2006 tax refund refused by Revenue

maringo

Revenue refused as over 4 years statute barred - I put in return in Dec 2011. My tax affairs were bodged up and I was put on emergency tax as an an incorrect RSI number was used by my employer which I didn't notice till last year. I had tried to register for paye anytime in March 2010 but got a letter from PAYE anytime saying I was not registered as a paye worker despite the fact that I have been paye worker paying tax on my salary for forty years. Couldn't understand that. Eventually I sorted the incorrect paye number with them and have got refunds for 2007 onwards. Would I have grounds for an appeal? and how would I go about it if anyone can give me some advice please or recommend an accountant to do it for me.

akelly02

you are wasting your time unfortunately. 4 years thats it.

maringo

Thanks

Ally Dick

Yet they can go back as far as they like, if it's to their benefit. It's all wrong !

barneystinson

Ally Dick wrote: »

Yet they can go back as far as they like, if it's to their benefit. It's all wrong !

How is it wrong?

It's a self assessment system, the responsibility is on individuals to manage their own tax affairs; 4 years should be plenty of time to figure out what you're due, if anything. All the OP had to do was request a review of 2006 from their local tax office at any time between 2007-2010.

You have to have a time limit or you'll have people coming looking for 5pounds and 3shillings that they reckon they're due since 1968... 4 years seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand Revenue can go back more than 4 years if there is fraud or neglect, which is only right, unless they are to fully audit every tax return every year - effectively making the system NOT be self assessment.

namenotavailablE

Probably worth clarifying one small point:

Under s865B of FA 2012, if Revenue go back more than 4 years and find a liability in a particular year under one tax heading but also a refund due under a different tax heading in the same year, a provision exists that allows the refund to be offset against the liability. See here for more information (detailed in section 5 of that briefing document)

Ally Dick

barneystinson wrote: »

You have to have a time limit or you'll have people coming looking for 5pounds and 3shillings that they reckon they're due since 1968... 4 years seems reasonable to me.

Is that not the way the Revenue are behaving with their "no time limit" rule ?

barneystinson

Ally Dick wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

You have to have a time limit or you'll have people coming looking for 5pounds and 3shillings that they reckon they're due since 1968... 4 years seems reasonable to me.

Is that not the way the Revenue are behaving with their "no time limit" rule ?

Ally Dick wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

You have to have a time limit or you'll have people coming looking for 5pounds and 3shillings that they reckon they're due since 1968... 4 years seems reasonable to me.

Is that not the way the Revenue are behaving with their "no time limit" rule ?

No, because it's a self assessment system - the onus is on you to declare extra income & tax, or to claim it back if it's due. The time limit is there to ensure people act within a reasonable amount of time - you could argue 4 years is too short, but we might agree to differ there.

Revenue's job is to administer the system and collect the tax, and they may only go back more than 4 years if there's been fraud or neglect on the part of the taxpayer.

How exactly would you change the system?

Ally Dick

To be honest, I work in banking, and there is no way the revenue are getting any transactions belonging to customers pre 2006. It's all removed at this stage, because of data protection. What do they do if they spot a fraud that is going back beyond this year ? Do they assume figures ?

barneystinson

Ally Dick wrote: »

To be honest, I work in banking, and there is no way the revenue are getting any transactions belonging to customers pre 2006. It's all removed at this stage, because of data protection. What do they do if they spot a fraud that is going back beyond this year ? Do they assume figures ?

There's more than one way to skin a cat..!

Generally neglect is more likely to be invoked than fraud, as fraud means prosecution and would require a higher burden of proof which can be difficult to obtain going back that far.

But yes they might have to make estimates or extrapolate figures. The taxpayer can then appeal the figures if they disagree.

Anyway you haven't answered the question I put to you; given that it's a self assessment system how do you think it should be changed?

Ally Dick

barneystinson wrote: »

Anyway you haven't answered the question I put to you; given that it's a self assessment system how do you think it should be changed?

If the revenue can go back years, then the taxpayer should be able to go back the same number of years

barneystinson

Ally Dick wrote: »

If the revenue can go back years, then the taxpayer should be able to go back the same number of years

Not sure what part of this is so difficult to understand!

Revenue are generally subject to the same 4 year time limit as taxpayers, except in cases of fraud or neglect. If a taxpayer has lost out due to neglect on the part of Revenue (or I suppose fraud on the part of a Revenue employee) then presumably the taxpayer would be entitled to a remedy.

If a taxpayer loses out on an overpayment of tax over the 4-year time limit, then they should pursue it with the party who has acted negligently and caused them to lose out on their repayment. If the responsible party is themselves then that's their own tough luck for being careless with their own affairs, and if it was a tax advisor then they should look into whatever remedies are available to them to seek compensation from that party.

mkdon05

you should be getting onto your employer about it. what figure were they using for your tax credits and more importantly where did they get it from?