 |
 | Welcome to the Morisons Solicitors newsletter. In this Issue
In Other News
Tax Year end. Avoid these Inheritance Tax rises. http://tinyurl.com/yj7qkuk Don't breach the Data Protection Act. £500,000 Fine if you do. Yikes! http://tinyurl.com/ylsz9ew What's the most absurd Law in the UK? Find out here: http://tinyurl.com/yk8pv33
| | |
The New "Fit Note" System - A Reminder for You 
Employers are reminded that the Government’s new ‘fit note’ regime is due to replace the current system, whereby doctors issue hand-written sick notes, from 6 April 2010. Under the new system, a doctor will provide a patient who is off work for more than seven days on account of a medical condition with a computer-generated medical statement providing, where appropriate, information on how their health condition might affect their ability to work and what workplace adaptations or adjustments could help facilitate a return to work. When issuing a medical statement, the doctor will be able to advise either that the patient is ‘not fit for work’ or that he or she ‘may be fit for work taking account of the following advice’. In the latter case, additional information must be provided by the doctor to support the statement. If the doctor considers that the patient may benefit from common workplace changes, appropriate adjustments can be suggested by ticking the relevant box. The suggestions are: • a phased return to work; However, the doctor can suggest other suitable changes that would benefit the worker. The doctor will have to indicate on the medical statement whether or not they need to assess their patient’s fitness for work again when the current statement expires. In the first six months of a health condition, the maximum period a medical statement can cover will be reduced from six months to three months. The employer will not be bound to implement suggestions put forward by a doctor for workplace changes. Changes will be at the discretion of the employer and should be made with the agreement of the employee. Where the doctor’s advice is not followed, the worker should be treated as though they are not fit for work. However, where the employee is disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments regardless of what a doctor recommends. Where changes are made in order to facilitate an employee’s return to work, the employer should carry out a revised risk assessment to ensure that any new potential health and safety risks to the returning employee and others in the workplace are minimised. Employers are advised to review their sickness absence policies to make sure they take account of the new arrangements. Guidance on the new fit note can be found on the DWP website.
When is an Agreement not an Agreement? 
When it's with the Tax man! Getting your tax right can sometimes be complex and it is often the case that when HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) investigate a taxpayer, they find that there are irregularities. When these result in an underpayment of tax, HMRC will normally levy interest and/or a penalty on the taxpayer. HMRC have discretion as to the amount of the penalty they can levy and where a taxpayer is fully cooperative and the underpayment is not regarded as an attempt to evade tax, a penalty may be waived altogether. In a recent case, a man who controlled a partnership which had under-declared profits some years earlier faced an additional tax charge (plus statutory interest) of £122,000. He intended to appeal against HMRC’s decision, but wrote to the tax inspector prior to the court hearing making the following proposal: he would pay the additional tax, interest on the underpaid tax at the statutory rate and HMRC’s legal costs and, in consideration for his so doing, HMRC would withdraw its amendments to the relevant tax returns. This would remove the tax-geared penalty. The offer was made in the form of a formal offer to pay under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The man’s tax inspector wrote back, indicating that his offer would be accepted ‘without prejudice to any penalty determination which may follow hereafter’ and the taxpayer considered that once he had paid the agreed sum, that would be the end of the matter. However, a 70 per cent penalty notice (£54,000) followed, which was towards the upper end of the scale of penalties which are normally levied. The taxpayer went to court to contest HMRC’s right to levy the penalty – and lost. The offer had not been sufficiently clear as regards the settlement of penalties and had not specifically dealt with them. Accordingly, HMRC were not bound to accept his offer as one which would remove their right to levy a tax-geared penalty. Ouch.
They are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters - who had the difficulty of keeping a straight face while these exchanges were actually taking place.
Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? Q: How old is your son, the one living with you? Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning?
 | |
|
| |
