HC Deb 04 February 1980 vol 978 cc38-9W
Mr. David Atkinson

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list in the Official Report of all cases involving value added tax on which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has taken evidence from his Department since 1973.

Mr. Peter Rees

The following is the information requested:

Reference number and date Reference number in PCA's Quarterly Report Nature of complaint Whether upheld
43/K February 1977 … 413 Secondhand car dealer complained of actions of officers investigating his VAT affairs; in particular, their accusation of fraudulent evasion. Upheld only in respect of accusation of fraudulent evasion.
427/K March 1977 … 413 Incorrect advice leading to demand for unpaid tax. No.
569/K May 1977 … 528 Arbitrary action of officers in levying distress in respect of VAT debt already paid. Yes.
409/K October 1977 … 126 Incorrect advice leading to demand for unpaid tax. No.
577/K September 1977 … 126 Complaint about attitude of investigating officer. Yes.
601/77 May 1978 … 664 Reimbursement of costs incurred by publican through inaccurate VAT assessment. No (but small ex gratia payment made).
761/77 May 1978 … 664 VAT arrears: maladministration by Customs and Excise. No (but apology made).
812/77 June 1978 … 664 VAT: Special retail schemes. Retailer criticised content of relevant VAT Notice. No.
803/77 July 1978 … 664 Insufficient time allowed to pay VAT arrears. No.
727/78 November 1978 … 302 Delay in handling voluntary application for registration for VAT purposes. No.
900/78 February 1979 … 124 Refusal to refund VAT and car tax on United Kingdom vehicle purchased tax-free (irregularly) for export, and official treatment at place of intended exportation. No.
528/78 March 1979 … 124 Substantial VAT arrears accrued as a result of incorrect information given by Customs and Excise. No.
714/78 March 1979 … 124 Failure by Customs officers to provide adequate information promptly, on request. No.
1129/78 … … … 351 Official delay in finalising VAT claim against company in receivership led to substantial tax burden falling on associated company. Yes (part of tax debt was waived).