Skip to main content

Value Added Tax

Volume 978: debated on Monday 4 February 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

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.

Reference number and date

Reference number in PCA's Quarterly Report

Nature of complaint

Whether upheld

43/K February 1977413Secondhand 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 1977413Incorrect advice leading to demand for unpaid tax.No.
569/K May 1977528Arbitrary action of officers in levying distress in respect of VAT debt already paid.Yes.
409/K October 1977126Incorrect advice leading to demand for unpaid tax.No.
577/K September 1977126Complaint about attitude of investigating officer.Yes.
601/77 May 1978664Reimbursement of costs incurred by publican through inaccurate VAT assessment.No (but small ex gratia payment made).
761/77 May 1978664VAT arrears: maladministration by Customs and Excise.No (but apology made).
812/77 June 1978664VAT: Special retail schemes. Retailer criticised content of relevant VAT Notice.No.
803/77 July 1978664Insufficient time allowed to pay VAT arrears.No.
727/78 November 1978302Delay in handling voluntary application for registration for VAT purposes.No.
900/78 February 1979124Refusal 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 1979124Substantial VAT arrears accrued as a result of incorrect information given by Customs and Excise.No.
714/78 March 1979124Failure by Customs officers to provide adequate information promptly, on request.No.
1129/78351Official 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).