HM Revenue and Customs

3. Dr N complains that HMRC treated her like a criminal when it asked her to pay back underpaid tax. She says the matter caused her significant distress.

4. Dr N wants HMRC to write off or reduce the amount she owes.

5. In the 2017 to 2018 tax year, Dr N had paid employment and tax was automatically collected. But she also had to complete a self-assessment tax return for additional self- employed earnings. She submitted this to HMRC on 15 January 2019.

6. HMRC told Dr N about a tax underpayment of £2,815.20. This was because of an error where it applied the wrong tax code to Dr N’s self-employed earnings.

7. Dr N asked HMRC to write off the tax under the Extra Statutory Concession A19 (ESC A19).

8. HMRC looked into the matter and found that although it made an error, it could not write off the tax. This is because it made Dr N aware of the underpayment within 12 months of the tax year the underpayment came from.

9. On 10 May, Dr N complained to HMRC and said it was its fault the tax underpayment happened. HMRC responded on 11 September and explained again why it could not write off the tax. It told Dr N the error happened in the 2017 to 2018 tax year and it made her aware of the underpayment on 15 January 2019, which was within 12 months.

10. Dr N raised a further complaint with HMRC but it repeated its decision. Dr N then complained to the AO. The AO took the same position as HMRC, saying it would not be appropriate for the tax to be written off because HMRC had followed the guidance in these circumstances. The AO said that, in line with ESC A19, HMRC had considered whether the underpayment had happened because of its error and if it had told Dr N about within 12 months of the tax year in which it happened.

13. In cases where a second-tier complaint handler (the next official stage in the complaint handling process), such as the AO, has already considered the complaint, our general approach is to first consider whether it carried out a fair and thorough investigation. This is to avoid repeating work that has already been done correctly.

14. The AO should have carried out its investigation in line with our Principles. These say organisations should properly balance evidence and consider everything that is relevant to a complaint.

15. Dr N wants HMRC to write off, or reduce, the amount of unpaid tax she owes. She feels it should do this because the underpayment was HMRC’s fault. The only way HMRC could write off or reduce the unpaid tax is by applying its ESC A19 policy.

16. The AO told Dr N how HMRC considered her request to write off the tax. It said in line with the ESC A19 policy, HMRC first needs to consider if the underpayment happened because of its actions. This is accurate information and HMRC found that it made the mistake which led to the overpayment. The AO added that there are criteria which must be met for HMRC to consider writing off the tax. This is also accurate. One of these is when HMRC does not make the person aware of the underpayment within 12 months of the tax year in which the underpayment comes from. But, as the AO explained, HMRC made Dr N aware of the underpayment well within 12 months. At that point, HMRC could no longer consider writing off the tax.

17. Overall, it appears the AO acted appropriately, considered the relevant evidence and guidance, and provided the correct information to Dr N. She clearly disagrees with its conclusions, but disagreement is not in itself enough to show that something has been done incorrectly. We appreciate this is a difficult decision for Dr N and we understand she feels she has been treated unfairly.

1. We have carefully considered Dr N’s complaint about H M Revenue and Customs (HMRC). We have seen no signs that anything went wrong in the Adjudicators Office’s investigation (AO). We have seen no need to repeat an already thorough investigation so we are taking no further action.

2. We are sorry to hear of the circumstances of the complaint and the distress the events have caused Dr N.