.png)
.png)
How should the profession respond to the consultation on the HMRC’s charter (tinyurl.com/hmrcchartercondoc)? The first question perhaps is ‘do we need a charter?’. Is there still a place for it? Assuming that the answer is yes – and I think it should be – what form should it take? Should it be a high-level set of aspirations or should it be more detailed, to include service standards and complaint mechanisms? Should it be one way or should it also include standards which taxpayers are expected to follow? And, the critical question: what teeth should it have? Will taxpayers be able to use the charter to hold HMRC to account in a way that means something – including financial compensation? Could a failure by HMRC to meet charter standards be taken into account by a tribunal? Indeed, if the charter is a two-way document could taxpayer failure also be considered? A discussion on these issues would be much more valuable than a debate about minor drafting points.
Finally, what should it be called? Previously, it was the ‘taxpayer’s charter’, then it became ‘your charter’ and now it seems to be ‘HMRC’s charter’. Titles are important because they give a context to what follows. So whatever it ends up being called will give a good indication of the way the wind is blowing.
Some people are deeply cynical about charters, mission statements and values. I share some of that cynicism but I do not reject the concept completely. If something meaningful emerges which works for HMRC and taxpayers alike, the consultation will have been worthwhile. But I am not holding my breath.
