Inland Revenue

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

This letter from the British Inland Revenue Department was reprinted
in The Guardian 27/9/03

Dear Mr Addison,

I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more than prompt
Reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points
you raise.

I will address them, as ever, in order.
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last communication
as a "begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a
"tax demand". This is how we, at the Inland Revenue have always, for
reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.

Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of
Crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to
the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the
other letters to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their being
from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and puissant
gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the
toilet in case of emergencies is at best a little ill-advised.

In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of
these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin or, come to that, a "sodding
charity". More likely they see you as a citizen of Great Britain,with a
responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole.

Which, brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of
truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay "go to shore up the
canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services", a
moment's rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that
the government in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned
party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's
disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in
fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on
"junkets for bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far more
than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that box-ticking
façade of a university system."

A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to
do with the vagaries of the postal system;

2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with
nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because even
if the Personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer medical
logistics involved would make it financially unviable.

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any
way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point
out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go
and live in India" you would still owe us the money.

Please forward it by Friday.

Yours Sincerely, H J Lee Customer Relations

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

That was a real letter sent out.Don't mess with the revenue then, that's the message

 

Class

 

:P :P :P What Si said Top-drawer stuff, there, Phil - I wonder what the guy's reaction to that reply (in National Press) was

 

You would spoil so many accountants lives if they could not mess with the Revenue