top stories

Share

ACCA's response to the Lord Chancellor's Department document is set out below. Copies of the consultative document can be found on the Lord Chancellor's Department website: www.open.gov.uk/lcd

 

General Comments

In general terms we are reasonably satisfied with the operation of the present system of Tax Tribunals and will be concerned if any reforms were to cause a less user friendly appeals system to develop. We consider that the present system of being able to refer cases from the General Commissioners to the Special Commissioners works well in streaming the more difficult cases. The main flaw however, is the problem faced by the lone taxpayer who uses the tribunal system without professional help not knowing that their case merited being heard before the Special Commissioners. It would be helpful to have a technical review system available for all cases where an agent was not appointed.

We do not see how one can reconcile the desire to have better trained Commissioners with bringing together direct tax and vat under one unified system. We consider many of the problems highlighted in the document are due to the multiplicity of different matters that the General Commissioners are now asked to deal with.

Specific comments

Q1.2
In our view there is a need for different expertise in different locations, but in many areas the prime requirement in a General Commissioner, is a practical understanding of local business. None of the criteria listed mentions a requirement for any commercial knowledge or understanding at all. This is a serious omission.

Q2.4
We do not fully understand the reference to open competition. This would in our opinion only be relevant if there were to be payment for the services. We are not convinced that there should be such emoluments.

Q2.6 and Q2.7
There should be a clear and fair expense reimbursement system regardless of a move towards payment for services. While we are not sure whether a payment of emoluments would be appropriate we can see that it may be necessary to consider such an option in order to attract individuals with commercial awareness who will inevitably be within a working environment.

Whichever route is finally adopted we consider it would be inappropriate to start charging a fee for the use of tribunals. If necessary the cost should be absorbed by additional Government funding especially in light of the vast compliance burden which tax payers shoulder without compensation.

Q3
The training system seems fragmented and ad hoc. While we consider that obtaining individuals of the right calibre is the main perquisite we also think where training is to be provided it should be structured and administered in a professional manner. Whether this is remotely possible within the very small budget we wonder.

Q4
We agree that there is no substitute for experience and we cannot see how 3 or 4 sittings a year would be sufficient.

Q5
If the case is complex in a technical sense then it should be referred to the Special Commissioners. We have said earlier that there should be a review procedure for cases, where there was no professional representation, which allowed the technically complex ones to be referred to the Special Commissioners. Perhaps the review should be applied more widely.

Q6
Our comments earlier address this issue i.e. the individuals selected should have commercial and local experience rather than any high level technical knowledge.

Q15
We have already expressed our concern at the breath of knowledge required at tribunals. We consider it would be inappropriate to unify the tribunals and expect members of it to be able to offer an adequate quality service. In fact we consider that it might be appropriate to have appeals to a new and separate tribunal dealing with National Insurance.

We do however, agree that there should be uniformity within the system of the professional time requirements and would say that the legal qualification rule should be replaced by one of legal or accounting qualification. We consider that the involvement of non-lawyers may help simplify some of the highly complex legal arguments which are presently pursued.

Q17 - 21
We consider that the appeals system, for whichever "tax", should cater for ordinary tax payers to pursue their case further. However we consider that the system needs to be such that, on the basis that the present system continues, the Special Commissioners appeals should have a fast track route through the courts and perhaps even be allowed to leap-frog to the Supreme Court.

Back to top