over 85 prisons plus 650 idiots in Parliament and the whole of the
European Commission"

The HMRC stated that the response he gave was unacceptable.


The man's response back to HMRC was "Who did I miss out?".

:P :P :P

Well of course it was unacceptable. The current UK prison population is approx 84,000. Apart from that he was spot on!

Cleat Eastwood

He missed the scrounging elite - the clue is in the title: HMRC

pdstsp

I fill in about 200 returns a year and still haven't come across this question - where the feck is it?
Could it be an urban myth?

Ron Stuart

pdstsp wrote:

I fill in about 200 returns a year and still haven't come across this question - where the feck is it?
Could it be an urban myth?

Yep, thinks your correct but good point made anyway and this is probably the original http://www.maxfarquar.com/2013/01/tax-r ... -accuracy/

However lets not be too kind to HMRC http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... axman.html

and just for cleat regards HM (The Windsors) they can be traced back to Queen Vic when she married her first cousin Albert!

and from Wiki... The children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of genetic disorders, though some scientists contend this is relatively small.

However... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... s-all.html

Elite can mean many things!!!

ilm_zero7

brilliant !

rodgers73

Not brilliant. Tired Clarkson-level nonsense.

Ron Stuart

rodgers73 wrote:

Not brilliant. Tired Clarkson-level nonsense.

It's just a bit of inaccurate fun as pointed out already but with an underlying valid message/point of view possibly.

As for Clarkson, during the Jimmy Carr ( Tax Avoidance Scandal ) Jeremy Clarkson’s column in The Sun blasted the PM for making an example of the comedian over such an ‘inane and stupid’ thing.

Clackson-level is a bad comparison when dealing with Income Tax, unless of course you think it's cool for the relative rich to avoid paying it.

donkykong

coffee please

pinno

Fecking inland revenue or HMRC as they prefer to be known as. Bunch of useless incompetent cnuts.
(Only read on if you are suffering from insomnia)
Sent my 2010 short tax return in Mid October 2011. Did not get a reply. Tried to call them near the Jan 31st deadline as I was concerned and spent 47 mins on the phone, 32mins and 28mins respectively and gave up. Finally got thropugh on the 5th of Feb.
HMRC "No Mr #####, we did not receive it"
Me: I said "Do I have to send everything by recorded delivery, I have never missed an October deadline as you can see from your records?"
HMRC "I see, no that won't be necessary to send anything to us by recorded delivery. Why don't you register on-line?"
Me: " I did, but my login code did not come through as promised for the second time and I do not want to fill it out online anyway"
HMRC: "We'll send you another form, but you may be liable to a penalty". [deep breath]

Two weeks later, no form. I printed one off in a panic, not the correct form but you cannot get a printable short form on-line. Sent it in recorded delivery.
17 Days later, got a reply and some more bits of paper to complete as it was incomplete. As well as a covering letter saying that they would not increase my fine beyond this date as I had already submitted it.
5 days later a bill for hundreds for late penalty, no mention of the previous letter they had sent.
Received the tax summary 3 weeks after that.
Received yet another demand notice.
Sent them a letter (by recorded delivery) saying that they had lost my original submission because their department is in complete dissarray and I will not pay for their incompetence as well as the fact I had never missed an October deadline, as you can see from my records
1 Week later received another demand - the hundreds was in the low thousands.
2 days later received a muted apology and they rescinded the demand - the overlap between the two letters (same address, 2 different postcodes) was not long enough for me to feel comfortable...

10 days after that received a bill for £1300 approx. !!! From Cumbernauld GL something something. Photocopied the previous letter and sent it to both addresses (recorded delivery). Both letters were from Cumbernauld with 2 different post codes.
Got yet another letter saying that "You have no penalty to pay. In order to avoid penalties in the future, please do not send in your tax return late..." Gfthskmsm fffgrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Just shows you, one department does not know what the other one is doing.
In July 2012, received a letter and a Short tax return form... (address: Newcastle !!)
The letter starts, "...we notice from our records that in the tax year blah blah you filed a late return...

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Feckers. Submitted the short return in October 2012 with a copy of every single letter I had recieved from them in the past 15 months (by recorded delivery) along with the tax return and a covering letter re-iterating in large bold upper case print that said FOR THE RECORD I HAVE NEVER FILED A LATE RETURN.
Do you think it will sink in?

cyclopath

pinarello001 wrote:

******* inland revenue or HMRC as they prefer to be known as. Bunch of useless incompetent cnuts.
(Only read on if you are suffering from insomnia)
Sent my 2010 short tax return in Mid October 2011. Did not get a reply. Tried to call them near the Jan 31st deadline as I was concerned and spent 47 mins on the phone, 32mins and 28mins respectively and gave up. Finally got thropugh on the 5th of Feb.
HMRC "No Mr #####, we did not receive it"
Me: I said "Do I have to send everything by recorded delivery, I have never missed an October deadline as you can see from your records?"
HMRC "I see, no that won't be necessary to send anything to us by recorded delivery. Why don't you register on-line?"
Me: " I did, but my login code did not come through as promised for the second time and I do not want to fill it out online anyway"
HMRC: "We'll send you another form, but you may be liable to a penalty". [deep breath]

Two weeks later, no form. I printed one off in a panic, not the correct form but you cannot get a printable short form on-line. Sent it in recorded delivery.
17 Days later, got a reply and some more bits of paper to complete as it was incomplete. As well as a covering letter saying that they would not increase my fine beyond this date as I had already submitted it.
5 days later a bill for hundreds for late penalty, no mention of the previous letter they had sent.
Received the tax summary 3 weeks after that.
Received yet another demand notice.
Sent them a letter (by recorded delivery) saying that they had lost my original submission because their department is in complete dissarray and I will not pay for their incompetence as well as the fact I had never missed an October deadline, as you can see from my records
1 Week later received another demand - the hundreds was in the low thousands.
2 days later received a muted apology and they rescinded the demand - the overlap between the two letters (same address, 2 different postcodes) was not long enough for me to feel comfortable...

10 days after that received a bill for £1300 approx. !!! From Cumbernauld GL something something. Photocopied the previous letter and sent it to both addresses (recorded delivery). Both letters were from Cumbernauld with 2 different post codes.
Got yet another letter saying that "You have no penalty to pay. In order to avoid penalties in the future, please do not send in your tax return late..." Gfthskmsm fffgrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Just shows you, one department does not know what the other one is doing.
In July 2012, received a letter and a Short tax return form... (address: Newcastle !!)
The letter starts, "...we notice from our records that in the tax year blah blah you filed a late return...

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Feckers. Submitted the short return in October 2012 with a copy of every single letter I had recieved from them in the past 15 months (by recorded delivery) along with the tax return and a covering letter re-iterating in large bold upper case print that said FOR THE RECORD I HAVE NEVER FILED A LATE RETURN.
Do you think it will sink in?

Nope.

kayseegrant

Anyone expecting to get their returns easily?

VTech

Jimmy Carr didn't do anything wrong.
Paying the minimum legal amount of tax is as it suggests, legal.
Loopholes that people use are not the issue, especially when 90 of the FTSE Top100 pay less than a tenth tax capita of the average working man.

daviesee

VTech wrote:

Jimmy Carr didn't do anything wrong.
Paying the minimum legal amount of tax is as it suggests, legal.
Loopholes that people use are not the issue, especially when 90 of the FTSE Top100 pay less than a tenth tax capita of the average working man.

Well. That was completely off topic. :shock:

Good one to keep the thread going though! :P

VTech

daviesee wrote:

VTech wrote:

Jimmy Carr didn't do anything wrong.
Paying the minimum legal amount of tax is as it suggests, legal.
Loopholes that people use are not the issue, especially when 90 of the FTSE Top100 pay less than a tenth tax capita of the average working man.

Well. That was completely off topic. :shock:

Good one to keep the thread going though! :P

I made that after the comment about him earlier in this very thread

ballysmate

Jimmy Carr didn't do anything illegal. He no doubt paid an accountant , who came up with the scheme. Whether he takes the advice is between him and his conscience. People find loopholes, which are belatedly closed and then people find more. So it goes on.
Nothing illegal, but as I have stated elsewhere, everyone should fulfill their tax burden.

daviesee

VTech wrote:

I made that after the comment about him earlier in this very thread

Okay. They beat you to going off topic.

I thought to stay OT, you had to go on about a racist joke.

DavidBelcher

Ballysmate wrote:

Jimmy Carr didn't do anything illegal. He no doubt paid an accountant , who came up with the scheme. Whether he takes the advice is between him and his conscience. People find loopholes, which are belatedly closed and then people find more. So it goes on.
Nothing illegal, but as I have stated elsewhere, everyone should fulfill their tax burden.

Indeed. "Tax avoidance", as practiced by Jimmy Carr, is legal whereas "tax evasion" (which Al Capone famously got nabbed for - pretty innocuous compared to his other crimes) isn't.

David

VTech

I find it amazing though (I'm definitely going off topic) how many people DO NOT claim for what they are entitled too.
Wether it be laziness, a lack of understanding or just plain easiness.

I personally pay everything, I don't look for loopholes although I don't pay anything more than I need too so I claim for EVERYTHING I can.

pinno

I got my return!

My tax bill: £0.00
(£25 for charitable donations to pay).

I claim all legitimate expenses. I use no loopholes, avoidance or evasion tactis. I don't have an accountant. Low income but happy days.

kajjal

VTech wrote:

I find it amazing though (I'm definitely going off topic) how many people DO NOT claim for what they are entitled too.
Wether it be laziness, a lack of understanding or just plain easiness.

I personally pay everything, I don't look for loopholes although I don't pay anything more than I need too so I claim for EVERYTHING I can.

Exactly the same, I find doing it on line is a lot easier and get a faster response.

bianchibob

Agree with Kajjal, I used to fill in my own tax return forms and got into all sorts of mess, then moved onto the online system, similar experience a complete nightmare !!

Now have an accountant, who processes everything online in about 10 minutes.....very reassuring and I can now sleep easily at night. Worth every penny of their fee !!

RideOnTime

Having worked in the public sector for the whole of my professional career I was dreading doing my first return.
I set aside a whole day to wade through. Seemed to do the whole thing in 4 hours. Seemed ok, seemed reasonable I thought.

In terms of self-assessment what proportion do HMRC look at? Is it like a quick look at 25% and a detailed analysis of 5%? anyone know?

pdstsp

Nothing like those numbers - they pick a small number at random but the majority are targeted at people whose return shows anomalies from the expected. For the self-employed this is things like lower profit margins than the industry standard, or higher overheads. Basically most are targeted at high risk individuals.
I act for around 200 cases and have had 3 enquiries since self-assessment was introduced.
I wouldn't worry so long as you have been honest and accurate.

freddiegrubb

Cannot see anything wrong with tax avoidance, no crime so what ? most people can spend money more wisely than any govt. Just think of the bikes you could buy.

pinno

pdstsp wrote:

Nothing like those numbers - they pick a small number at random but the majority are targeted at people whose return shows anomalies from the expected. For the self-employed this is things like lower profit margins than the industry standard, or higher overheads. Basically most are targeted at high risk individuals.
I act for around 200 cases and have had 3 enquiries since self-assessment was introduced.
I wouldn't worry so long as you have been honest and accurate.

Is it true that the Inland Revenue take a dim view of organisations and companies that employ people on a self employed contractual basis year after year?

pdstsp

They do with some and don't with others - my experience is that they are inconsistent - I have a few contractors who should be challenged under IR35 but never have been. Also HMRC do not have a great record of winning such cases! Personal view is that they leave most people who are paying tax alone because the marginal gains of challenging would be relatively low in comparison with chasing people who aren't contributing at all. Also the bad publicity chasing a person who is paying tax to pay more at a time when so many people and companies are avoiding it all would be pretty harmful to good relations between HMRC and its "customers" (as we are referred to now). But this is only a personal view.

florerider

pinarello001 wrote:

I got my return!

My tax bill: £0.00
(£25 for charitable donations to pay).

I claim all legitimate expenses. I use no loopholes, avoidance or evasion tactis. I don't have an accountant. Low income but happy days.

Yeah that one caught me - no income therefore no tax so had to pay the gift aid on donations.

I owe 91p

funny that all entries are rounded down to the nearest pound but they still issue a demand for 91p.

pinno

florerider wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

I got my return!

My tax bill: £0.00
(£25 for charitable donations to pay).

I claim all legitimate expenses. I use no loopholes, avoidance or evasion tactis. I don't have an accountant. Low income but happy days.

Yeah that one caught me - no income therefore no tax so had to pay the gift aid on donations.

I owe 91p

funny that all entries are rounded down to the nearest pound but they still issue a demand for 91p.

It is.

I come consistently under the threshold. Must be buying too many bike bits.

Cheers pdstp btw.

arran77

pinarello001 wrote:

pdstsp wrote:

Nothing like those numbers - they pick a small number at random but the majority are targeted at people whose return shows anomalies from the expected. For the self-employed this is things like lower profit margins than the industry standard, or higher overheads. Basically most are targeted at high risk individuals.
I act for around 200 cases and have had 3 enquiries since self-assessment was introduced.
I wouldn't worry so long as you have been honest and accurate.

Is it true that the Inland Revenue take a dim view of organisations and companies that employ people on a self employed contractual basis year after year?

Do you know anyone in particular

VTech

pinarello001 wrote:

pdstsp wrote:

Nothing like those numbers - they pick a small number at random but the majority are targeted at people whose return shows anomalies from the expected. For the self-employed this is things like lower profit margins than the industry standard, or higher overheads. Basically most are targeted at high risk individuals.
I act for around 200 cases and have had 3 enquiries since self-assessment was introduced.
I wouldn't worry so long as you have been honest and accurate.

Is it true that the Inland Revenue take a dim view of organisations and companies that employ people on a self employed contractual basis year after year?

Its illegal so I guess they do.