|
It is very probably indicative of
the Inland Revenue's original thoughts that it chose Hector as the name of
its cartoon representative. As my dictionary tells me: 'Hector - to
bluster, to bully'. Was that a Freudian slip revealing the Revenue's view
of its brave new world?
Regrettably, the Revenue still
fails to appreciate that if you set a deadline then the entire profession
will seek to submit returns as close as is reasonable to it. No amount of
advertising and PR will change human nature, and trying to persuade
taxpayers and advisers that if they submit their returns early, they will
not have a greater exposure to tax audit reveals either total naivete or a
cynical and unfounded belief in the power of advertising.
As the third SA returns are being
submitted it is the Revenue which appears to be struggling.
The second UK 200 Group survey
revealed that 60% of all inquiries (tax audits) were launched in the last
three months of the available 22-month window for 1996/1997. There are
reports that correspondence is not being dealt with on a timely basis,
with the Revenue demanding (as is its entitlement) replies on the opening
of tax audits within six weeks and then ignoring those replies for eight
or more weeks by sending 'holding' letters.
The moans and groans on SA are
that we are not operating on a level playing field.
Penalty notices are being issued
(not as many in the second year as the first) when a return has already
been submitted. Interest charges and statements - the first computed by an
imperfect Revenue software program, the second surely the product of a
mind with a grudge against the world - absorb hours of professional time
to correct Revenue errors for the satisfaction of the taxpayer. Who pays
for that? Certainly the Revenue does not meet its fair share of the cost
of the havoc it wreaks.
The greatest danger still lies
ahead. At a Congressional hearing in the US in 1997 the head of the IRS
was forced to apologise for the harassment of taxpayers. At present, the
irritations are the slow response rate of certain tax offices, the havoc
of those statements and the creeping and insidious attitude of
indifference to any concept of taxpayer service offset by the shining
example of certain 'old-style' tax offices and tax officers.
But what happens if and when the
Revenue has so abused its good staff that it is only the awkward and
inadequate that are left? 'O brave new world that hath such people in it!'
David Ingall is a partner at J
W Pickles & Co, Selby, Yorkshire
|