This issue contains the results of the recent Tax Journal survey of practitioners’ views on HMRC’s approach to handling tax enquiries and disputes. More than 20 advisory firms responded, among them accountancy firms from the top ten and leading law firms.
This issue contains the results of the recent Tax Journal survey of practitioners’ views on HMRC’s approach to handling tax enquiries and disputes. More than 20 advisory firms responded, among them accountancy firms from the top ten and leading law firms.
The survey was based on six questions presented by the House of Commons Treasury sub-committee inviting written submissions to its inquiry by 31 May. Headline responses to the questions were as follows:
A large majority (81%) said HMRC’s governance and settlement processes, particularly the litigation and settlement strategy (LSS), were ‘too rigid’, and geared to an ‘all or nothing’ approach.
While a narrow majority (52%) thought the LSS provided a ‘rational and sound framework’ for resolving tax disputes, there was a general feeling among respondents that HMRC’s approach showed insufficient flexibility.
There was broad support (70%) for HMRC’s collection and management powers under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
A large majority (81%) were of the view that HMRC’s approach to enforcement, including penalties, ‘result in disproportionate or unjust outcomes’.
A clear majority (70%) felt that governance of HMRC’s enquiry process was not sufficient to ensure well targeted and fair interventions.
Of those who responded to the question, a majority (56%) felt HMRC’s governance processes were sufficient for clearances and approvals given outside the formal enquiry process.
This issue contains the results of the recent Tax Journal survey of practitioners’ views on HMRC’s approach to handling tax enquiries and disputes. More than 20 advisory firms responded, among them accountancy firms from the top ten and leading law firms.
This issue contains the results of the recent Tax Journal survey of practitioners’ views on HMRC’s approach to handling tax enquiries and disputes. More than 20 advisory firms responded, among them accountancy firms from the top ten and leading law firms.
The survey was based on six questions presented by the House of Commons Treasury sub-committee inviting written submissions to its inquiry by 31 May. Headline responses to the questions were as follows:
A large majority (81%) said HMRC’s governance and settlement processes, particularly the litigation and settlement strategy (LSS), were ‘too rigid’, and geared to an ‘all or nothing’ approach.
While a narrow majority (52%) thought the LSS provided a ‘rational and sound framework’ for resolving tax disputes, there was a general feeling among respondents that HMRC’s approach showed insufficient flexibility.
There was broad support (70%) for HMRC’s collection and management powers under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
A large majority (81%) were of the view that HMRC’s approach to enforcement, including penalties, ‘result in disproportionate or unjust outcomes’.
A clear majority (70%) felt that governance of HMRC’s enquiry process was not sufficient to ensure well targeted and fair interventions.
Of those who responded to the question, a majority (56%) felt HMRC’s governance processes were sufficient for clearances and approvals given outside the formal enquiry process.
