HMRC attitude to Agents in the future

HMRC attitude to Agents in the future

Didn't find your answer?

I attended a conference run by the AAT on Saturday. The afternoon session was run by Brian Redford of HMRC and was apparently a "consultation" exercise to see what our views were on HMRC's Agent Strategy Consultation. I think HMRC has already made up its mind.

I can't be the only person to see clearly that in 5 years time, the accountancy profession will be doing a lot more input to HMRC systems via the internet, and the only people they will both allow and require to do this will be members of a recognised accountancy body, with the accountancy body doing a lot more supervision of its members. We will of course have to pay higher fees and that will mean quite simple taxation work will cost the client much more. This will save HMRC a small fortune.

The part-qualified practitioner - however good at their job - is going to have to get qualified if they want to stay in a job. I can also see that some agents will be "drummed out" of their association if they make too many mistakes with HMRC.

What do you think?

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ShirleyM
06th Sep 2011 09:17

I partly agree

I agree that HMRC already know what they want, and the current consultation is merely lip-service.

It is a natural progression for governments to transfers costs to individuals, ie. we all act as tax-collectors (VAT & PAYE), we now submit more information online (taking on the costs of getting the information into their system).

The big stumbling block is the competency and honesty of the people doing HMRC's tasks, but outside of HMRC. THAT is the purpose of this strategy and the reason that non-HMRC participants will be examined, monitored and eventually excluded.

I would be interested in hearing how this long term strategy will affect tax payers that do not have access to a HMRC approved agent, or tax payers that may compromise the agents ability to get, and keep, HMRC approval.

Thanks (1)
By Steve Holloway
06th Sep 2011 09:28

Is this a bad thing?

Do we not generally believe that agents should be regulated, monitored, insured etc? Clearly this is not going to become a chartered v non chartered debate as there simply wouldn't be enough practitioners to do the work if they only chose ACA & ACCA. So, on the basis that the chosen monitoring bodies fulfil the monitoring brief I don't see why this is a bad thing. Might actually improve standards in the industry.

Thanks (2)
By ShirleyM
06th Sep 2011 09:41

@Steve

I agree, in theory it could be a good move.

The problem is that currently everything is too one-sided, ie. tax payers are automatically penalised for errors or late submission, whereas HMRC delays and errors can cause great distress and large costs, but getting compensation can be a long and tortuous process, if it can be achieved at all.

I won't go into great detail, but take the case of CIS tax refunds for limited companies taking years to be repaid. If standards are to be set then they should be applied to both sides, and automatic penalties should be made agains HMRC in the taxpayers favour where tax payers suffer delays and problems that are outside of their control.

Will there be a method of 'excluding' HMRC (or should I say HMRC staff) for incompetency, or dishonesty, as is being sought for agents?

Thanks (1)
By Steve Holloway
06th Sep 2011 11:40

My impression Shirley ...

is that this initiative is more about fixing the problems with HMRC rather than fixing problems with agents. So, if you invest time making sure that agents are monitored and accountable then you can give them more freedom to 'play' with the system directly. This in turn means that the whole system becomes less dependent on someone who is barely trained at HMRC pressing the right button.

As a born pragmatist I have always followed the doctrine that if you can't solve a problem you bybass it .... this looks like my kind of thinking!

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
06th Sep 2011 12:53

I'm trying to keep an open mind Steve

But I am not yet convinced that the benefit to agents will compensate for the additional risks and responsibilities. There is too much speculation at the moment and not enough certainties.

I really don't want self-serve. I am happy to submit data in electronic format (if it were optional in the first place), and I am happy to use HMRC online systems to submit data, but I am very wary of being allowed to change HMRC data.

An improvement to the current problems would be gained by simply improving the communication problems. It causes much lost time and duplication of work (on both sides of the fence). Additionally, I believe both sides would benefit simply by making more information available online. There are very few security, or personal, risks with view-only data.

I may be more amenable once I know what safeguards there will be, and how genuine mistakes will be treated, because so far (or so it seems), HMRC are the only ones allowed to make mistakes without penalty.

Thanks (1)
Replying to s.wardrop:
By Moonbeam
06th Sep 2011 12:44

I agree with Shirley

I feel profoundly suspicious of some anonymous government official theoretically being responsible for whether I continue my livelihood. We have all heard of the "incentive schemes" used to pay HMRC people when they "find" more tax. We have also experienced for ourselves the utterly incompetent HMRC employees along with the absolutely brilliant ones.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By justsotax
07th Sep 2011 10:01

Wait until they find an error in your work....

I have no doubt given the extra responsibility you have as a 'regulated' agent they will then look at throwing the book at you and getting the respective accountancy body to kick you out.  And for what, no extra pay that is for sure, indeed as touched upon above our annual fees will no doubt increase signifcantly as a result.

 

I too consider myself pragmatic - but in this case I believe that this option isn't the best solution, or the best compromise, it is merely the best money saving for the Revenue, so they can concentrate their efforts on spurious investigations to prosecute Bob the joiner for overdeclaring his travel by £40 or something as stupid.....if only the Revenue could take a pragmatic view.........

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
07th Sep 2011 10:17

Another concern of mine

Is that HMRC will not be completing checks on work submitted by approved agents (I believe so anyway).

This strategy seems very risky to me. Mistakes will always be made, and some will be identified currently. How will they be identified if no checks are made at all? Will this be utilised by 'rogue' accountants? And if so, how will 'rogue' accountants be identified if no checks are being made?

Thanks (1)