Memorandum submitted by TaxAid
1.1 TaxAid is pleased to have the opportunity
to contribute to the Sub-committee's enquiry into Self-assessment.
1.2 The comments in this submission are
based on our practical experience and observations of how Self-assessment
is working for people on low incomes who do not have professional
1.3 Our view is that Self-assessment has
been a qualified success in making the tax system simpler for
taxpayers and encouraging them to file and pay on time.
1.4 There is a limit to what Self-assessment
can achieve in making people's tax affairs clearer and simpler,
given that it overlays an increasingly complex tax system. This
is particularly evident in the difficulty which taxpayers have
in calculating their tax.
1.5 There are aspects of Self-assessment
which taxpayers find confusing or understand poorly, and these
are identified in the following paragraphs, together with our
recommendations for improvement.
1.6 Our recommendations are summarised in
paragraph 11 below.
2.1 TaxAid is a charity which provides free
and independent tax advice to persons in financial need and promotes
public understanding of tax matters.
2.2 We give advice via our telephone helpline,
by correspondence and e-mail, and in face-to-face advice sessions
at our office in North London. All advice is given by qualified
tax professionals, many of them volunteers. We advise clients
directly and also give specialist support to other advice agencies
such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux. To reach a wider audience we
provide information about tax on our website, and via the media.
We also provide training on tax for advice agencies and the tax
2.3 The tax problems we see cover a broad
spectrum of issues, but predominant are PAYE, all aspects of Self-assessment,
and tax debt. The majority of the Self-assessment cases are small
self-employed businesses. Our clients cannot afford to pay for
professional help since their incomes are low (which we generally
take to mean £15,000 gross per annum or less).
2.4 The evidence and experience we gain
in our advice work enables us to identify areas of concern and
make recommendations for change. We participate in a range of
Inland Revenue committees and other consultation exercises, and
our relationship with the Revenue is a positive and constructive
2.5 The founder and former director of TaxAid,
David Brodie OBE, gave evidence to the Treasury Sub-committee
in the course of its enquiry into the Inland Revenue in 1999.
2.6 This submission has been prepared by
the current technical director of TaxAid, Jane Moore, who is a
chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser.
3. SCOPE OF
3.1 The comments in this submission are
based on our practical experience and observation of how Self-assessment
is working for our clients. These are people on low incomes and
not able to afford representation by professional advisers.
3.2 We have confined our comments to the
system for individuals. We see too few corporation tax cases to
enable us to comment on the system for companies.
3.3 We have used the abbreviation "SA"
throughout, to mean Self-assessment.
41. When SA was introduced the stated aim
was to make the tax system simpler and fairer for all concernedtaxpayers,
practitioners and the Revenueand more straightforward,
clearer and fairer for taxpayers and practitioners. It was also
intended to give taxpayers more control over their own tax affairs
by enabling them to assess their own tax and reducing their contact
with the Revenue to a minimum.
4.2 SA is a simpler system than the previous
one of different assessments on different sources, different payment
dates and the use of estimated figures. This was poorly understood
and led people into difficulties. There is no doubt that a clearer
timetable and a single assessment is an improvement.
4.3 The SA regime does seem to have spurred
many people to submit their returns on time and has made them
provide final figures rather than submit returns with "to
be advised" in key sections. This has caused them to clear
up old years and bring their tax affairs up to date. We do not
see as many cases of multiple open years as we used to. The fixed
penalty regime has played its part in achieving this state of
4.4 However, Self-assessment can only go
so far towards making the system simpler for its users. SA overlays
a tax system which has become increasingly complicated, and this
affects those on low incomes as well as wealthy taxpayers with
complex affairs. In particular, since SA was first mooted, the
number of different tax rates applying to different sources of
income has proliferated. We can only repeat the plea that has
been made many times and by many people; the UK tax system is
in urgent need of simplification.
4.5 SA has been of limited success in enabling
people to take responsibility for their own tax affairs. Some
of our clients have not grasped the ethos of SA and it is a common
misconception that the Revenue check the content of tax returns
when they get them. This misconception is reinforced by the wording
used by the Revenue after a return has been processed, such as
"I have been able to process your return without the need
for amendments". The recipient may assume that the return
was right and that tax year is now closed.
Many people still rely on the Revenue to provide
them with information, such as a tax calculation or help with
understanding a tax issue or filling in the form. Many feel they
cannot manage the form themselves, and if they cannot find a suitable
source of free advice, they may be forced to find the money to
pay for professional advice.
5. SCOPE OF
5.1 Our policy is to take people out of
SA where there is no need, and no advantage, for them to be in
it. The system is unnecessarily onerous for those with straightforward
tax affairs whose tax can be collected some other way, or who
are in a repayment position.
5.2 Tax returns issued to those outside the
scope of SA
We find that some people are sent SA returns
when there is no need for them to do one. Often clients have needed
an SA return at some stage, for example when they were self-employed,
but this income source has now ceased. Another example would be
a pensioner in receipt of gross interest from pensioners' bonds,
where the untaxed income will be less than £2,500 and the
tax on this could be collected via a PAYE source. We come across
clients who fit these facts but are still sent a return. This
might be because they were sent returns before the untaxed income
limit for this treatment went up to £2,500 from £500
(the new limit applied from 1999-2000).
Such taxpayers do not realise they could come
out of SA, and because the system is automated, the Revenue do
not necessarily review the need for a return before sending it
out. One difficulty for the unrepresented taxpayer who thinks
he does not need to do an SA return is that the return form does
not explain why it has been sent. We would like to see a clear
explanation, on the form itself or prominent in the notes, of
the circumstances and individuals to which SA applies. Taxpayers
would then understand why they have to fill in the return, or
could challenge its issue and return it uncompleted. At present
we find that Revenue staff can take the attitude that because
a return has been sent out, it must be sent back, rather than
being prepared to cancel a return which need not have been issued
in the first place.
5.3 Taxpayers taken out of SA
Where the system has identified that someone
is inappropriately within SA, and rectified it by ceasing to send
them returns, the taxpayer is not routinely informed of this.
So one year they will get a return, and the next year not; but
they do not realise that this is because they do not need to make
a return. They then see the publicity about the obligation to
make a return, and associated penalties, and worry that they should
be doing one. This is particularly true of older, poorer pensioners.
If the Revenue decide not to issue a return
because the taxpayer is outside the criteria for being in SA,
they should inform the taxpayer and not simply stop sending returns
without any explanation.
5.4 Raising the limits
The burden of Self-assessment could be removed
for many people, particularly pensioners, by raising the limit
for coding out untaxed income from £2,500 to perhaps £5,000.
(We understand that the submission by the Low Incomes Tax Reform
Group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (in which TaxAid
participates) has made this point in more detail).
SA is onerous for those on low incomes, particularly
small businesses, whose taxable income exceeds their personal
allowances by a small margin. Raising the limit for coding out
would not help them. Another option would be to raise the personal
allowance, to take those on the lowest incomes both out of SA
and out of the tax net altogether.
6. TAX RETURNS
6.1 The Revenue have made a commendable
effort to produce a form which caters for all aspects of the tax
legislation that might affect a taxpayer. For many TaxAid clients,
the majority of sections on the form do not apply and they have
to fill in just a few boxes, but they are daunted by the eight
page form and the questions on page 2, which employ technical
terms which the average taxpayer may not understand.
6.2 The Self-employment pages
The self-employed experience difficulty filling
in the form, for two reasons. Firstly, the Self-employment pages
of the return could be made simpler. For example, many people
do not appreciate that their profit or loss figure must be carried
down through a sequence of boxes on page SE3, or why this is needed.
We have seen returns rejected where this has not been done properly.
Secondly, many find that the most difficult
aspect is preparing the accounts and understanding what can be
claimed for tax. There are few sources of free advice on this.
Citizens' Advice Bureaux do not advise on accounting issues unless
they have a specialist on their team. The help available at Inland
Revenue offices is variable, depending on the available time and
expertise of the staff. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a taxpayer
visiting a tax enquiry centre with the proverbial carrier bag
of papers may in some cases get excellent guidance on sorting
it out, in others may get very limited advice. We are aware that
the Revenue are addressing this issue, and in particular have
set up Business Support Teams. Our impression so far is that this
initiative is to be commended but that the existence of the BSTs
needs to be better promoted. We recommend a review of the sources
of help available, and how these could be improved and made more
6.3 Other difficult tax return pages
Where TaxAid clients need supplementary pages,
most frequently these are the Employment and Self-employment pages.
But it is not unusual for our clients to need the Land and Property,
or Foreign, or Non-residence, or Capital Gains pages. Often they
have just one transaction which needs to be recorded on the page
in question. These supplementary pages are not user-friendly for
the unrepresented individual. We realise that this is because
they are attempting to cover some complex areas of tax. But more
could be done to guide such taxpayers through the sections they
are likely to need. The issues likely to crop up are limited in
range and could be predicted and identified.
By way of illustration, consider a pensioner
with an overseas pension who is entitled to the 10 per cent deduction
in arriving at the figure which is taxable. He is supposed to
claim this by entering 90 per cent of the gross pension on one
part of the Foreign supplementary page, and then any overseas
tax suffered on a different part of this five-page supplement.
Indeed it is by no means obvious from the form or notes that this
10 per cent relief exists and we have helped clients to whom it
applies to get refunds.
6.4 A simplified version of the tax return
In our view the "one size fits all"
approach to tax returns should be re-examined. We recommend that
a simple return form should be available for those with relatively
simple tax affairs.
As well as simplifying the basic eight page
form, the supplementary pages should be simplified to cater for
the issues most frequently encountered by the low income, unrepresented
taxpayer. A further possibility might be to produce versions of
the simple form tailored to particular customer groups such as
the self-employed or pensioners; though introducing a choice of
different sorts of form might introduce unnecessary complexity.
A simpler form, the P1, did exist under the
pre-SA system and there are overseas jurisdictions where this
is done. For instance, in the USA, which has near-universal SA,
there are simpler forms (such as the 1040EZ) for those with uncomplicated
tax affairs. The trend there is more towards making it easier
for people on low incomes, or with simple affairs, to comply,
with easier versions of forms and the exhortation not to complete
a return at all where it is unnecessary.
7. TAX RETURN
7.1 The filing deadline of 31 January for
tax returns (other than those received after 31 October) is clear
enough. But the waters have been muddied following the decision
in Steeden v Carver, such that a return delivered to the
Revenue on 1 or 2 February may not be late, or may be late but
not attract a penalty, depending on the time of day and by what
method it is delivered. This is given prominence in the media
close to the filing deadline, and leads to worry and confusion
on the part of taxpayers. The legal framework should be re-examined
to find a remedy to restore clarity.
7.2 The penalty regime is imperfectly understood
by taxpayers. The main message that gets across is that a penalty
will be charged, come what may, and this causes unnecessary worry.
Often people do not appreciate that the fixed penalties cannot
exceed the tax outstanding at 31 January, or that a reasonable
excuse can be put forward. We get a number of calls from people
who have not had tax returns, and do not need to do them, but
who are very worried by the publicity about the 31 January deadline
and the resulting penalties.
7.3 The 30 September "deadline"
is frequently misunderstood and we get a number of calls from
people who think they are liable for penalties because they have
missed it. We appreciate that the Revenue place emphasis on 30
September to encourage earlier filing, which we support. But clearer
communication is needed so that taxpayers realise that this is
not a deadline in the way that 31 January is, and understand the
benefits of filing by 30 September (particularly the coding out
7.4 Persistent non-filers
There is a hard core of cases where several
years' returns are outstanding, sometimes from the start of SA.
We know the Revenue are investigating the reasons for this in
order to tackle the problem, but we do not yet know their conclusions.
We see a number of such cases. For some, there
is no particular reason why the taxpayer has not done the returns
except that they have not got around to it. We are not sure that
penalties do much to make such people file their returns, though
once the Revenue start to use tax-geared and daily penalties,
these may prove effective.
However, there is another group of non-filers
who accept that they need to do returns and pay tax, but the task
has proved too much for them. This might be because of personal
difficulties in the period, or financial problems such that they
cannot afford an accountant any more, or language problems, or
just that they are not very bright about figures and forms. They
need help but cannot afford it or do not know how to find it.
The relentless piling-on of penalties is not an incentive for
them to file, and indeed by the time they come to us they may
be so terrified of the Revenue that they are not likely to get
in touch with any tax office to explain the situation or seek
help. Penalties do not encourage those who simply cannot cope
with the system to file tax returns. The cases we see like this
are almost always the small self-employed. We would like to see
some flexibility and discretion applied by the Revenue in waiving
penalties for such people when they do get their returns up to
date, even if they do not have any reasonable excuse in the accepted
7.5 Fixed penalty for partnership returns
One aspect of the penalty regime that strikes
us as disproportionate to the offence involved is the fixed penalty
for partnership returns, and the fact that this is not reduced
even if there is little or no liability. We see a number of small
partnerships which have failed, and where the returns have gone
in late, typically because the partners could no longer afford
an accountant to deal with the closing years. Sometimes the taxpayers
have not even appreciated that a separate partnership return is
needed. When the returns go in, the penalties for the individuals'
returns may be reduced to nil but the partnership returns lead
to a sizeable penalty for each ex-partner, which often they cannot
afford to pay.
8.1 The Revenue responded to criticism of
the long and complex tax calculation guide, and have improved
it and have (commendably) issued a short version. There is also
a useful electronic tax calculator on the website, though this
is only accessible via the internet filing section; we should
like to see it given greater prominence.
8.2 There is no doubt that people have difficulty
calculating their tax, and this is due largely to the complexity
of the rates and allowances we now have. If taxpayers are to take
responsibility for their own tax, they need to understand how
to calculate it, particularly if they need to budget for future
payments. The system as it stands means that many people do not
have the confidence or ability to do this.
8.3 It follows that many people leave the
Revenue to calculate their tax. In this connection we are concerned
at the level of processing errors on returns, leading to errors
in tax calculations. Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the Revenue
to get things right and tend to assume that the Revenue have checked
the figures when the return is processed.
8.4 There is misunderstanding among taxpayers
as to when the Revenue will produce a calculation of the tax.
It is commonly thought that if the return is not filed by 30 September,
the taxpayer has to complete the tax calculation guide because
the Revenue will not calculate the tax. In fact the Revenue will
produce the calculation at any time, they just do not guarantee
to do so in time for the 31 January payment date if the return
is received after 30 September. The taxpayer may then need to
do their own tax calculation in order to make a correct payment.
The fear of having to do the calculation can act as a disincentive
to filing, if the taxpayer has missed 30 September.
8.5 Facility to pay by instalments
A substantial part of our advice work is in
relation to tax debt. Small self-employed businesses struggle
to keep money aside to pay their SA liabilities. Often they have
tried to save, and want to pay their tax in full at the due date,
but some more pressing need means that they cannot do so. Currently,
payments on account are required only six-monthly, and the smallest
businesses do not make them. A scheme for those within SA to make
more frequent and regular payments on account throughout the year
has been proposed in the past, and is periodically revisited in
discussions with the Revenue. Little progress has been made in
translating it into practice.
We realise that there are practical and legal
problems to be resolved but we strongly recommend that this proposal
should be given serious consideration. The facility to make regular
payments on a monthly or weekly basis to the Revenue could enable
many small self-employed taxpayers to keep abreast of their tax
8.6 New Businesses
Payment of tax can be particularly difficult
for a new business on the 31 January in its second year. This
is the due date for all the tax and Class 4 NIC for the first
year of trading plus the first payment on account for the second
year. Unless the trader has kept enough aside to meet the tax
bill, which can be difficult in a start-up situation and presupposes
that he can make an estimate of his future tax liabilities, he
may struggle to pay in full at that date.
In our view, a facility to pay by regular instalments
would help to alleviate the problem. Another suggestion is that
the Revenue should provide a calculator to help people work out
how much they should put aside to cover tax. This could be available
at tax enquiry centres and on the IR website. We understand that
the Revenue are supportive of this idea.
For those who have unpaid tax and are struggling
to find ways to pay it, surcharges can be more frightening than
the penalties because they are often larger than the £100
penalty and come as a surprise. The surcharge regime is not as
well publicised as is the existence of late filing penalties.
For those who genuinely cannot pay, not necessarily through negligence
or irresponsibility on their part, the surcharge is demotivating
because they cannot see any way of clearing the ever-mounting
debt. The same applies to interest charges. So, for such people
the surcharge is not going to be effective in making them pay.
8.8 The IR publication Self Assessment:
the legal framework (SAT2) says at paragraphs 3.108 and 3.109
that surcharges can be mitigated where an instalment arrangement
is agreed or in cases of hardship. This is not widely known, certainly
not by the general public, and not always by the Revenue. We suspect
that taxpayers who could benefit from the mitigation of surcharges
on these grounds, often do not do so because they do not know
about them and do not ask, and the Revenue do not volunteer. As
we understand it, the Revenue have to make an adjustment to remove
a surcharge when time to pay has been agreed. We are also not
sure exactly how the Revenue interpret "hardship" in
applying this discretion. We would like to see the possible mitigation
of surcharges better publicised and proactively considered by
the Revenue in suitable cases.
9.1 It is noticeable that small businesses
with a turnover of under £15,000 per annum a target group
for enquiry, and indeed the Revenue have made clear that this
is their intention. We appreciate that the Revenue are concerned
about the increasing number of cases where the turnover is just
below £15,000 and three line accounts are filed, and that
this is an area of risk which needs to be examined. But we would
be interested to know what research has been done to see why the
increase has occurred and what sort of business activities are
involved. No doubt some are cases where profits are incorrectly
stated. But there could be other reasons.
For example, we frequently see clients who,
on the facts, are employees. They are told by their "employers"
that they are to treat themselves as self-employed. They often
have no option but to do so. If they object or report the employer
to the Revenue, they will lose their job. So they register as
a business and will very likely have income below or around the
£15,000 mark. Our impression is that such cases are on the
increase (though we do not have statistical evidence). We speculate
that this could in part be due to the complexity of the rules
for distinguishing employment from self-employment, or to small
employers being reluctant to take on the burden of a payroll.
9.2 We see an increasing number of small
businesses which are the subject of SA enquiries. Of course we
only see cases where the enquiry has run into difficulties and
not those which have been resolved satisfactorily. But we do observe
a trend for Revenue enquiry officers to start a full enquiry,
find some problem with the accounts or argue that the taxpayer
could not have supported himself on the income declared, and then
apply a business economic model to arrive at amendments to the
Self-assessment. Frequently the enquiry is then extrapolated back
to other years. This approach is often applied rigidly, with reluctance
on the part of the Revenue to accept that the taxpayer might have
had circumstances which caused his figures to depart from the
business economic model. Unrepresented taxpayers facing an enquiry
often feel intimidated and hopelessly out of their depth, and
find it hard to refute the Revenue's assertions.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that small
businesses can be an easy target for enquiry work. We would question
whether the selection criteria and performance measures for enquiry
work have led to an undue concentration on smaller cases when
the efforts of staff could more effectively be concentrated elsewhere.
The additional tax collected is usually substantial from the taxpayer's
point of view but small in relation to the time and effort invested
by the Revenue officer, especially if the taxpayer cannot pay
Having said that, we know the Revenue accept
the need to provide support and information to unrepresented taxpayers
undergoing an enquiry. We have found them very interested in and
receptive to suggestions in this area. We are aware that changes
are being made with regard to targets and performance measures
in service delivery including enquiry work.
10. INLAND REVENUE
10.1 Inland Revenue structure
When Self-assessment was introduced, it was
described as central to the Change Programme of the Revenue, which
included reorganising its office structure to bring together assessment
and collection functions. Since then the Revenue has incorporated
the National Insurance Contributions Office, taken on the administration
of tax credits and the National Minimum Wage, and will shortly
take on the administration of Child Benefit. It is currently in
the throes of reorganising into the Area Management structure.
We have a concern that the Revenue is changing
too fast and taking on too much, which means that resources are
stretched to deliver all the services for which it is responsible.
The Area Management structure, with Receivables
Management as a separate business stream, would not appear to
be bringing together collection and assessment in the way envisaged
back in 1995; quite the contrary. It is too early to say whether
the new structure will improve the operation of SA.
A further consequence of restructuring is that
a taxpayer no longer has one person whom he can contact about
his affairs. Both agents and taxpayers alike are struggling to
know who best to contact and at which office. Again, we are assured
that matters will become clearer, and service better, once Area
Management has bedded down. We feel it would be helpful at this
stage for the Revenue to publish more information about the new
office and area structure and give clear guidance to assist their
customers in contacting the right person.
10.2 Quality of information and advice
Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the Revenue
for information and support in coping with the tax system. It
is crucial that good quality guidance should be available for
this group, targeted to their needs. In this connection, we are
aware that the Revenue are reviewing the nature of the customer
support they provide and how it is delivered, and we have found
them receptive to comment and suggestions for improvement.
In the specific context of SA, we note that
the SA series leaflets have not been updated since SA first came
in. We would recommend these be revised incorporate the experience
of five years' of SA (and to remove the Hector the Inspector motif).
11. SUMMARY OF
4.4 Simplification of the tax system is
needed to achieve clarity and simplicity for its users.
4.5 The wording used by the Revenue to acknowledge
that a return has been input should make it clear that the return
has been processed but not checked for correctness.
5.2 We would like to see a clear explanation,
on the SA form itself or prominent in the notes, of the circumstances
and individuals to which SA applies. Taxpayers would then understand
why they have to fill in the return, or could challenge its issue
and return it uncompleted.
5.3 If the Revenue decide not to issue a
return because the taxpayer is outside the criteria for being
in SA, they should inform the taxpayer and not simply stop sending
returns without any explanation.
5.4 The burden of Self-assessment could
be removed for many people, particularly pensioners, by raising
the trigger point for the issue of a SA return from £2,500
of untaxed income to perhaps £5,000.
5.4 Another option would be to raise the
personal allowance, to take those on the lowest incomes both out
of SA and out of the tax net altogether.
6.2 The Self-employment pages of the SA
return could be made simpler and easier to fill in correctly.
6.2 We recommend a review of the sources
of help available to small self-employed businesses who need advice
on accounts and tax, to identify how these could be improved and
made more accessible. In particular, the existence of the Business
Support Teams should be better promoted.
6.3 Supplementary pages to the SA return
such as the Foreign, Non-residence, and Capital Gains pages, are
not user-friendly for the unrepresented individual. More could
be done to guide such taxpayers through the sections they are
likely to need. The issues likely to crop up are limited in range
and could be predicted and identified.
6.4 The "one size fits all" approach
to tax returns should be re-examined. We recommend that a simple
return form should be available for those with relatively simple
7.1 The clarity of 31 January as the deadline
for filing tax returns has become confused following Steeden
v Carver, and the legal framework surrounding the 31 January
deadline should be re-examined to find a remedy.
7.2 Clearer communication is necessary so
that taxpayers understand when late filing penalties arise, and
when they do not, and the significant of the 30 September date.
7.4 Some non-filers are years in arrears
with their tax returns because they are simply unable to cope
with the system, often coupled with personal or business difficulties.
We would like to see some flexibility and discretion applied by
the Revenue in waiving penalties for such people when they do
get their returns up to date, even if they do not have any reasonable
excuse in the accepted sense.
7.5 Consideration should be given to bringing
the late filing penalty regime for partnerships into line with
that for individuals.
8.1 We recommend that greater prominence
is given to the electronic version of the tax calculation on the
8.2 The existing rates and structure of
income tax should be simplified so that people can more easily
understand how to calculate their own tax.
8.3 Greater accuracy is needed in processing
tax returns so that people can rely on the output.
8.5 We strongly recommend that a proposed
scheme for those within SA to make regular payments on account
throughout the year should be given serious consideration. The
facility to make regular payments on a monthly or weekly basis
to the Revenue could enable many small self-employed taxpayers
to keep abreast of their tax liabilities.
8.6 Another facility to help the newly self-employed
would be for the Revenue to provide a calculator to help people
work out how much they should put aside to cover tax in their
first years. This could be available at tax enquiry centres and
on the IR website.
8.8 We would like to see the possible mitigation
of surcharges (mentioned in paragraphs 3.108 and 3.109 of SAT2)
better publicised and proactively considered by the Revenue in
9.1 In the context of enquiries, research
is needed to understand why the level of self-employed businesses
reporting turnover just below £15,000 is on the increase.
9.2 Enquiriesexcessive selection
of businesses with turnover of below £15,000. We would question
whether the selection criteria and performance measures for enquiry
work have led to an undue concentration on smaller cases (those
with turnover under £15,000), when the efforts of staff could
more effectively be concentrated elsewhere.
10.1 We feel it would be helpful at this
stage for the Revenue to publish more information about their
new office and area structure and give clear guidance to assist
their customers in contacting the right person.
10.2 Unrepresented taxpayers rely on the
Revenue for information and support in coping with the tax system.
It is crucial that good quality guidance should be available for
this group, targeted to their needs.
10.2 The SA series leaflets should be revised
to incorporate the experience of five years of SA (and to remove
the Hector the Inspector motif).
22 February 2002