SLANs, (ALANs, VLADs and Monty Python)

Two extraordinary decisions from the Upper Tribunal published today emphasising the downward spiral HMRC continues to pursue. In particular issue is the concept of a “SLAN” (Statement Like an Award Notice) which appears to be some sort of extra-statutory notice given where HMRC is unable to make a decision under ss15,16 or 18 but feels like making a decision anyway. Because SLANs aren’t decisions, they aren’t appealable and the claimant/victim receiving one has to wait until it is perfected in an actual decision before they can do anything.

In TM v HMRC [2016] UKUT 512 (AAC) http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=5006 an exasperated Judge Wikeley attempts to deal with a bizarre series of nonsense from HMRC which seems to have stemmed from somebody accidentally issuing a SLAN when they were trying to issue a s18 decision. Deciding that “if it looks like a duck…”, the SLAN was held to be a s18 decision in substance, Judge Wikeley begins:

The Appellant was born in Hungary in 1985. He probably cannot remember life there before the collapse of the former Communist regime in 1989. He has, however, doubtless heard tales from his parents and grandparents about the faceless and stifling government bureaucracy operating in Hungary before the restoration of democracy. He arrived in the UK in 2012 to work. He probably thought he had left those family memories well behind. Little did he know; his problems with Kafkaesque officialdom had only just begun.

And it kind of continues on those tracks…

In DG v HMRC and EG [2016] UKUT 505 (AAC) http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//Aspx/view.aspx?id=5004 Judge Wright deals with a SLAN issued in the context of a “main responsibility” dispute. Whilst ultimately agreeing that there is no right of appeal against a SLAN it is questioned why then the SLAN template looks so much like an appealable decision notice. Of the case, Judge Wright notes “A combination of Kafka and Captain Mainwaring might be thought unlikely to come up with such a sorry state of affairs.”

Judge Wright also observes that the common practice of HMRC recording in appeal submissions that “the decision was issued automatically by HMRC’s computer to the claimant only and a copy of the decision cannot thereafter be obtained by HMRC” amounts to a clear breach of HMRC’s legal duty to provide “a copy of any written record of the decision under challenge” under rule 24(4).

For years the Child Support Agency had a monopoly on incompetency, the footballing equivalent of Man Utd in the 90s.  No one could touch them.  Then HMRC got a new owner after the general election, got rid of its old pros like Frank and signed up Kana and later, record American signing, Concentrix.  Soon it was topping the table.  ESA was also doing brilliantly last season until its French owner was forced to move on.  More recently, the challenge has come from UC who, having ditched Implicit Consent and signed highly prized Apollo from the Pensions Service, is showing real promise.  What a coup for HMRC then to land SLAN, a throwback to the great Hungarian incompetents of the 70s.  Looks like it’s going to be a thrilling season.

This thread has SO made my day. We’re all howling here. Just love it. Get that judge in the New Year honours list immediately.

The case of TM is both astounding and quite shocking. If the person concerned had not shown the tenacity to pursue a challenge to the UT, he could well have faced paying back thousands of pounds due to a completely erroneous and baseless allegation.

The quality of the FtT decision making is appalling, in light of the events preceding it - despite various FtT judges requiring HMRC to provide documents and evidence about the appeal and HMRC singularly failing to do so, a District Judge then finds in favour of HMRC on the basis that the appeal was out of time, despite it clearly being completely impossible to reach a conclusion to that effect on the facts as reported.

The judgment might be amusing to read but it fills me with horror, having had to contend with equally shoddy and shady malpractice from HMRC on appeals, about how many people have had similar decisions upheld against them. I’d tend to agree with Judge Wright’s comment in the other case that “It is frankly disgraceful that it took until the proceedings reached the Upper Tribunal..” in both these and many other cases.

“Well, here we go again.” - NI v HMRC (TC) [2014] UKUT 490 (AAC) para.1. - and again, and again .......

“This is another case in which HMRC’s decision is erroneous in law in every possible respect, the submission is poorly assembled and the submission is not compliant with HMRC’s ‘current and compliant’ approach.” - ZB v HMRC (TC) [2015] UKUT 198 (AAC); JR v HMRC (TC) [2015] UKUT 192 (AAC)].

Start of my sub for next Tuesdays hearing - the (HMRC) gift that still never stops giving!

HMRC sub - no referrence to legislation, relevant dates, copy of relevant docs etc. etc.