Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Can you please provide copies of any guidance, advice or internal communications between HMRC staff that outlines recommendations and/or expectations for assessing, negotiating or entering into time to pay arrangements over the past 12 months.

Please focus on any of the above as it relates to the Counter Avoidance team, and the people working with the Contractor Loans resolution settlement process who have either sent or received such communications.

This information should not include specific settlement offers and arrangements made between HMRC staff and taxpayers.

Yours faithfully,

Mr William Furlots

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'Internal guidance on Tim to Pay arrangements'.

As you have alluded to in your response, it is important that your compliance activities are fair and robust and it is in the public interest that HMRC is not abusing it's powers and its activities to achieve a fair and just approach to managing tax legislation.

I raised this request, because on the face of it it appears as though HMRC has supported the implementation of legislation that is effectively back taxing a large number of citizens, to a point where in many instances they are required to pay more than their annual incomes.

HMRC and relevant Ministers have publicly stated that it will work with those affected by the implementation of retroactive legislation, but there are now stories arising where HMRC is not being flexible in it's approach to managing this burden it has created for people by implementing unrealistic TTP terms, electing to force families to sell their homes, become insolvent, and likely to become a ongoing burden on the state because of it.

This request was raised to understand whether the position publicly stated by HMRC aligns with the reality of how it has elected to operate. There is a fundamental need for transparency on this issue, because for all intents and purposes the facts are suggesting that HMRC is currently actively acting opposite to what it is informing Ministers and the general public.

The reason for this internal review request is that I have now received numerous refusals from HMRC for my requests, and it appears to use the Section 31 exemption as a catch all that any public scrutiny on it's actions will prejudice it's abilities to perform tax collection activities. However, taking this stance for all such requests fails to reflect any kind of intervention logic between actions and outcomes.

I fail to see how HMRC disclosing internal documents that highlight how it is adopting a fair and just approach to implementing TTP arrangements will impact on 'whether or not those who have used tax avoidance schemes decide to settle their tax affairs or enter into time to pay arrangements or not." HMRC has adopted an approach that will target individuals irrespective of whether they enter into settlement or wait until the 2019 Loan Charge eventuates.

In every possible outcome, a tax payer will be required to come to an arrangement to pay HMRC. The only potential impact will be in timing, however due to the manner in which the Loan Charge is created to tax people at more than what they would previously had been required to pay, in almost every instance it makes logical sense to settle with HMRC despite them not having a legal obligation to do so.

The fundamental issue arising is whether people are able to pay, and how HMRC is managing this to minimise the impact on families, which is at the heart of this request. If HMRC is adopting a fair, just and reasonable approach to TTP arrangements, then it is unlikely to have any negative impact on whether people will settle and if anything is likely to promote settlement by those targeted. In this instance, public disclosure as I requested is more likely than not to lead to a positive outcome for HMRC.

Adopting this logic, the only reason where disclosure of the requested information may negatively prejudice the payment of tax is if HMRC has failed to act in a manner consistent with it's public statements. This is still unlikely to impact on a persons likelihood to work with HMRC to come to a solution, but does create a reputational risk for HMRC and some of it's senior stakeholders.

At this point, it would become an accountability issue, which is not an acceptable reason to deny my request under section 31. If anything, that is the fundamental reason for FOI legislation.

In the event that you elect to continue to deny my request for information, can you please step through the logic flow underpinning how this specific request is likely to prevent taxpayers paying money. If you cannot do this, then I will be raising a complaint with the Information Commissioners office along the lines of the points I raised above.

As a side note - can you please refrain from making statements such as "evasion and avoidance unfairly shifts the tax burden onto honest taxpayers". It is my understanding that tax avoidance is not dishonest or illegal, is still undertaken by a majority of taxpayers in some way shape or form, and in most instances taxpayers under the schemes highlighted were perfectly honest with HMRC by disclosing all of their tax affairs with HMRC correctly.

Such statements are inaccurate and misleading, and while I understand HMRC's desire to use such statements it was completely unrequired to do so in the context of your response to this request. This request was in relation to people attempting to work with HMRC to pay money that they are not obligated to, not those evading or failing to.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

William Furlots