11. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.
12. We have discussed the delays with Mrs Q to understand why she did not approach an MP sooner. We have also considered the time HMRC and the AO have taken to respond to her.
13. Mrs Q says she learned something had gone wrong in January 2025 when she read the settlement agreement between Dr U and the organisation. She says this settlement agreement set out the terms of the payments between the organisation and Dr U. She says it was at this point she knew something had gone wrong and brought her complaint to us.
14. However, Mrs Q says she wrote to HMRC in 2017 and provided a copy of the payments the organisation had been making to her. She says this information showed she was not a corporation, but the payments were having Corporation Tax deducted. She says she informed HMRC at this point that she believed the tax deductions were wrong.
15. For this reason, we consider Mrs Q knew she had cause to complain about HMRC in 2017, and not 2025 as she claims. Although we cannot be certain of the specific date in 2017, it makes no difference to our decision here.
16. Mrs Q told her MP about the problems in April 2025 when she asked them to refer the complaint to us. In line with our legislation, Mrs Q’s complaint is approximately seven years outside of our time limit. We have therefore considered her reasons for the delay.
17. Mrs Q explained between 2017 and 2019, she was trying to resolve the problem with the organisation directly. She says it refused to answer her queries because she was not the administrator of Dr U’s estate. The administrator of the estate was another of Mrs Q’s siblings.
18. Mrs Q says she had difficulty getting the information she needed from the organisation. She says this information was necessary to challenge its decision to take Corporation Tax from the royalty payments. To get this information Mrs Q submitted freedom of information (FOI) requests to the organisation.
19. We recognise it was time-consuming for Mrs Q to request information through the FOI process. However, it would have been possible for the administrator of the estate to make enquiries on her behalf. Mrs Q explains she has a good relationship with that sibling and they had contacted the organisation on her behalf in the past.
20. Mrs Q has also provided examples of the information she was asking for through the FOI process. This included asking the organisation to provide employee records, annual reports and accounts, as well as questions about its use of ‘intimidation’. These do not appear relevant to the deduction of Corporation Tax.
21. We are not persuaded Mrs Q’s communication with the organisation is a reasonable explanation for the delays. This is because she could have conveniently discussed the issue with the organisation via her sibling. In doing so, it would have reduced the time taken to get the information she felt she needed.
22. Further, she seemingly requested information that was not relevant to the issue of Corporation Tax, and we cannot see how this would have affected her escalating her complaint to HMRC or taking it to her MP.
23. In any event, Mrs Q made the FOI requests after she believed HMRC had got something wrong. Therefore, we consider this had no material impact on the time it took Mrs Q to approach her MP once she had cause to complain.
24. Mrs Q also explained that between 2017 and 2024 she tried to resolve the Corporation Tax deductions with HMRC directly. She says HMRC did not answer the phone or reply to the letters she sent.
25. HMRC answered her complaint at the first tier of its complaints process on 18 January 2024. Mrs Q remained unhappy so progressed her complaint to the second tier of HMRC’s complaints process. HMRC sent her its second-tier response on 27 June.
26. Mrs Q remained unhappy so took her complaint to the AO. The AO sent her its response on 15 January 2025. Its letter directed Mrs Q to us if she remained unhappy. Mrs Q approached her MP when we told her this was necessary for us to consider her complaint.
27. Mrs Q says she first raised the issue with HMRC in 2017, and several other times before it provided its response in 2024. She says HMRC did not respond to some of her phone calls and letters. She says this is one reason it has taken her so long to progress her complaint to her MP.
28. In attempting to resolve her complaint, we would expect Mrs Q to actively pursue the issues. This might include resubmitting her complaint, chasing HMRC for a response, or asking her MP to get involved on her behalf.
29. We have asked Mrs Q about how she brought her complaint to HMRC and what she did to guarantee a response. We remain unclear on what she did to advance it and there is no indication she actively pursued it until HMRC handled the problem as a complaint in 2024.
30. We have set aside the period from when HMRC responded to her complaint in January 2024 to when Mrs Q took the issue to her MP. This is because she was actively engaged in the complaints process. Progressing her complaint during this time was largely outside of her control whilst HMRC and the AO considered the issues she had raised.
31. This still leaves a six-year delay without a reasonable explanation.
32. By the time HMRC had responded to Mrs Q’s complaint she was significantly outside of our time limit. Whilst HMRC did contribute to some of the delays whilst it considered her complaint, we cannot hold it responsible for the remainder of the delays. With this in mind, we are unable to set aside our time limit and have not considered Mrs Q’s complaint further.
33. We recognise the concerns Mrs Q has about HMRC’s advice. We understand she feels this has resulted in some financial loss to her, and acknowledge our decision may add to her frustration.