Finance Bill 2012: Tax agent strategy
Rebecca Benneyworth assesses HMRC's summary of responses to the Agent strategy consultation, and finds some evidence that the tax department is actually listening to the profession.
The responses and “Next steps” document produced by HMRC this week presents a picture of engagement at all levels of the profession. This is just what HMRC wanted, and it is clear that although smaller firms worried about the impact of potential regulation of the tax agent community larger firms also had concerns about the practicalities of the proposals.
HMRC has analysed the responses and highlighted next steps under the three broad headings of the consultation. Here is a summary of the issues.
Enrolment
The responses are summarised as “broad support” for the proposals for agents to register with HMRC. Most of the detail highlighted in the response document outlines the concerns of multi-office and larger firms. The views of some AccountingWEB members that enrolment represented the “thin end of the wedge” with regard to agent regulation were not dealt with in detail, but may have been reflected in the detail on the Agent View.
Self serve
Where responses were positive, they welcomed self serve and considered the offering as appropriate, but quite a number of respondents did not consider that self serve was sufficiently attractive to compensate for the proposals under the Agent view, which were likened to regulation of the profession. There was most support for the ability to self-authorise, but many respondents were concerned that the ability to change data on HMRC’s computer system would introduce additional risks and would not be widely used by them.
Agent view
The proposals for the agent view – regarded by many, including AccountingWEB members, as a worrying development - were less well received and almost all respondents were concerned that the proposals presented risks to the independence of the profession. There was wide support for independent input into any sanctions proposed by HMRC, and a view expressed by members was sufficiently supported to gain mention in the executive summary – that HMRC should improve its own service standards before seeking to regulate tax agents.
Summary
Members of AccountingWEB have already started to express their views on the response document. Was it worth being involved? I think the message to HMRC that we are concerned about the agent view got through – the tax authority sees it as an essential component of the new model, but is prepared to work slowly on an appropriate method, agreeing with agent representatives as we go along.
Continued...
The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.
Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.
Or if you are already registered, login here
Cold Comfort
Very pleased to see "HMRC are to proceed more slowly" - probably much like the BRC roll out
- and with a new CEO/President well-practised at running a Banana Republic things can only get better !
it all seems a bit odd to me 1 thanks
granted I am speaking as a "qualified" which means I have an Institute ready and able to police what I do. As such it seems to me the ICAEW should register as an agent and it receives any HMRC complaints and it deals with them. Not the HMRC. Otherwise I see the HMRC taking whatever is agreed and stretching it across all manner of unexpected areas - and by the time they act it's far too late to stop them.
If the existing routes to sanction do not suit HMRC one has to wonder why they want to circumnavigate them - such as being able to take action without the agent being able to afford to defend himself. A typical government departmental approach, well tried and tested and with case law (which detail I forget) to ensure no individuals have to take responsibility for the consequences of the actions visited upon the hapless soul on the receiving end.
Thin end of the direct sanction wedge, bottomless pit of time and money versus: sole practitioner.
Us correcting their records seems like a good idea, but there being a price exacted for that access is nonsense. Heck, they blocked my CT filing because of a space missing from a postcode! What happens when they try to sanction me for failure to file on time? I can hear it now, I should have ensured my records were correct on their computers, even though they didn't update them because they were on different systems, though presented to me as one and the same.
We and our society need us to be independent of HMRC.
Suitable sanctions exist already, with safeguards if they are not happy - starting with a complaint to ICAEW.
I grant that non qualified agents may need a body and that HMRC may be the only one available, but that is the same as with AML.
Argument about rogue or bad agents does not justify giving them powers over the rest of us where everyone will be assumed "rogue". I've seen too much of this in the last 30 years. The political presentation sounds highly desirable and Heaven help us when we see the implementation.
That's my view today.
Rebecca,
With the dishonesty program and the agent view aren't HMRC looking to regulate, judge and sentence all in one go. When you look at all their proposals as a package and not modular it's quite frightening what powers HMRC will end up with. Perhaps when I/R and Customs merged they should have given I/R the same powers as customs then we wouldn't have to go through all these fake papers to achieve the same effect.