Clause 34 - Time limit and right to further review
Finance Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)
Welcome back from the comfort break, as you would describe it, Sir Nicholas.
We are discussing import and export civil penalties. The clause sets down the time limit for requesting a review by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of decisions when it is contended that a breach of a Customs requirement has taken place. Cutting straight to the chase, rather than describing the provision in great detail, the problem as we see it, and the reason for the amendments, is that the time limit is based on the time at which ''relevant notice is given''. In the interests of clarity, particularly for small businesses, which are uppermost in my mind, it would be helpful to have the phrase ''relevant notice . . . given'' defined, so that all parties know whether it refers to the date when the notice is prepared, the date when it is issued, or the date when it is received by the taxpayer.
The solution to the problem, as contained in the amendments, is that the time limit for an appeal should run from the date that the notice is issued, which should be on the notice itself. The time limit for a reply should run to the date on which the taxpayer issues a reply. The Economic Secretary might say that the argument against that is that, although basing a time limit for appeal on the time that the notice is received by the taxpayer is helpful to the taxpayer, it is likely to cause additional debate and argument, and that would not aid the simplification that is sought. The provision is a prime example of where we should hesitate and consider the balance to be struck between the taxing authorities and the citizens of this country—the taxpayers. When provisions are finely balanced, we should always err on the side of the taxpayer, who
often will not have the same resources to be able to contend with the public authorities.
I do not want to water down anti-avoidance measures. I repeat that we are all on the side of anti-avoidance. However, simply because something is cloaked with the term ''anti-avoidance'' we cannot defer, or ignore, the normal rights and balances that should be uppermost in the minds of all hon. Members.
Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 would put into effect the recommended solution to this serious and important matter that I have outlined. The solution is wholly consistent with the normal approach that we would expect to apply in relations between the potentially over-mighty state and the citizen taxpayer of this country. With those comments, I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Minister.