The importance of getting it right first time
Thursday, April 29th, 2010
A recent press story caught my eye. It involved a Kent tradesman who was penalised under HMRC’s new penalty regime for overclaiming a rebate by £2,000. The rebate error came about when he submitted his self assessment tax return expecting a refund of £3,000, when in reality the correct amount to be refunded was only £1,000.
Under the old penalty system, HMRC fined taxpayers who had either underpaid their taxes or were late in submitting their returns or paying their due taxes.
Under the new regime, HMRC can now levy penalties on individuals and businesses for inaccuracies in tax returns and other documents. They can even raise penalties if the taxpayer is owed money, but have made administrative errors, as in this case.
The new approach allows HMRC to impose a maximum penalty of 30% for “careless” mistakes, and between 30% and 70% where taxpayers have been deliberately misleading, but have not concealed their actions.
Those who have been deliberately misleading and have concealed their actions can pay fines ranging from 50% to 100% of the amount owed.
In this case, the taxpayer was fined 70% (his actions were seen to be deliberately misleading) of the £2,000 difference between the size of his claim and what he was actually owed, which amounted to £1,400.
So what went wrong?
In 2009, the taxpayer completed his first self assessment tax return on paper, without the assistance of an adviser. As a self-employed subcontractor under the Construction Industry Scheme, he interpreted the instructions on the form to mean that he did not have to file full details of his income or expenditure if he earned less than £30,000, but he did include the full amount deducted under the CIS.
HMRC spotted that he couldn’t have had CIS deductions without any income and wrote back to ask if he had made a mistake to open an enquiry into the matter.
The worrying thing in this case, is the fact that had the return been completed online, it would have been rejected due to pre-submission checks. The paper system obviously did not allow for this.
This case shows how an apparently simple misinterpretation, can have serious financial implications.
