This follows a meeting on 7 September between HMRC chairman Mike Clasper (pictured), senior HMRC officials and representatives from ICAEW, CIoT, ICAS, ACCA and the AAT as a response to the critical Commons’ Treasury select committee report on service standard. The MPs recommended that HMRC should work closely with the profession to improve standards.

The initiative will begin on 3 October and there will be a review on 30 November. ”The statistics show that in recent months there has been a significant improvement in overall post handling times, but HMRC recognised that this improvement is not consistently reflected in the actual experience of taxpayers and agents,” the statement said.
Clasper said: “We need to get a better understanding of the interaction of our customers and stakeholders with HMRC and of their experiences in resolving tax issues. Working with agent colleagues inside and outside HMRC will provide that knowledge and lead to better services for all of our customers.”
Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of tax at ACCA, said it was a “groundbreaking” initiative. “It is the first time this opportunity has been taken up,” he said. “This will be much more immediate than the agent strategy.”

Paul Aplin, partner at AC Mole & Son and a spokesman for the ICAEW, said: “I was at the meeting with HMRC and Mike Clasper’s personal commitment to getting his department to take real steps to see service delivery from the viewpoint of taxpayers and agents was very clear.
“The specific work streams agreed also concentrate on the big issues, such as post and repayments. I don’t underestimate the work involved but I’d say this is a very welcome development,” he added.

However, the company claimed that had the original penalty been sent out earlier, it could have rectified this matter and avoided the further £400 fine levied by HMRC.
Jones said: “There can be no logical reason whatsoever for HMRC to delay sending out a penalty notice for four months so that, in effect, a minimum penalty of £500 will be levied unless the taxpayer has unilaterally realised that it has failed to undertake the necessary filing.”
A computer system “could easily be set” to issue a single £100 penalty after the deadline for end of year annual returns has passed, Jones said.
“That is the course that a fair organ of the state, acting in good conscience towards the citizens of the state, would adopt,” he added.
In a separate case involving HMD Response International, a small charity, the fines involved were the same as in Hok Limited. Jones used the same phrasing as in the Hok case. HMRC has the onus of proving that the annual return was not filed, he added.

It this case, Jones also strongly criticised the taxman for sending out threatening letters alleging that the charity had been “ignoring efforts” to resolve the issue – allegations that were “quite wrong”, according to Jones. The letter threatened to levy distraint by sending people round to the charity’s premises to seize goods.
“Such high-handed threatening action was not justified. It smacks more of the conduct of a disreputable debt collector than of responsible conduct by an organ of the state. It might have been better if HMRC had concentrated its efforts on dealing with the outstanding Review, rather than taking almost six months to deal with it,” Jones ruled.

Rob Durrant-Walker, senior tax manager at UHY Hacker Young, said: “Weare seeing a steady stream of businesses who have fallen foul of this tactic. Waiting four months whilst the meter is running as a matter of policy to tell someone that their return is late is grossly unfair.”