Subject: BS: Inland Revenue From: Gedpipes Date: 06 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM Possibly the best letter ever to come out of the Inland Revenue.... Taken from the Guardian, an actual letter sent by the Inland Revenue: 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 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 pissant 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 facade 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 |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Amergin Date: 06 Oct 06 - 11:41 AM I doubt its authenticity. |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: bobad Date: 06 Oct 06 - 11:51 AM It appears to be a joke |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Kaleea Date: 06 Oct 06 - 12:30 PM #$%^(*& revenoors! Ah hates revenoors!! Fetch m' jug n' m' gun, please!!! |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Geordie-Peorgie Date: 07 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM Ye knaah what the Inland Revenue and a duck have in common??? They can both stick their bills up their arses!!! |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Liz the Squeak Date: 07 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM As an employee of said organisation (who have actually been known as Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs for about a year now), it's not real... but I wish it was! We do get some howlers sent to us though... we had one taxpayer recommend the canteen serve more carrots as the inspector had not seen the requested information which was indeed, attached to the accounts sent in. LTS |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:37 PM there a bunch of basterds. they bankrupted me a few months ago, basterds. |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM Well, obviously it's a humorous letter, and therefore would reasonably be classed a "a joke". The question is whether it was actually despatched and received. It'd be nice to think it had been - I suspect it might well have actually been drafted by someone in the Inland Revenue in response to a genuine letter, but probably not despatched. |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Liz the Squeak Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:51 AM I doubt it... none of my colleagues are capable of producing such an illustrative and entertaining epistle. These days we're lucky if they know there are 2 Ls in bollocks. LTS |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Gedpipes Date: 13 Oct 06 - 06:53 AM Liz! cynical |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Liz the Squeak Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:33 PM Not cynical.... realistic! LTS |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Georgiansilver Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM Just anothert taxing thread |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:39 PM Well, they might say the same of you, Liz, and they'd be wrong. |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Paul from Hull Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:42 PM Youre saying LtS is unrealistic, Mr McGrath? *G* |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 06 - 06:03 PM I was referring to "none of my colleagues are capable of producing such an illustrative and entertaining epistle". |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: GUEST,ibo Date: 14 Oct 06 - 08:26 PM INLAND REVENUE MY ARSE |
Subject: RE: BS: Inland Revenue From: Flash Company Date: 15 Oct 06 - 09:58 AM Liz, your assessment of the intelligence of your colleagues made me LOL, unfortunately it is true of a great number of people in industry too. My old boss, who had a very original mind was one of the early casualties when our organisation was taken over. No one is allowed a sense of humour now. FC |