
‘Why should I endure HMRC's pitiful interest and a six-month wait for my tax refund?'
Email your tax questions to Mike at taxhacks@telegraph.co.uk.
Dear Mike,
The Spring Statement included measures to crack down on tax evasion and fraud, thought to net the Treasury £1bn over next four years. However, there is another side to the story, because HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is sitting on overpaid tax.
I invest in the SEIS (Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme) and get tax relief, but it is always a job getting HMRC to pay the reliefs due.
I have a long list of the unsuccessful attempts made to recover the tax, both in writing and by phone. If someone answers they might be working from home and cannot deal with self-assessment, or need to speak to a technical officer, often unavailable. Promised callbacks do not materialise.
At the moment I am owed thousands. I rang yesterday to be told that they aim to process my letter of mid-January by July 20, a delay of six months.
I asked to speak to a technical officer, but the response was that the matter required a higher rank to deal with it. This is after being asked to resubmit paper copies of a dozen EIS certificates, despite the spreadsheet entry in my tax return of last autumn.
I believe that I am not alone in this. It is possible that HMRC is sitting on funds of around £1bn on which it pays a rate of interest which is pitiful?
David
Dear David,
You are due these tax repayments because you invest in young growing companies through EIS and SEIS. These tax incentives have been made available by successive governments precisely because, although sometimes risky, they are usually in the high growth businesses of the future on which our economic growth depends.
Rachel Reeves understandably wants growth to help fund public services, but the administrative delays by HMRC that you mention inevitably serve to blunt the incentive to invest.
Although your repayment arises from qualifying EIS investments, it is a wider issue as highlighted in a recent article by Madeleine Ross, which noted that HMRC has stopped processing tax repayments requested by telephone. The problem, as you have discovered, is that claims by post are not being dealt with efficiently either.
The issue you rightly raise is that the scales are weighted heavily in favour of HMRC and against taxpayers.
In the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that as of April 6 2025, interest on unpaid tax will be charged at 8.5pc. The Government says that this is part of the package to bring down the balance of unpaid tax and is fair to other taxpayers who pay on time.
This compares with the interest rate paid to taxpayers on repayments due of 3.5pc. I entirely agree with you that it seems unfair to make taxpayers such as yourself wait for six months or more to recover your money while only receiving this return on their money.
On top of this, HMRC will be restarting the direct collection of tax from customers' bank accounts. This process was originally introduced by the previous government in November 2015 but discarded five years later.
I have many concerns about this process, not least the absolute necessity of ensuring that the tax is due. As the Treasury Select Committee said at the time: 'This policy is highly dependent on HMRC's ability to determine accurately which taxpayers owe money and what amounts they owe, an ability not always demonstrated in the past.'
I wrote recently about a case where an entirely innocent lady, Gabrielle O'Donovan, was brought to the brink of bankruptcy when HMRC incompetence meant she was confused with an entirely different person.
As you imply, you are not alone in experiencing this problem.
Other readers tell us that they have also suffered long delays at the hands of HMRC. One said: 'I submitted my tax return in September and the HMRC website by early October showed that [it] owed me my tax refund, but they didn't pay it to me. I wrote but they didn't answer. I wrote again, which went unanswered. In March I phoned, and having waited 45 minutes I eventually got through and the payment was authorised, but with no explanation for the hold up.'
Another reader said: 'I submitted my return in mid-July showing a reclaim. I chased the repayment and, after an hour on the phone, eventually got through to someone who said the repayment needed a 'security review', but couldn't say what tasks were involved. I infer that 'security review' is probably just a new excuse they have invented to justify delays and likely doesn't relate to security at all. The repayment arrived in mid-October.'
HMRC says that such reviews are to protect against fraud. It is clearly right for HMRC to guard against fraudulent claims, but I am not sure why this should take so long to process. Claims for tax relief are made on EIS 3 certificates only issued by the company, but only after following the HMRC clearance procedure. In addition, by far the majority of EIS investments are made through wealth managers who will have carried out their own review.
The issue of slow tax repayments is much wider than just those seeking repayments on EIS investments. Esther Shaw recently wrote a summary of the most common reasons for tax overpayments, together with some useful tips for speeding up the process.
The Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT) has been working with HMRC in an attempt to improve the position. It suggests avoiding human intervention where possible by filing returns online. According to HMRC, tax repayments should then be processed within 10 days. Claims made using R40 paper forms inevitably take longer.
The ATT also advises against submitting voluntary returns, and suggests requesting a notice to file from HMRC. It is also important to complete the bank details on page TR6 of the return to avoid banking delays.
The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG) carries out an important support function for unrepresented taxpayers. Its guidance notes that a four-year deadline exists for claiming back overpaid tax. However, if you miss the deadline, you may still be able to obtain a repayment through Extra Statutory Concession B41 if there has been an error by a government department, as explained in the HMRC manuals at SACM10040.
Mike Warburton was previously a tax director with accountants Grant Thornton and is now retired. His columns should not be taken as advice, or as a personal recommendation, but as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Wales Online
35 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Martin Lewis lists five things DWP will check after £300 payment rule change
Martin Lewis lists five things DWP will check after £300 payment rule change The finance expert has set out what exactly the DWP will be counting as income for the winter fuel payment Martin Lewis has listed out the five things that constitute as "income" for the Winter Fuel Payment (Image: PA ) Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced that millions of people across England and Wales will be receiving the winter fuel payment this year in a major U-turn. The Labour-led UK government had taken the unpopular decision to stop the universal winter fuel payment, instead making it means tested for pensioners. This decision drew widespread criticism, as it reduced the number of pensioners receiving the benefit from 11.4 million people to nearly 1.5 million. Though the payment remains means tested, Reeves has said her government is 'expanding' the payments, 'to benefit nine million pensioners this winter". This means that those on state pension who have an income of £35,000 or below will be receiving the payment worth up to £300 going into winter this year. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The chancellor has defended her government's decision to keep the payment means tested (Image: PA ) What constitutes 'income'? Martin Lewis took to X, to explain five things that would constitute an income under the scheme. These would likely be: Article continues below The State Pension Income from Earnings Private Pension Income Investment income (eg dividends) Savings interest Though he hasn't '100%' confirmed this, the financial guru added that non-taxable payments like the Attendance Allowance would likely not be included. Content cannot be displayed without consent Will you need to do anything to receive the benefit? If you're eligible, you'll automatically receive the payment this winter without needing to take any action. If your income exceeds the threshold, HMRC will automatically recover the money. This winter, households will automatically receive a payment of £200, or £300 if there is someone over 80 in the household. Over 12 million pensioners across the UK will also benefit from the Triple Lock, with their State Pension set to increase by up to £1,900 during this parliament. Pensioners earning above the £35,000 threshold - approximately two million people in England and Wales - will have the full amount of the winter fuel payment they received automatically collected via PAYE or through their self-assessment return. There's no need for anyone to register with HMRC or take any further action. Pensioners who wish to opt out and not receive the payment at all will be able to do so, with details to be confirmed. Content cannot be displayed without consent The chancellor has defended the government's decision to means test the payment, saying this would make the payment 'targetted and fair'. Reeves has said: 'Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. 'It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest.' Article continues below Speaking on the u-turn, she said: 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.'


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Eye-watering sum scandal-hit Gino D'Acampo's restaurant empire owed when it plunged into administration revealed
GINO D'Acampo's restaurant empire owed £7million when it plunged into administration, The Sun can reveal. The scandal-hit TV chef's chain of eateries was saved from the brink of closure last month in a £5million buyout. Controlling company Upmarket Leisure owed £5.3million to HMRC and almost £2million to creditors. Among them were food suppliers owed almost £500,000, a wine dealer due £302,000 and a pasta company expecting £4,809. A statement of affairs shows Upmarket only has £117,000 in cash at the bank and £320,000 in other assets to try to cover its debts. It lists D'Acampo, 48, as a ten per cent shareholder of the business, which ran five venues across London, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester. HMRC had issued a petition to wind up Upmarket at the High Court and administrators were appointed after a previous sale fell through. Staff were warned about a delay in wages being paid. But the jobs of all 400 employees were saved when the company was bought out in May. Last year, the Italian was unable to pay staff and the taxman after his My Pasta Bar chain wound up with around £5million losses. It comes after D'Acampo was accused of years of sexually inappropriate behaviour, which he denies. ITV has vowed to stop using him. Gino D'Acampo makes string of smutty remarks during radio interview as he returns to public eye following ITV axe 1

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'