On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:24:53 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>> receive .
>>>
>>
>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>
>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>> but not getting it.
>
>Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>
>One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>agency, The Pensions Service.
>
>Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>
>Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).

I find the above statements rather strange. HMRC know exactly what my
state pensions from various state schemes are in total. The amount is
known in advance of the oncoming tax year (I guess from DWP, but from
who-so-ever it is accurate to the £).This amount is then deducted from
my personal tax allowance(s). The result is this calculation is then
used to generate my tax code for the year ahead. I get this "tax code
notice" around January every year, ever since I have been eligible for
state pension(s).

>And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>public sector one).
>
>It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.

--
brightside s9

On 23/07/2021 17:23, JNugent wrote:

>
> They cannot know about income from self-employment, savings or
> investments, for instance, unless they are told about it by the
> taxpayer, to make just one obvious point.

HMRC have had returns of savings income from banks, building societies
etc etc for many years.

>That's why form SA 300 asks

SA 300 is a self-assessment statement of account - i.e. how much a
taxpayer is dues to pay HMRC when.

You are close to the kill file.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/07/2021 18:43, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 06:08 pm, Robin wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 04:43 pm, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>>>>> receive .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>>>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension
>>>>>> credit but not getting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>>>>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>>>>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>>>>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment
>>>>> and/or investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>>>>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is
>>>>> a public sector one).
>>>>>
>>>>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>>>>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>> That's largely wrong.
>>>
>>> Which bit or bits is/are wrong?
>>>
>>> I'll be happy to accept valid corrections.
>>
>> I'm not going to keep on correcting your many contributions on the tax
>> and benefits system across multiple groups.  But I'd like to know why
>> you do it.  To take 2 examples here:
>>
>> a.    why do you state "only the Pensions Service has access to how
>> much "extra" old-style pensioners are getting" when the total amount
>> is reported to HMRC by DWP (DSS in NI)?  There are now /daily/ returns
>> to HMRC of new pension entitlements.
>
> Because they are the only ones who have access to the primary data. If
> they do provide it to others, that doesn't mean that those others can
> somehow cut the Pensions Service out of the information loop. They are
> dependant on information from the Pensions Service.
>
> It's the difference between having the information and having to be
> provided with it. It's obviously similar with information that only the
> taxpayer can provide (P&L account and similar).
>
>> b.    why do you claim HMRC don't know about occupational and private
>> pensions other than public sector ones?  The vast bulk of occupational
>> pensions paid in the UK - public sector and other - are within PAYE
>> and so returned to HMRC.
>
> They only know about them because the pension providers tell them. They
> too cannot be cut out of the loop.
>

If that's your line of reasoning:

a) you don't know what HMRC do and don't know because you are just
relying on what you have read - or more probably assumed

b) that's your lot.

Goodbye.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/07/2021 09:42 pm, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:24:53 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>> receive .
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>
>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>>> but not getting it.
>>
>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>
>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>
>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>
>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>
> I find the above statements rather strange. HMRC know exactly what my
> state pensions from various state schemes are in total. The amount is
> known in advance of the oncoming tax year (I guess from DWP, but from
> who-so-ever it is accurate to the £).This amount is then deducted from
> my personal tax allowance(s). The result is this calculation is then
> used to generate my tax code for the year ahead. I get this "tax code
> notice" around January every year, ever since I have been eligible for
> state pension(s).
>
>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>> public sector one).
>>
>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.

The various governments don't have this knowledge from their own
resources. They have to be advised of it.

On 23/07/2021 06:46 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 05:49 pm, Tweed wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2021 17:13, Tweed wrote:

>>>>> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
>>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that they can have access to most of the information but do
>>>> not know all of it unless they make checks and of course if you did not
>>>> tell them on your tax return then they will not be happy.
>>>>
>>>> If they had all the information then they could just post you a
>>>> statement showing what you owe them which would make life a lot easier
>>>> for us all. You would still need to check it and if you do not declare
>>>> something they had missed then you would still be in trouble.
>>>>
>>> It’s all coming to a tax return near you shortly. Real time tax. Employers
>>> will have to submit information each time the payroll is run, pension
>>> payers, dividend payers etc likewise. People getting income from rental
>>> properties and the like will have to submit quarterly returns. All online.
>>> Well at least that’s the stated aim. Oh, and they’ll be able to have a look
>>> inside your bank accounts too. The government is actually starting to get
>>> reasonably good at linking up its databases, as evidenced by the covid jab
>>> programme.
>>
>> Yes, now you remind me, I've heard of that.
>>
>> But the revenue still has to depend on the taxpayer for the information
>> (and its accuracy).
>>
>
> Not necessarily. Only for self,employed style income will it be taxpayer
> dependent.

Obviously. Employees are on PAYE!

> And when they snoop on your bank accounts etc they’ll soon work
> out if you are being economical with the truth. The stated aim is to reduce
> the amount of undeclared taxable income.

Not disputed.

On 23/07/2021 06:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 17:14, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 04:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to pay
>>>> the viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.
>>>
>>> Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
>>> dishonest propaganda?  If you are going to apply that rule to the
>>> rest of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!
>>
>> A. I do not provide any dishonest propaganda. That is exclusively your
>> province.
>
> ROTFLMAO!  This whole subthread has been caused by you making a
> dishonest claim about the BBC.
>
>> B. No-one is forced to read anything here, though you would probably
>> like your tripe to be compulsory reading for everyone.
>
> We are forced to read because we know that it will contain a great many
> errors that need correcting, so that others reading the thread have
> correct information.
>
> So, I say again, if you are going to apply that rule to the rest of us,
> incidentally without even consulting us, apply it first to yourself,
> stop lying, and shut the fuck up!

Calm down, lad.

On 23/07/2021 07:05 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 23/07/2021 17:16, JNugent wrote:

>> Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
>> They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.
>
> My reply contains 2 Ls and they bounce

??

On 23/07/2021 07:08 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 18:45, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> They aren't the first BBC minions to do things which are completely
>> unacceptable, would they?
>
> Ah, so now you think you see another way of not appearing to lose the
> argument, you don't bother to reply to the part that conclusively proves
> why you are wrong, but concentrate on a tiny chink of light elsewhere in
> the dark hole that you've dug yourself into, that you mistakenly think
> offers some chance of escaping with your dignity intact.  'Fraid not,
> long since you've had none left to cling onto.  What you need to
> understand is that when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.
>
> Those former genuine BBC minions who have transgressed the BBC standards
> have sometimes found they're not BBC minions for very much longer,
> meanwhile, back at the argument, Capita's staff themselves have no legal
> connection with the BBC, and their behaviour was being investigated for
> apparently contravening the BBC's standards, which makes two good
> reasons why they cannot be described as "BBC minions", as was first
> stated quite unambiguously in my reply to your original error umpteen
> posts ago and many times since.  Yet again, you're just plain wrong, get
> used it; you should be able to easily enough, it's not as though you
> haven't had plenty of practice.

"TV Licensing" is staffed by the BBC's minions.

Get over it.

On 23/07/2021 07:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 18:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 06:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 16:33, MrSpud_pbcem@00r.biz wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:32:35 +0100
>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
>>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>>>>>>> issues.  Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>>>>>>>       +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>>>>>>>       +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>>>>>>>       +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should follow the above advice as well.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, it is. Thanks for clarifying!
>>>
>>> So when are you going back to school?
>>
>> When does your course at charm school start?
>>
>> Or is its cancellation now indefinite?
>
> As I've often stated openly here, I am quite consciously applying
> aversion therapy  -  every time you make yet another false claim here,
> you'll get hauled over the coals for it, and the more you persist in any
> lie, the more abuse will be heaped upon you, so if you want it to stop,
> it's in your hands, by learning:
>     +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>     +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>     +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

You obviously "flunked" the charm course.

It can't have been unexpected.

On 23/07/2021 10:37 pm, Robin wrote:

> On 23/07/2021 17:23, JNugent wrote:
>
>>
>> They cannot know about income from self-employment, savings or
>> investments, for instance, unless they are told about it by the
>> taxpayer, to make just one obvious point.
>
> HMRC have had returns of savings income from banks, building societies
> etc etc for many years.

But self-employed income?

And if they "know" my savings income, why do they ask about it on form
SA 300?

>>That's why form SA 300 asks
>
> SA 300 is a self-assessment statement of account - i.e. how much a
> taxpayer is dues to pay HMRC when.

No. A SA300 is a form on which a potential taxpayer declares his
financial circumstances. HMRC then calculate the tax due (if any) from
its contents. The taxpayer doesn't calculate his own tax despite the
name of the scheme).

> You are close to the kill file.

On 24/07/2021 00:42, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2021 07:08 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Ah, so now you think you see another way of not appearing to lose the
>> argument, you don't bother to reply to the part that conclusively
>> proves why you are wrong, but concentrate on a tiny chink of light
>> elsewhere in the dark hole that you've dug yourself into, that you
>> mistakenly think offers some chance of escaping with your dignity
>> intact.  'Fraid not, long since you've had none left to cling onto.
>> What you need to understand is that when you're in a hole, you should
>> stop digging.
>>
>> Those former genuine BBC minions who have transgressed the BBC
>> standards have sometimes found they're not BBC minions for very much
>> longer, meanwhile, back at the argument, Capita's staff themselves
>> have no legal connection with the BBC, and their behaviour was being
>> investigated for apparently contravening the BBC's standards, which
>> makes two good reasons why they cannot be described as "BBC minions",
>> as was first stated quite unambiguously in my reply to your original
>> error umpteen posts ago and many times since.  Yet again, you're just
>> plain wrong, get used it; you should be able to easily enough, it's
>> not as though you haven't had plenty of practice.
>
> "TV Licensing" is staffed by the BBC's minions.
>
> Get over it.

Capita staff are not, and one of them was the person you incorrectly
referred to as a "BBC minion", based upon nothing more than your
well-known bias against the BBC. You were wrong, get over it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/07/2021 00:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 07:05 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 17:16, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
>>> They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.
>>
>> My reply contains 2 Ls and they bounce
>
> ??

No wonder you're puzzled, it's plain that you haven't got any.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/07/2021 00:43, JNugent wrote:
>
> You obviously "flunked" the charm course.
>
> It can't have been unexpected.

You obviously flunked the adult course.

As I've often stated openly here, I am quite consciously applying
aversion therapy - every time you make yet another false claim here,
you'll get hauled over the coals for it, and the more you persist in any
lie, the more abuse will be heaped upon you, so if you want it to stop,
it's in your hands, by learning:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so very often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/07/2021 00:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 06:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 17:14, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 04:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to
>>>>> pay the viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.
>>>>
>>>> Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
>>>> dishonest propaganda?  If you are going to apply that rule to the
>>>> rest of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!
>>>
>>> A. I do not provide any dishonest propaganda. That is exclusively
>>> your province.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!  This whole subthread has been caused by you making a
>> dishonest claim about the BBC.
>>
>>> B. No-one is forced to read anything here, though you would probably
>>> like your tripe to be compulsory reading for everyone.
>>
>> We are forced to read because we know that it will contain a great
>> many errors that need correcting, so that others reading the thread
>> have correct information.
>>
>> So, I say again, if you are going to apply that rule to the rest of
>> us, incidentally without even consulting us, apply it first to
>> yourself, stop lying, and shut the fuck up!
>
> Calm down, lad.

Grow up, thing.

Fuck off back to infant school and don't come back until you've learnt:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/07/2021 01:01 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 00:41, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 06:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 17:14, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2021 04:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to
>>>>>> pay the viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
>>>>> dishonest propaganda?  If you are going to apply that rule to the
>>>>> rest of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!
>>>>
>>>> A. I do not provide any dishonest propaganda. That is exclusively
>>>> your province.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!  This whole subthread has been caused by you making a
>>> dishonest claim about the BBC.
>>>
>>>> B. No-one is forced to read anything here, though you would probably
>>>> like your tripe to be compulsory reading for everyone.
>>>
>>> We are forced to read because we know that it will contain a great
>>> many errors that need correcting, so that others reading the thread
>>> have correct information.
>>>
>>> So, I say again, if you are going to apply that rule to the rest of
>>> us, incidentally without even consulting us, apply it first to
>>> yourself, stop lying, and shut the fuck up!
>>
>> Calm down, lad.
>
> Grow up, thing.
>
> Fuck off back to infant school and don't come back until you've learnt:
>     +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>     +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>     +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

You really work hard at being such a nasty piece of work, don't you?

On 24/07/2021 00:47, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 10:37 pm, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 17:23, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They cannot know about income from self-employment, savings or
>>> investments, for instance, unless they are told about it by the
>>> taxpayer, to make just one obvious point.
>>
>> HMRC have had returns of savings income from banks, building societies
>> etc etc for many years.
>
> But self-employed income?
>
> And if they "know" my savings income, why do they ask about it on form
> SA 300?
>
>>> That's why form SA 300 asks
>>
>> SA 300 is a self-assessment statement of account - i.e. how much a
>> taxpayer is dues to pay HMRC when.
>
> No. A SA300 is a form on which a potential taxpayer declares his
> financial circumstances. HMRC then calculate the tax due (if any) from
> its contents. The taxpayer doesn't calculate his own tax despite the
> name of the scheme).

So you reckon the form I downloaded last week is mislabelled and that
HMRC's manual is wrong.

SAM130001 - Statements: statement content and layout: introduction
....
"From April 2004 statements are printed on just one type of stationery
(SA300). The first page will only include a payslip where there is an
amount shown as due at the statement date and / or an amount is shown as
shortly becoming due for payment. Up to a maximum of 3 continuation
pages can be printed in addition to the first page.

<https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/self-assessment-manual/sam130001>

>> You are close to the kill file.

I don't know if you just make this stuff up or that you misremember and
can't accept that you need to check your facts. Either way the
signal/noise ratio is awful. Filter now in place.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 07:53:37 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 24/07/2021 00:47, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 10:37 pm, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 17:23, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They cannot know about income from self-employment, savings or
>>>> investments, for instance, unless they are told about it by the
>>>> taxpayer, to make just one obvious point.
>>>
>>> HMRC have had returns of savings income from banks, building societies
>>> etc etc for many years.
>>
>> But self-employed income?
>>
>> And if they "know" my savings income, why do they ask about it on form
>> SA 300?
>>
>>>> That's why form SA 300 asks
>>>
>>> SA 300 is a self-assessment statement of account - i.e. how much a
>>> taxpayer is dues to pay HMRC when.
>>
>> No. A SA300 is a form on which a potential taxpayer declares his
>> financial circumstances. HMRC then calculate the tax due (if any) from
>> its contents. The taxpayer doesn't calculate his own tax despite the
>> name of the scheme).
>
>So you reckon the form I downloaded last week is mislabelled and that
>HMRC's manual is wrong.
>
>SAM130001 - Statements: statement content and layout: introduction
>...
>"From April 2004 statements are printed on just one type of stationery
>(SA300). The first page will only include a payslip where there is an
>amount shown as due at the statement date and / or an amount is shown as
>shortly becoming due for payment. Up to a maximum of 3 continuation
>pages can be printed in addition to the first page.
>
><https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/self-assessment-manual/sam130001>
>
>>> You are close to the kill file.
>
>I don't know if you just make this stuff up or that you misremember and
>can't accept that you need to check your facts. Either way the
>signal/noise ratio is awful. Filter now in place.

+1

brightside S9

On 24/07/2021 00:47, JNugent wrote:
> And if they "know" my savings income, why do they ask about it on form
> SA 300?

Because you sign the SA300, and that signature proves to a court that
you are aware of the details in the form, and allows the HMRC to
prosecute you for false information and takes away your possible defence
that you were unaware that it was false.

Jim

On 24/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 09:42 pm, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:24:53 +0100, JNugent<jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>>> receive .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not true. If it were then:
>>>>
>>>> a. there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>>> b. there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>>>> but not getting it.
>>>
>>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>>
>>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>>
>>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>>
>>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>
>> I find the above statements rather strange. HMRC know exactly what my
>> state pensions from various state schemes are in total. The amount is
>> known in advance of the oncoming tax year (I guess from DWP, but from
>> who-so-ever it is accurate to the £).This amount is then deducted from
>> my personal tax allowance(s). The result is this calculation is then
>> used to generate my tax code for the year ahead. I get this "tax code
>> notice" around January every year, ever since I have been eligible for
>> state pension(s).
>>
>>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>>> public sector one).
>>>
>>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>
> The various governments don't have this knowledge from their own
> resources. They have to be advised of it.

What does that prove?
You probably don't know exactly what is in your bank account until the
bank informs you.

Jim

On 23/07/2021 22:37, Robin wrote:
> HMRC have had returns of savings income from banks, building societies
> etc etc for many years.

It is linking all these together that must be difficult, many of the
savings accounts will be small amounts. Do they check that they have
notification for the same amount from the taxpayer and bank? Must be
complicated if there is a delay between the two notifications or one is
for the year and they other monthly or quarterly.

Bad enough when you do it as you fill in the tax return but a lot more
difficult when millions of them, many with errors in account numbers.

On 24/07/2021 07:53, Robin wrote:
> SAM130001 - Statements: statement content and layout: introduction
> ...

Will this ensure that the Certificate of Interest from the savings
organisation will use the same wording and layour as the HMRC form?

It is very confusing for someone who only looks at these things once a
year. I did suggest many years ago that they ensure they are the same
but were not last time I filled in my tax return.

On 24/07/2021 09:17, MB wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 07:53, Robin wrote:
>> SAM130001 - Statements: statement content and layout: introduction
>> ...
>
> Will this ensure that the Certificate of Interest from the savings
> organisation will use the same wording and layour as the HMRC form?
>
> It is very confusing for someone who only looks at these things once a
> year.  I did suggest many years ago that they ensure they are the same
> but were not last time I filled in my tax return.
>

The SA300 is nothing to do with what income you have. It is about the
tax you owe, payments you've made, interest charged and so on. A bit
like a credit card statement (but not as clear!)

The SA return asks for "Untaxed UK interest – amounts which have not had
tax taken off - read the notes". The notes add "If you have an account
that pays you gross interest (for example, a bank or building society
account), put the gross amount in box 2." That seems to me to match the
statements and certificates I get which refer to "gross interest". But
you may have in mind a different return.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 24/07/2021 01:15, JNugent wrote:
>
> You really work hard at being such a nasty piece of work, don't you?

You are bringing it entirely upon yourself. As I've often stated openly
here, I am quite consciously applying aversion therapy - every time
you make yet another false claim here, you'll get hauled over the coals
for it, and the more you persist in any lie, the more abuse will be
heaped upon you, so if you want it to stop, it's in your hands, by learning:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so very often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/07/2021 10:11, Robin wrote:
> The SA return asks for "Untaxed UK interest – amounts which have not had
> tax taken off - read the notes". The notes add "If you have an account
> that pays you gross interest (for example, a bank or building society
> account), put the gross amount in box 2." That seems to me to match the
> statements and certificates I get which refer to "gross interest". But
> you may have in mind a different return.

The point that I was making is that normal people only look at these
things once a year. I know I have to think hard about what "gross
interest" and "net interest" is.

I can look up but they they could easily rewrite in plain English but it
is the usual problem when people are using technical terms every day,
they presume everyone else is familiar with them.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:41:01 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 24/07/2021 01:15, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You really work hard at being such a nasty piece of work, don't you?
>
>You are bringing it entirely upon yourself. As I've often stated openly
>here, I am quite consciously applying aversion therapy - every time
>you make yet another false claim here, you'll get hauled over the coals
>for it, and the more you persist in any lie, the more abuse will be
>heaped upon you, so if you want it to stop, it's in your hands, by learning:
> + To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
> + To fact-check claims before making them;
> + To apologise when, as so very often, you are wrong.

You do really think cut and pasting the same laughable shit each time as
an answer somehow gives it more gravitas? Think again.