Why can't I speak about our joint tax on behalf of my husband?

Furthermore, you rang us in August to tell us you had all our paperwork and were processing our returns. Great, we thought, and also how odd to get a phone call – don't they just get on and do it? Then in October we had the exact same phone call. Great, again we thought, get on with it we might have a rebate in time for Christmas. We then had a statement saying we had £2,500 in credit. Then we had another call asking for mortgage statements, which we had already provided. My husband traipsed into Town to deliver them and I made sure he got a receipt. Then, in December, the call that really wound me up: is Mr X there? No, he is at work. Oh. Is there anyone else there that can deal with his income tax? Yes, me, his wife. Oh sorry, because of data protection we can't discuss this with you. I was shocked and explained that I pay the tax and I fill in the tax forms. 'Sorry' was the response. Mr X is the principal on your account so I can't discuss the matter any further. Then added, oh, I see you have an accountant – it's OK, I will give them a call.

I then pointed out we used to have an accountant three years ago and if you were happy to discuss our tax affairs with them then you really were in breach of data protection rules. The irony of that conversation to me was in them asking if there was anyone else they could discuss our income tax with – who was she expecting to come forward? I called my husband at work and he called them and all they wanted to tell him was that they had all they needed to process our tax returns.

The next day an authorisation form for me to discuss my own tax affairs arrived, which my husband and I were supposed to sign in order for me to talk about my own tax affairs with his permission – we shredded it, both utterly disgusted.

Days later, we had another notification telling us we had a credit of £9,500. We were semi-elated for five minutes but were pretty sure it was a mistake. Following that, days later was a harsh letter hinting that we had falsified our declaration to the tune of £411.

For goodness' sake, these stupid forms are a nightmare for most people – we are only going to rewrite what is on our pay slips, mortgage statements, bank statements etc. Their tone was harsh and upsetting. If we were sophisticated enough to be fiddling our taxes, it sure as hell wouldn't be to the tune of £411.

Brilliant. We have heard nothing since, so Income Tax, explain yourselves please. You have wasted so much of our valuable time this year, upset us, annoyed us and been totally incompetent. You accused us of wrongful declarations. Well, we accuse you of not knowing your A from your elbow and have no faith in you to get our assessment correct. Frankly, we are disgusted, but what can we do? You are a States department – untouchable.

It is so wrong that you can treat what you departments nowadays call 'end users' like this. We are good, honest Guernsey folk putting our faith and trust in people who at best treat us like idiots and at worst make us feel like we have no right to be dealing with our own affairs through jumped up, made up rules. Someone – who? – needs to step in and start sorting this department out.

That was written two months ago. I never got round to sending it. What has happened today has made me so livid I can't sit back and say nothing.

I work for a local building company. We have a guest worker, who had got all his ticks in the boxes but hasn't got official paperwork yet and wants to be included on this week's payroll. All that was missing was his tax coding, so I called Income Tax. I asked for his weekly coding and was met with a wall of silence. They told me that, due to data protection, they couldn't tell me, his employer, what his weekly code was – that is all I wanted to know. The operator said if you don't know it then you have to charge him 20% tax. Honestly, you won't really believe this. I said, OK, what is the code for 20% tax and the operator said, I can't tell you that as it is data protected – the individual himself would need to contact us. We called the worker off the building site and he called the tax office to request his weekly coding so I could pay him with the others but the tax office said they wouldn't give his tax coding until he arrived in person to request it. At this point, I think I kicked my office bin across the room. Really, Income Tax? My boss and other co-workers know our guest worker's DOB, name, address and where he lives, so any one of them can turn up and claim to be him, so what makes him so different that he has to be off site and costing a company time when you think he can turn up and chant out the same stuff? I put it to you that you have all lost the plot and need to stop wasting the public's time and get on with sorting our tax evaluations and tell us if you owe us or of we owe you, as that's about all we care about regarding your department – oh, that and getting it right.

And for the record, the guest worker's tax coding came to us, his employer, the next day in the post – so why the big secret that held up our payroll?

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Gavin St Pier, minister of the Treasury and Resources Department, responds: 'I am grateful to you for the opportunity to respond to your reader's letter in respect of the Income Tax office.

At the outset, I should make it clear that the Treasury and Resources Department is unable to respond publicly on the tax affairs or arrangements for an individual member of the public. It is difficult, in any event, to comment meaningfully when the identity of the person involved is not made known.

Under our current tax system, it is the husband who is responsible for completing the return for a married couple and so it is correct that it is the husband, or his authorised representative, who is asked for or given information, irrespective of which spouse the couple have agreed may complete the returns. If, in the course of explaining that position, any misunderstanding arose or confusing information was given, we do of course apologise.

The director of Income Tax appreciates that this is a sensitive issue and already has in place plans to include a section of the tax return, with effect from next year, which, if completed, will permit the Income Tax office to discuss matters relating to the return with either party to the marriage without the need for further authorisation. Conversely, if your reader or her husband wants to be responsible for their own tax affairs independently, then it is also possible to elect for separate assessment. In the event that you would be willing to forward the name of your correspondent to the director, he would be happy to investigate the issues raised in her letter and respond directly.

Your correspondent does raise issues around general service standards at the Income Tax Office upon which I should like to comment and offer your readers reassurance. The department has previously been open in acknowledging the issues around backlogs at the Income Tax Office, the consequent deterioration in customer service standards and the reasons for these. These include long-term sickness among experienced staff at the office and an unusually high turnover of qualified staff in recent times, resulting in the need to thoroughly train new tax officers, as well as increasing workloads.

In my statement to the States of Deliberation at their February meeting, I made it clear that the department's view was that a different approach was required if we are to reinstate appropriate levels of service at the Income Tax office and confirmed that the board had initiated and agreed an improvement programme with a view to implementing a number of initiatives already identified by the director to help alleviate the present situation and address both the symptoms and root causes of present difficulties. The core objectives of this programme will be to provide a fit for purpose, customer focused income tax service which delivers substantial and sustainable improvements in performance. The programme will examine ways of exploiting modern technology to drive efficiency and improve the taxpayer's experience as a customer of the service and it will look to optimise the obvious opportunities and synergies between Income Tax and Social Security collections.

As well as seeking to reduce backlogs and restore acceptable service standards, the programme will also include a full process review in order to identify opportunities for further improvements and efficiency. While some of these process changes may be able to be delivered quickly and, indeed, some are already under way, others may require changes to policies, legislation and systems that may take longer to deliver.

It will take time but, ultimately, the intention is to have an income tax service that is fit for purpose for the foreseeable future and I would like to reassure your correspondent and other readers of both my and my board's commitment to doing so.'