HMRC cockup - more info?

[Biohazard]

So you argue that people should be treated differently? How is that equality?

Yes I do.

Society isn't equal, or anywhere close.

Society is unlikely ever to be, but that doesn't mean I will not argue for my ideal.

No, a lot of it is pointless crap that should never have been brought in.

You would say that.

Examples?

Who said my position had anything to do with drip down economics? The argument about whether companies should be liable for taxation relates to whether they benefit from the state or not.

You know exactly what I mean, stop being obtuse.


"Of course, there is a debate whether businesses should pay taxes at all beyond direct service charge style ones, but that's another debate entirely."

Businesses are not people, they are functions. They are not greater than the state. It doesn't matter if they benefit from the state, they are not the ultimate factor in our world. They are there to provide services, make profits and employ. They do it in our land and country, they are indebted to the State.

Not above it.

Society is above the state dolph if it wasn't none of this would be here, and this harps back to your society and tax is theft, burn them all, right wing pish.

Its a nonesense, but if you want to turn obtuse for the sake of it **** it I'll hound your crap down to nothing like every other thread I do.

That's where we differ, I don't agree on with misusing the state's monopoly of force to drive a fake and unjust 'equality' that involves taking from the successful, creaming off a bit for the state, then passing what remains onto the less successful, apart from in a few specific cases.

Obviously we differ, I just said that to you.

I don't really care for your right wing 'analysis' of the subject in all honesty, I don't rate your opinion much either.

The mention of the FT250 was in relation to the best companies to work for survey... Although the company I work for is now the market leader in their industry.

Bully for you.

 

[Vonhelmet]

But the responsibility lies with the employee to make sure it is correct. There was a case recently that went to (tribunal? or maybe further up the chain, twas read in CCH weekly news) of this sort of thing. Employee had underpaid, claimed it was the employer's responsibility to pay, got thrown out and went in favour of HMRC that it was the employee's responsibility.

It'd be interesting to claim it was the employee's responsibility, given that the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea how to calculate whether the amount was correct.

Perhaps it's an issue of common practise, and that HMRC will typically pursue an employer first, but that the one in question was savvy enough to turn it over to the employee.

You got a link?

 

[Pudney]

It'd be interesting to claim it was the employee's responsibility, given that the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea how to calculate whether the amount was correct.

Perhaps it's an issue of common practise, and that HMRC will typically pursue an employer first, but that the one in question was savvy enough to turn it over to the employee.

You got a link?

Currently using me work laptop so could find it. I'm just scared to potentially see all the emails I've got whilst having been off...

Plus I've amusingly forgotten a lot of things during my holiday, I love having my brain switch off whilst I slob

 

[Biohazard]

It'd be interesting to claim it was the employee's responsibility, given that the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea how to calculate whether the amount was correct.

Perhaps it's an issue of common practise, and that HMRC will typically pursue an employer first, but that the one in question was savvy enough to turn it over to the employee.

You got a link?

If it hinges on "claimed it was the employer's responsibility to pay"

Then obviously it going to fall flat on its face, unless payroll actually cocked up a departmental notification for tax code etc.

I'm not sure on the wording, but I'm sure your tax code change notification letter, or other generated stuff after new employment etc, says somewhere along the lines of 'check your code in payslip is as expected'.

Responsibility, fiscally, ultimately lies with the tax payer. That isn't to say things can go wrong that are not of their actions, obviously. But you can't go 'they got it wrong, I shouldn't pay what I owe'.

Nonesense.

 

[memyselfandi]

It'd be interesting to claim it was the employee's responsibility, given that the overwhelming majority of people would have no idea how to calculate whether the amount was correct.

Too right .... had an argument with our finance department at work last year regarding this, (I'm not a tax accountant .... how am I supposed to work out all the exact liabilities for the various benefits we get at work .... given that HMRC got it wrong in our case). I ended up with a pile of (unfortunately small) rebates last year due to HMRC double taxing me on some benefits (they were taxed "at source" and then taxed again) and had been for a number of years so it wasn't as if I could compare to the previous year.

I fully expect that they will have screwed it up again ....

 

[Biohazard]

Too right .... had an argument with our finance department at work last year regarding this, (I'm not a tax accountant .... how am I supposed to work out all the exact liabilities for the various benefits we get at work .... given that HMRC got it wrong in our case).

If I could work it out as my job as a junior payroll admin aged 17 for one of the UK's largest and most succesful house/contruction company with a monthly payroll of a few thousand, and a weekly payroll of 900, I'm sure it isn't that difficult.

Get the books, sit and learn/work it out. Its right or wrong, its not astrophysics.

I find this almost ignornace as defence, and its bloody annoying. Yes, the sums are a bit complicated. Can people not follow examples given in the books?

Its pathetic, most of the country can't work out tax because they believe all the hyperbole.

 

[Dolph]

Yes I do.

Society isn't equal, or anywhere close.

Society is unlikely ever to be, but that doesn't mean I will not argue for my ideal.

Even though every time your ideal has been tried, it has resulted in everyone being equal through dragging everyone down to the bottom?

You would say that.

Examples?

EU working time directive?

How about the 1500 or so new pointless regulations that should be repealed according to the law society?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/small-business/article.html?in_article_id=512815&in_page_id=10

You know exactly what I mean, stop being obtuse.

I do, you don't consider anything as not being primarily the property of the state, therefore the state isn't taking from companies or people, it is just not allowing them to keep what isn't theirs in the first place.

Businesses are not people, they are functions. They are not greater than the state. It doesn't matter if they benefit from the state, they are not the ultimate factor in our world. They are there to provide services, make profits and employ. They do it in our land and country, they are indebted to the State.

It isn't about being greater than the state, it is about whether the state provides them with something worth charging them for. If the state provides nothing, it should not charge. If it provides some things, it should charge for those things. What it shouldn't do is randomly collect money to distribute according to the whim of wannabe social engineers.

That doesn't just apply to corporations either.

Not above it.

Society is above the state dolph if it wasn't none of this would be here, and this harps back to your society and tax is theft, burn them all, right wing pish.

You're right that society is above the state, society is also independent of the state, or at least, it can be. People, not the state, make society. Anything else is just (fiscal or social) authoritarian blather.

Its a nonesense, but if you want to turn obtuse for the sake of it **** it I'll hound your crap down to nothing like every other thread I do.

It isn't a nonsense, the state is not, or should not be, the boss. The state should only do the minimum it has to, not be allowed to be wielded as a tool by anyone to force their desires onto others.

Obviously we differ, I just said that to you.

I don't really care for your right wing 'analysis' of the subject in all honesty, I don't rate your opinion much either.

That's ok, I don't rate yours much either, especially given how well viewpoints similar to yours have always worked in the past.

Bully for you.

You brought it up, don't then whinge about it.

 

[memyselfandi]

If I could work it out as my job as a junior payroll admin aged 17 for one of the UK's largest and most succesful house/contruction company with a monthly payroll of a few thousand, and a weekly payroll of 900, I'm sure it isn't that difficult.

Get the books, sit and learn/work it out. Its right or wrong, its not astrophysics.

I find this almost ignornace as defence, and its bloody annoying. Yes, the sums are a bit complicated. Can people not follow examples given in the books?

Its pathetic, most of the country can't work out tax because they believe all the hyperbole.

Given that you know nothing about what benefits we get as part of our package and how they are taxed and given that HMRC themselves screwed up the calculations and it took quite some time for them to work out how they got it wrong (this didn't just affect me but also a large number of staff) you know here you can put your condescending attitude.

I could say the same about your opinion of astrophysics, which incidentally my degree is in and isn't actually that hard if you have had training in it.

 

[Biohazard]

Even though every time your ideal has been tried, it has resulted in everyone being equal through dragging everyone down to the bottom?

The world has never borne my ideal, so no.

New Labour, and stalinism are NOT my ideals.

EU working time directive?

How about the 1500 or so new pointless regulations that should be repealed according to the law society?

is this all you bring?

Something from our country dolph, not Europe. Something that I have not or ever will support.

We are talking about the UK;

"Although I honestly do feel a lot of the 'red tape' is because of the wider and more complex ways business is conducted these days."

What does the EU WTD have to do with the complexity of our own taxation system Dolph?

Nothing.

I want examples of our system, not of the Tory and Labour tretchery of EU overlordship.

I do, you don't consider anything as not being primarily the property of the state, therefore the state isn't taking from companies or people, it is just not allowing them to keep what isn't theirs in the first place.

I never said property of the state, there is a lot that is not.

Complicated circle and it all depends at which bit you see first, but the people are of the highest order, followed society then land and then the state, then business. You would not have society without the state I do genuinely believe, could you have business without either? No. Do people need to progress through generations, yes. Does business owe anything to the 'state'. No. Should the 'state' allow mass profit to be reaped from the land and populus/society by a lesser valued 'function'[sic Business], No.

I could dribble this crap all day, but business is a large function of the world now. Mainly, the priority in the majority of cases. While these businesses are proprietry owned, or that of small stake/shareholders, the pure profit reaped from the world should be 'taxed' in order to maintain function and civilisation for everyone else.

You call me a socialist hippy privately I have no doubt, I merely see it as the best of a corrupt global system.


I live in a world where the land which is privately owned, and normally superceded by the state 'force'. I don't agree with it, but that's how it works.

It isn't about being greater than the state, it is about whether the state provides them with something worth charging them for. If the state provides nothing, it should not charge. If it provides some things, it should charge for those things. What it shouldn't do is randomly collect money to distribute according to the whim of wannabe social engineers.

See above please? I know its subjective (both are arguments are), but keeping it simple keeps it nice.

That doesn't just apply to corporations either.

Hmmm, I believe society would struggle without direction and the state function, and to be in equal at least in conditions if nothing else there has to be taxation and redistibution of wealth, depending on what level you want to attach to 'redist. wealth'.

You're right that society is above the state, society is also independent of the state, or at least, it can be. People, not the state, make society. Anything else is just (fiscal or social) authoritarian blather.

Ok, I must be talking authoritarian blather and social hippy idealisms then.

I never realised that we could manage it all on our own in a massive global person-person village-village co-op, wonder why its never happened eh?

It isn't a nonsense, the state is not, or should not be, the boss. The state should only do the minimum it has to, not be allowed to be wielded as a tool by anyone to force their desires onto others.

Oh yes it is my old chum.

The state is the boss and should be, otherwise descisions for the people, the highest order of the land, would be confused and diluted, power weakened and the profit of just the few the only order of the day.

Sorry pal, you ain't got it and you ain't having it.

That's ok, I don't rate yours much either, especially given how well viewpoints similar to yours have always worked in the past.

Play chess much?

Its a bit of a stalemate, but I like to open eyes, not close ears.

You brought it up, don't then whinge about it.

I was ****ed off at you deliberately twisting the argument when it was a nice discussion before that, but we're passed that now anyway so..

 

[Biohazard]

Given that you know nothing about what benefits we get as part of our package and how they are taxed and given that HMRC themselves screwed up the calculations and it took quite some time for them to work out how they got it wrong (this didn't just affect me but also a large number of staff) you know here you can put your condescending attitude.

I could say the same about your opinion of astrophysics, which incidentally my degree is in and isn't actually that hard if you have had training in it.

Look, I wasn't trying to make that too personal but really if you have a degree in astrophysics you can't work out your own personal tax?

All the astrophysicists I know, which really is only one but anyway, is just jaw dropping on anything mathematical. He is a genious. Now, you may not be him, but if I could do it at 17 with a 3 in Standard Grade math, and do it for rich people, you as an astrophysicist should have no problems.

Doesn't matter if HMRC can't add up, you can do it all yourself and see.

This is exactly what I am trying to say.

But no, I know nothing, and its so super hard you can't tell left from right.

 

[Mad old tory]

Would it not be the case that it is the employees responsibility to pay the tax ultimately but the company would be subject to interest and penalties on the amount they should have withheld?

 

[Pudney]

You got a link?

It's not in the past 3 CCH weeklies I've read and my VPN keeps having a fit so will have to concede that currently not!

It was a funny case I seem to recall, happened in the 80s (the underpayment) due to the guy partly working abroad or offshore or some such. Aah well!

 

[Biohazard]

Would it not be the case that it is the employees responsibility to pay the tax ultimately but the company would be subject to interest and penalties on the amount they should have withheld?

Witheld and used the money, interest and charges.

'Witheld' due to their own administrative error, depends on circumstances.

'Witheld' due to department error (wrong notification etc), nada.

Tax payer is liable until they pay, then once paid its the employer until they actually bacs that off. etc Underpaid, the person who underpaid is still liable regardless of how underpayment occured, not sure on employers theft.. I'd need to check that up, but they would and do get hounded.

I've overheard some of the conversations, it can be 'entertaining' lets put it that way.

 

[memyselfandi]

Look, I wasn't trying to make that too personal but really if you have a degree in astrophysics you can't work out your own personal tax?

All the astrophysicists I know, which really is only one but anyway, is just jaw dropping on anything mathematical. He is a genious. Now, you may not be him, but if I could do it at 17 with a 3 in Standard Grade math, and do it for rich people, you as an astrophysicist should have no problems.

Doesn't matter if HMRC can't add up, you can do it all yourself and see.

This is exactly what I am trying to say.

But no, I know nothing, and its so super hard you can't tell left from right.

Frankly no I can't work it out, the way the company is doing isn't as simple as taking the pay + value of benefits and then working out the tax due.

If the company spends six months in discussion with HMRC to come to the conclusion that HMRC are in the wrong, and then we are told that we need to write to HMRC and tell them to look over our tax records with reference to said discussions, I don't hold out much hope of just sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with just Google as a reference and calculating it myself And I don't know what was non-standard in the way the tax was being paid as we weren't given that information, (other than some benefit being taxed at source (whatever that means) but HMRC not taking it as such and then taxing it again). Hell, I'm not even convinced that the bulk of the Finance department understood what was wrong given the amount of helpful answers they gave on the subject.

I am not a Tax Account and have no wish to be one and as I have a single income from one job covered by PAYE I shouldn't have to be.

You say you could do it at 17 with just some basic math ... but that's not true is it? You could do it at 17 with just some basic math and information on how it was supposed to be calculated and probably examples of it currently being calculated from previous payments at that company.

 

[Dolph]

Witheld and used the money, interest and charges.

'Witheld' due to their own administrative error, depends on circumstances.

'Witheld' due to department error (wrong notification etc), nada.

Tax payer is liable until they pay, then once paid its the employer until they actually bacs that off. etc Underpaid, the person who underpaid is still liable regardless of how underpayment occured, not sure on employers theft.. I'd need to check that up, but they would and do get hounded.

I've overheard some of the conversations, it can be 'entertaining' lets put it that way.

I do find it amazing how easily both the taxman and the benefits office can make people pay when things haven't been done right, even if it's them that has done it wrong...

 

[Biohazard]

I do find it amazing how easily both the taxman and the benefits office can make people pay when things haven't been done right, even if it's them that has done it wrong...

Its easy dolph, they either haven't paid enough of what they are owed and are still liable either which way the fault occured.

Like paying part of your bill.

If you have been overpaid, you have money that you are or were not entitled too.

That is due back.

 

[meghatronic]

I'm owed about £300 from HMRC. Since 2006...

 

[Biohazard]

Frankly no I can't work it out, the way the company is doing isn't as simple as taking the pay + value of benefits and then working out the tax due.

Well I don't find it that hard anyway.

I know how payroll works thanks.

If the company spends six months in discussion with HMRC to come to the conclusion that HMRC are in the wrong, and then we are told that we need to write to HMRC and tell them to look over our tax records with reference to said discussions, I don't hold out much hope of just sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with just Google as a reference and calculating it myself

I very much doubt there was six months of continuous discussions over a single case, no ones tax is that complicated. It was probably your payroll department in all honesty, some are better than others. Like anything.

You ask your payroll department for a copy of all Px range of documents, HMRC notifications, and a borrow or copy of the relevant tax tables and guidance they hold.

No payroll would refuse, no need to use google and if you need any further information it is all available on the HMRC website I'd guess.

And I don't know what was non-standard in the way the tax was being paid as we weren't given that information, (other than some benefit being taxed at source (whatever that means) but HMRC not taking it as such and then taxing it again). Hell, I'm not even convinced that the bulk of the Finance department understood what was wrong given the amount of helpful answers they gave on the subject.

Can I say one thing, HMRC don't have a big arm that shoots through the sky and jumps into your companies building and messes up your tax.

It normally does it through the post, which means that your payroll either stupid or too busy to not realise that a notification was 'off' and going to push you in a funky direction, and if they don't notice and you do normally it is a phone call from the payroll on your behalf to PAYE/NI cont. etc to ask what to do, things can be changed over the phone documents come later etc.

Its not hard over all, I've seen it from both sides. Yes, some pay slips and benefits did take a day or two to work out for the ridiculously perked and rich people, but if your in that league you should have no trouble doing it yourself.

I just can't help but saying it, they all knew straight away when something was wrong.

I am not a Tax Account and have no wish to be one and as I have a single income from one job covered by PAYE I shouldn't have to be.

Depends on a lot of circumstances on the complexity of your tax calculations, but I don't believe you can be in that sort of situation without knowing what exactly is going on with your tax and financial matters.

You say you could do it at 17 with just some basic math ... but that's not true is it? You could do it at 17 with just some basic math and information on how it was supposed to be calculated and probably examples of it currently being calculated from previous payments at that company.

Yes it is true I wouldn't say it otherwise, although I was paid a comparative pittance due to my age.


what I said to you

"Get the books, sit and learn/work it out. Its right or wrong, its not astrophysics. "

Get the books, sit and learn/work it out. I got shown a couple of examples (which were in the books, then just variations on the eg etc), then took to it from there and progressed through more complex stuff myself with publically available publications from the then IR. I got promoted to a senior payroll admin not long after passing my 6month probation and someone had left, and stayed for around another 7 months before moving on.

I did pretty much everything you could expect in the super exciting environment of the small, 4 person sized, payroll department. Some of our earners were on £3.10 an hour, others on six figures a year.

Thats when I started to work out how the world works.

 

[Biohazard]

I'm owed about £300 from HMRC. Since 2006...

A rebate you never got or something?

I'd chase it up, there is a 'statute of limitations' or something along those lines for tax matters, and i think it suits the government not the person.

 

[meghatronic]

A rebate you never got or something?

I'd chase it up, there is a 'statute of limitations' or something along those lines for tax matters, and i think it suits the government not the person.

Yes, technically. Was from at uni when I earnt way under the threshold. It is being dealt with - just slowly it seems.