MISFORTUNE IN THE 1980s
0342 Tax Ombudsman 1
TIMETABLE OF EVENTS (provided to the Parliamentary Commissioner)
5 May 1986 - return for 1986-1987 sent to Southampton Office, correctly identifies £25,000 as payment for
constructive dismissal as well as defamation
19 May 1987 - return for 1987-1988 sent to Staines Office, £21,720 payment from IBM identified in
complete disclosure of income - I am now informed, naively/foolishly - but correctly
qualified as 'ex gratia' (though not until later in the fuller form of out of court settlement
for defamation)
10 October 1987 - letter to Miss Norman, Staines Office, giving further information (on losses on
business only) as required
23 January 1988 - letter to Bradford Office, in response to coding which showed my file had been lost
10 June 1988 - letter to Milton Keynes Office in response to coding which showed my file had been lost again
15 November 1988 - return for 1988-1989 sent to Milton Keynes Office, once form had (six
months late) been received - request for the outstanding matters on the
previous two returns (1986/1987 and 1987/1988) be dealt with
22 January 1989 - letter in response to incorrect coding which showed that my tax return had been
lost within Milton Keynes Tax Office, further request to resolve outstanding
returns urgently (as they are now 3 years) and provision of fourth set of supporting
documents (previous copies having been lost within the inland revenue) first
suggestion that maladministration might be involved, interview sought
1 June 1989 - letter to Mr Lewis answering detailed questions about the stock losses on my previous
company (Davian Investments), offer of contact, and further request to resolve
outstanding situations urgently
28 July 1989 - letter from Mrs Maffei regarding income/expenses as author for 1986/1987 and 1987/1988
2 August 1989 - further letter about author related expenses
15 August 1989 - further letter about author related expenses
26 August 1989 - letter to Mrs Maffei pointing out that figures were based on non-existent returns,
since I had not been able to obtain forms despite repeated requests
5 September 1989 - first claim (by GA Wiseman of Milton Keynes Office, 28 months after the
return was submitted) that the IBM payment paid on the 1986/1987 return was a
termination payment and hence taxable
21 September 1989 - notice of appeal submitted by Holmes Peat & Thorpe
9 January 1990 - appeal withdrawn, substance of the claim for defamation (including the key
ACAS document) provided by Holmes Peat & Thorpe
16 March 1990 - answers by Holmes Peat & Thorpe on matters related to stock losses (Davian
Investments Ltd)
25 April 1990 - response from Miss V James reiterating position of IBM Settlement in 1986/1987
17 May 1990 - response from Mrs Maffei in reply to telephone calls making first reference to
Section 148, interview declined
21 May 1990 - letter to Mrs Maffei providing a full account of the IBM settlement, and detailing
the stock losses
13 June 1990 - letter from Mrs Maffei requesting further details of the events occurring in the lead
up to the IBM settlement
22 June 1990 - letter to Mrs Maffei giving the further details requested
17 September 1990 - letter from Mrs Maffei requesting further information on stock losses, offer of
telephone discussion
19 September 1990 - very strong complaint about delays, pettiness and inability to obtain face to
face meeting. Threat to resume formal appeal procedure held in abeyance for a
number of months at request of Mrs Maffei. Formal request for detailed grounds
for Section 148 decision. Further details on stock losses provided. Formal statement
of continuation of appeals procedure with strong request for face to face
meeting.
17 October 1990 - the first face to face meeting with Mrs Maffei results in detailed agreement
settling ALL outstanding issues
19 October 1990 - letter from Mrs Maffei confirming the agreements, and that all the
outstanding issues had been resolved
7 November 1990 - letter to Mrs Maffei confirming that as a result of the agreement, resulting
in all outstanding issues being resolved, I would not pursue my appeal further.
Agreement in particular that the Inland Revenue had been mistaken in their
position on stock losses
30 July 1991 - letter requesting tax return form
1 December 1991 - letter to Mrs Maffei bringing to her attention a further claim from the Inland
Revenue despite the agreement, statement that appeal will accordingly
continue
10 December 1991 - letter from Mrs Dixon unilaterally reversing the (comprehensive) basis of
the formal (documented) agreement, but rectifying mistake made by Accounts
Office in Cumbernauld
14 December 1991 - letter to Mrs Dixon formally reiterating the terms of the formal agreement,
and formally requesting an appeal
8 January 1992 - letter from Mrs Dixon reiterating her position (and that of her 'experts') and
stating that 'before I proceed to list the matter for personal hearing before the
General Commissioners, I do feel that it will be necessary for you to come into this
office in order to discuss the matter more fully'
11 March 1992 - second face to face meeting, this time with Mrs Dixon, agreement that the only
outstanding issue was a determination as to whether ANY element of the IBM
payment was in respect of damages for defamation (the whole Inland Revenue
case hinged on this), formal reiteration that I WAS continuing with my appeal
and wanted a date set for it.
9 April 1992 - letter from Mrs Dixon ignoring the agreement to continue with the appeal and
referring the papers yet again to her expert advisers
14 July 1992 - letter from PJ Dickinson yet again stating unchanged Inland Revenue position,
but also (once again) overturning a previous agreement (with Mrs Dixon) by
introducing new issue stating that 'by mistake the Termination payments at issue
has been assessed for the wrong year' and attempting to use Section 35 TMA
1970 to extend the issue beyond the six year deadline. This would resolve the
Inland Revenue's embarrassment at losing the debate by default but could deny
me any right to full appeal on the new issues and any related matters (since I
would be beyond my six year cut-off), and stating (despite my repeated formal
demands over the preceding 7 months for an appeal on the 1986/1987
assessment) 'if you are still unable to accept the Revenue's views and lodge
appeal against the 1985/1986 assessment when it is issued I propose to list any
appeal for hearing before the General Commissioners'
- IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE 1985/1986 ASSESSMENT WAS
AGREED BY BOTH SIDES IN 1986, AND HAD NEVER BEEN AT ISSUE IN
ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS
!6 July 1992 - revised (illegal) notice of assessment for 1985/1986
17 July 1992 - letter to PJ Dickinson repeating the details of the agreements with Mrs Dixon, challenging
the legality of the Inland Revenue's breach of the six year rule and once more
demanding that an appeal date be set.
hits