Simon Sweetman on simplification

Simon Sweetman takes a comprehensive look at the tax simplification beat and finds that reform will inevitably be slow and bitty.
I am currently a member of the Small Business Advisory panel for the Office of Tax Simplification, but sometimes I seem to have been on the tax simplification beat for ever: certainly since long before the days of HMRC. But I don’t think tax has got much simpler over that time. Certainly the books have got longer and longer.
Winston Churchill, chancellor from 1924 to 1929, said the tax system then was “so complicated and elaborate that very few taxpayers can understand it”. He was referring to the then unmerged income tax and supertax, but also to a system that was a model of simplicity compared with the modern tax code. It just goes to show that people will see complexity in the tax code whatever it says.
The demand for simplification has grown in recent years, probably driven by the profession rather than the ordinary taxpayer. There was a time when demands for simplification seemed to be resisted by the Revenue, sometimes on the grounds that it would reduce fairness and sometimes I suspect on the grounds that somebody somewhere would see a scam they could work if a particular piece of legislation were to be withdrawn. And a time, too, when small business was regarded with the greatest suspicion: a suspicion which may have been nurtured as much by large business and its accountants as by the Revenue. The mantra was ‘large business avoids, small business evades’.
In these difficult days it must be said the clamour from the taxpayers for simplification (as distinct from tax breaks) is underwhelming: even before this there seemed to be many other issues higher up the agenda for small business, more worried by employment law and health and safety legislation.
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
Please chip away at IR35's SI 2000/727 section 7(1) Step One
One thing - in my opinion - about "Simplification", is that it has to make explicit economic sense - and unfortunately that did not seem to me to figure explicitly in Michael Jack's introduction to the OTS report on IR35. FYI: When I challenged and John Whiting on this aspect, he wrote back indicating that making economic sense was implicit in simplification of wording, such as only having an amount or a percentage - I beg to differ.
IR35 has long been recognised as a "fiscal horror" that restrains - due to legal uncertainties - some workers from working, and hence reduces UK productivity and UK GDP growth.
In addition, according to statements made in Parliament, the actual tax revenues raised by IR35 appear to me to be negligible, especially when compared with the massive scale of the "cuts". Simon states that "the government did not accept the [IR35] suggestions put forward by OTS because of a fear of a loss of tax which might spiral out of control" and it is for this reason that I've since been suggesting making a minor change to the IR35 "secondary legislation", that does not take up Parliament's time unduly, to make a sensible recognition of operating costs. A virtue of secondary legislation is that it is relatively easy to change subsequently, and hence can mange the Government's asserted risk "of a loss of tax which might spiral out of control".
Here's my easy IR35 "secondary legislation" suggestion: SI 2000/727 section 7(1) Step One currently reads: QUOTE 7 Worker's attributable earnings—calculation (1) For the purposes of regulation 6(3)(a) the amount of the worker's attributable earnings for a tax year is calculated as follows: Step One Find the total amount of all payments and benefits received by the intermediary in that year under the arrangements, and reduce that amount by 5 per cent ENDQUOTE and its currently bad economic effects could be "simplified" by replacing the words of "by 5 per cent" with "by a monetary amount that is the greater of either (a) the VAT registration threshold for a worker who did not work for a period of at least 3 (three) calendar months after the date his or her previous actual contract for service if any ended or (b) 5 (five) per cent for all other workers".
May I also strongly support the general theme of ringl, that "Simple changes can benefit real taxpayers greatly"?
Dame Lesley Strathie - I believe - referred to taxpayers being "HMRC's customers" at a Parliamentary Select Committee. HMRC should be given every encouragement to resist apparently being cynical about "customer aggressive e-forms" and the like, and should therefore be given every encouragement to adopt "customer friendly" simplifications. To this end the "insistence that any changes must be revenue neutral, which is understandable but possibly unachievable" should, I believe, be set within a bandwidth that HMRC & Ministers should be persuaded to accept, for the benefit of "customer service" of "HMRC's customers".


Simple changes can benefit real tax payers greatly 2 thanks
Part of the problem is that once I have understood how the current tax rules affect me, any “simplification” means I have to understand the rules again. So for most people “simplification” makes there live more complex at least in the short term.
However one good example of “simplification” that just benefited me, I did not have to complete the “foreign income pages” on my tax return as my foreign defendants were below £300, a few years ago I had to complete this page for a foreign income of less than £10;
As I am clearly a basic rate tax payer, there should be a way I can just state that the total of already tax interest payments are less than the amount that would take me into higher rate. Something like if tax payer would need more than £1000 more income to go into higher rate, having tick boxes to confirm that interest and defendants were both below £500.
Likewise, way am I even asked about the amount of gift aid, rather than just being asked to confirm it is below my taxable income? (Gift aid does not change the tax a basic rate tax payer pays)
The process of completing my tax return could have been make easy if the employment pages were prefilled with the data that HMRC already had from the P60 and P45, this is not a simplification of the tax system, but would benefit me at least as much as any likely simplification. (HMRC would also have an easier data matching task, as there would be a lot less misspellings of employer’s names.)
It took me as long to work out the “additional information” box could not cope with the quotation marks I got when I copy/pasted the text from word, than it did to work out the numbers for most of the sections of the tax return. Just making the “additional information” box accepts normal text including “returns” would save tax payers time without needing any changes to the tax laws.
As I have rental income from some properties, as well as being the director of a closed Ltd, there is no practical way for the HMRC to avoid asking me to complete a tax return. However a more “clever” tax return that used the information I had entered so far to present me with less detailed questions could go a long way to making the process quicker.
I also just did the accounts and corporation tax return for an ltd that only had a few pence of interest income each month and one payment to companies’ house for its return, but is not legally dormant due to the few pence of interest each month. The combined HMRC and companies’ house on-line submission system worked, but I had to fill in lots of fields that are trolley meaningless like “accounting policy”, likewise when HMRC looks at the return, it will take someone a short time to work out what is really going on. I assume that a lot of companies are like mine, so way is there not a 3rd option on the system for when all the income is interest and the only expenditure is basic admin? (Once again no changes to the law would be needed)