SLfT Guidance for contaminated soil - CIOT comments
The survey reveals that the current system is not operating as well as the CIOT & ATT had hoped it would be, particularly with regard to how HMRC apply behavioural penalties. Responses indicated that there is an inconsistency of practice within HMRC in this area, with many comments suggesting that there is too great a readiness by HMRC to assume failure to take reasonable care rather than innocent error for which there would be no penalty. The survey also reveals concerns about how suspended penalties are offered and suggests that HMRC practice can be inconsistent in this area as well.
Many responses reflected concerns about the proportionality and fairness of late filing and late payment penalties, which supports the need for HMRC‚ s current review of penalties. Responses also indicated a high degree of scepticism of the usefulness of the HMRC‚ s internal statutory review process, whereas experiences of HMRC‚ s Alternative Dispute Resolution service were generally very positive.
Following consultation with HMRC, we are happy to be able to clarify the role of HMRC‚ s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) facilitators (please refer to amended paragraph 17.7 of the report for further details).
A copy of the report, together with the full survey results (which form an appendix to the report) are available to view below in PDF format.