New powers proposed for HMRC

It's speculated that Monday could be the day when the United Kingdom's Revenue and Customs starts pursuing people who declined the offer of a tax amnesty over offshore accounts.

New powers are being considered by HMRC which could result in monies owed to the tax man being taken directly out of taxpayer's bank accounts.

The aim is to reduce the cost and effort of chasing through the courts 200,000 people who haven't paid all of their tax, even though the majority of cases are undefended.

A consultation paper looking at payments and debts states: 'Taxpayers who owe money to HMRC frequently have sufficient funds or assets to pay their debts, but choose to delay doing so. HMRC currently lacks the full range of powers to ensure prompt payment'.

The proposals, if approved, would allow HMRC to freeze an amount held in an individual's bank account equal to their tax debt. This would be paid to the department by the bank or building society in question only after other methods of collecting the money had failed. The consultation document also asks for views on whether it should be allowed to demand cash from the sale of land or property, including homes, if people do not pay up.

However, the proposals have provoked criticism from tax experts, who are warning that the measures would represent an unacceptable extension of HMRC's powers.

Tax partner at Pricewaterhouse Coopers, John Whiting, told the BBC News website: 'We've got to have safeguards to say that it's definitely owed and properly proceeded against. The taxpayer has some rights of appeal, because if you suddenly find some money disappearing from your bank account and it's a mistake, well, how do you get it back?'.

Mike Warburton of Grant Thornton told the Financial Times: 'It seems a pretty serious extension of their (HMRC's) powers.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has expressed 'quite serious concerns' about the proposals in the same report.

Meanwhile, consumers fighting to reclaim money through the courts for unfair penalty charges levied by British banks received an historic boost today, when a St Albans County Court judge ruled in favour of a claimant, awarding him over £4,000. It was the first ruling of its type in the UK courts.

The ruling kicks into touch a previous judgement made in favour of Lloyds TSB at Birmingham County Court in May 2007, in Kevin Berwick v Lloyds TSB.

Mr Berwick had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim and it had been feared that other cases might not be successful in court if judges considered that a precedent had been set in the banks’ favour.

Stephen Hone, founder of penaltycharges.co.uk, was in court to hear the decision. He commented: 'We have finally managed to bring a case to court to try and settle this issue. Consumers are owed millions of pounds in charges that have been unlawfully levied over the last six years and it’s time the banks faced the music and paid up.'