Meeting with Mike Clasper

he doesn't blow an unpresidented opportunity to start what could be a unique working arrangement between Agents and HMRC staff.

Look forward to feedback.

I'm tempted to ask if you could deliver a "gift" to him for me. Do you mind carrying a brown paper parcel that ticks :)

Seriously, I hope you drive home to him the damage done over the last 10-15 years to trust, and just how sick and tired agents are of the abysmal service levels and constant lame excuses by his staff at all levels.

How interesting that in the poll "I'd sooner trust Ryan Giggs with my sister" is currently the 2nd most popular answer, and not one person has voted that they actually trust HMRC.

I suspect that at HMRC some have been reading the blogs following issue of their condoc.  I also suspect some at the top end of HMRc have been shocked.

I too hope that this starts the way forward for something good for all of us, HMRC, Tax Agents and Tax payers.

"How interesting that in the poll "I'd sooner trust Ryan Giggs with my sister" is currently the 2nd most popular answer, and not one person has voted that they actually trust HMRC"

I voted that I trust HMRC - but not wholly.

Actually, quite a few people have indicated that they do have some trust in HMRC - seriously, did you really expect a single person to say that they totally trust HMRC? That response can effectively be disregarded as a valid option since it is obvious that no-one has 100% trust. [EDIT - well blow me down, we have a vote in the 100% column. Surely some mistake ;)  ]

Yes, the bottom answer may be second most popular - but tied with "more often than not". The results of the poll may be interesting to some (they're currently exactly as I would have predicted), but I've no doubt that - as is always the case - all sides will twist/interpret the results to suit their own cause.

[removed by mod - personal and unnecessary]

[removed by mod - response to above]

[removed by mod - continuation of above]

A report in Accountancy Age on 1 June said,

"The Chairman of HMRC has denied that plans to require tax advisers to register for a streamlined service was regulation through the backdoor.

Mike Clasper told Accountancy Age that the proposal, which will see enrolled advisors use a self-service system to input client tax data into HMRC systems, would not involve punishing advisers. Concerns have been aired that advisers who upset HMRC wil be removed from the system."

One question that should be asked at Rebecca's meeting is "If the strategy is not about regulation, why does the Revenue think that enrolment should be mandatory for all tax agents?"

Also "How do you justify the creation of dual standards of service; one (self serve) for the represented taxpayer and the other (the current abysmal one) for the rest of the population?"

Mike Clasper told Accountancy Age that the proposal, which will see enrolled advisors use a self-service system to input client tax data into HMRC systems, would not involve punishing advisers. Concerns have been aired that advisers who upset HMRC wil be removed from the system."

Posted by chicken farmer on Wed, 08/06/2011 - 10:10

Sorry but I see this rather differently.

It will mean a two tier system. Those on "tier1" will be able to push whatever they wish through the system with minimal fuss or bother.  Those on "tier 2" however, will be by definition "nd class citizens, and, it is very clear that merely being a "tier 2" agent will mean greater scrutiny and a higher liklihood of being targetted for investigations. In other words, over time, a large proportion of "tier 2" agents will be driven out of business.  This will adversley affect fledgling practices whilst favouring "the big boys".

"Profiling" - which is exactly what this is, has been ruled illegal by both the British & european courts when police forces targetted asian and arab people for "stop & search" to combat terrorism.  So called profiling is distatesful, based on a false premise, and by its nature discriminatory.

If this kind of profiling was acceptable then we would double the rate of NI for smokers, and charge women more than men for their pensions (as on average they draw them for longer). I can just see the outcry if women had to pay 2% more than men towards their pensions. So why is it acceptable to discriminate against the smaller practice ? 

Sorry, Rebecca, I do not agree. The real reason for enrolment has nothing to do with providing a better service for the agents, because, if the Revenue have their way, all agents will have to be enrolled but some of those will be denied that better level of service. The reason has to be to allow the Revenue to regulate the profession.

If enrolment was only for the purposes of delivering that better service, then it would be a voluntary option for an agent wanting to access that service. Additionally the requirements for enrolment would be limited to security/software issues and not include confirmation that the agent has met his “relevant tax obligations to file returns and meet liabilities”.

Ignoring the service provided to the unrepresented taxpayer (and the clients of those agents denied self serve) is a case of “I’m alright Jack”. I do not see anything in the condoc which suggests the resources freed up by self serve will be redirected to improving the service for these lesser mortals who cannot afford/do not choose to engage an agent or have appointed the 'wrong' agent. The reason for self serve, apart from acting as a smokescreen for state regulation, is to cut costs for the Revenue.

Of course, a true self assessment system would allow taxpayers to self assess their PAYE codes themselves without any in-year involvement by the Revenue, so there would be no need for self serve, That however is another debate.

I cannnot see what relevance the status of the agents tax obligations should have to their ability to act for clients.  In addition many agents are partnerships - will the Revenue look solely at the partnership return, or at the returns of every single partner?  That could cause chaos particularly for larger firms.  Also if you and the revenue are in dispute regarding the firm's return could they not threaten to treat this as a failure to comply?

As Ex-Revenue (until 1996) I cannot believe the attitude or even level of knowledge  of the HMRC staff I presently deal with on the telephone.  I know of no-one in my local office who were so poorly equipped to deal with the public, much less agents, as we have now.  Agents dealt with promptly by an officer with some level of knowledge and expertise can cut the HMRC day to day running of low level tasks in half.  I have even, in the past,  spoken to someone who admitted that they were working from home and only had limited access on their computer and therefore could not answer my simply PAYE query. If there is to be regulation can we please, please have an Agents' dedicated line, answered quickly by informed staff who tell us the truth at all times.  I no longer waste my time telephoning HMRC, I write a letter which, eventually, gets answered - if I am lucky.  This is a waste of public money as it doesn't cost me a lot to bang out a letter  or its remiinder and is far less stressful for me  but the HMRC side of answering my letter costs a fortune. 

I agree with regulation/registration; I have taken over some pretty horrendous cases in the past  from both Q and NQ individuals who should not be acting so I hope that some teeth will be involved for those few.

TheAncientOne

See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/contacting-effective.htm

... but i think highly relevent.

Why are we all spending time, effort and resource tinkering round the edges of a corrupt tax system that is bust, unfit for purpose and based around 19th century ideas and methods.

What we should really be telling Mike Clasper is to leave the status quo, apart from HMRC starting to act in a professional and efficent manner in terms of attitude and service.

All this time, effort and resource should be spent devising a simple and fair tax system that is built around 21st Century technology and working practices.

Here's a thought - what if HMRC were disbanded and everyone left to self assess and pay over their tax and the government just retain a small task force of well trained and knowledable staff (a few hundred) to intervene where things seemed seriously wrong. I would not mind betting the cost of the under-declared/paid tax is far less than the cost of policing the system (including the unsustainable future pension entitlements of HMRC staff) because contary to HMRC's views, my experience is that most people are law abiding and wish to pay their tax when due (that is the "correct" amount of tax).

Just thought, may be this isn't about regulation, but if HMRC get the agents to do all the work then they can shed most of their staff, just keep a few computer geeks to keep it all ticking over whilst we set PAYE codes and allocate payments, correct submissions etc etc - either that or they have all this free time to up the ante on investigations and collection, especially with their new improved penalty system.

When Brian Redford rolled out his new improved Working Together, I told him that I did not see it working by feeding things through institute representatives due to the high number of "unqualified" accountants who were actually quite active in the old scheme. The smaller firms are the ones who actually experience the issues first hand.  I don't think that HMRC need concern themselves with qualification so long as the agent performs well in their area of activity.

I think the main problem with HMRC contact is that no-one has or takes any reposnsibility. The issues I raise never get fed back to the people who can make changes or improvements.

Things go wrong but no-one seems to care. They pass you from one department to another. It's always not their fault. If you write to comment, no-one ever responds. many of the issues are probably because a system is broken and could easily be rectified if only they knew about it.

I used to be a great supporter of HMRC. We had a local Working Together and the feedback was used to improve local performance. Both sides gained benefit. But I left WT after the new scheme was implemented because it no longer seemed beneficial to me.

My support for HMRC is at a low level. Online usually works well, it's when an individual gets involved that the problems start.

I hope that someone at HMRC has the job of monitoring sites such as accountingweb and taking note of the issues raised even if it's at an imformal level.

to have to say this Rebecca, but actions speak louder than words. I wish you all the best next week.

Its not a question of clarity; its a question of trust. Shortly afterwards it says "As part of this consultation, HMRC is keen to explore the scope for all tax agents to hold a relevant qualification to provide tax advice and complete returns and claims on behalf of their clients - as well as considering the options for meeting ongoing professional development and governance needs, usually provided by a recognised institute or professional body."

As you will be aware the agent strategy is partly driven by the National Audit Office report of last October
where at para 2.16 it said "There are potential advantages to a more robust registration system. Assurance 2.16 that the Department is dealing with a reputable and reasonably competent individual would be particularly valuable when an agent represents a large number of clients with substantial amounts of tax at stake, or if permitting agents access to self-service facilities. Where the Department identifies poorly-performing tax agents, sanctions could include deregistration, subject to appropriate safeguards." and later at 2.18 "The Department has considered registration and has been concerned it could involve an expensive regulatory regime, but is now considering alternative forms of registration which might still deliver benefits. Registration would inevitably involve some administration costs, and the Department would need to do further work to confirm these would be outweighed by the benefits. For example, experience in other countries indicates that the administrative costs of striking poorly performing agents off the register might be significant. Costs could be minimised by mandating registration only for agents representing larger numbers of clients rather than those representing friends and family."

I have heard it suggested that at one point the Revenue was thinking that it might be a quasi - professional body for those agents without a formal qualification. Can you confirm that?

chicken farmer - the point here is  - informed staff who tell us the truth at all times as I mentioned.  I have a Complaint Case live at the moment because the dedicated Agents Helpline did not do their job (twice).

• New client charged too much tax due to previous agent's failure to claim motoring costs.
• Letter written to HMRC and revised return submitted.
• Letter back from HMRC agreeing revised computations and stating that no further tax due.
• TWO MONTHS later threatening letter from Debt Management chasing original amount & threatening to kick clients cat to death etc if not paid.
• Checked online - definitely shows nothing to pay.
• Phone debt management - "oh, theres nothing on our system to say its been changed - its a separate system - tell your client to pay it - they'll have to try and claim it back later".
• Explained to Debt Management the grief they will get if they dont stop harassing clients for money they dont owe.

If commercial concerns were as badly organised they'd be out of business in a week.

I agree with Weaversmith. I just posted up on the WT group. the agent dedicated lines are great for getting a code changed, but that's about it. If, as in my case this morning, a no rept signal has been set or more likely not removed at the end of an enquiry they don't seem to be able to remove the signal and release the refund. the chap i spoke to said there was a lack of notes about the enquiry on the record so it had to be reffered back to the office and to check again in 2 weeks.

And I'm still waiting for the AAM to come back to me onthe case he has as closed but I have as open as there is unresponded to correspondence. How long do I wait there since it seems they are merely the conduit between agent and office again.

Someone needs to take responsibility for cases and sadly no one does. Last week an acquaintance told me he'd sent several years P87 repayment claims and heard nothing. Was I surprised no, but this is an unrepresented taxpayer who is owed back tax paid. Isn't he entitled to a duty of care? Yes I know off topic to this thread but the same premise.

As an aside I see there are now only two (income tax) correspondence addresses for HMRC, one for SA  and one for PAYE, this i deemed after 10 minutes trying to find the address for East Lancs post. I don't get a good feeling about this.

- seems to be - "we've got your money and we will make any excuse we can think of to hang onto it".

Good luck with the meeting.

[removed by mod - disrespectful and abusive to other members]

If HMRC starts to regulate and supervise agents (who will have direct access to HMRC systems) while cutting down its capacity to handle its own work, at what point will agents find that they have become HMRC's subcontractors, albeit paid for by the clients? There are some fundamental potential conflicts of interest which need to be very carefully addressed.

... and when will they start demanding direct access to our systems?

[removed by mod - a request for moderation which has now been done; off topic]

We are all entitled to our opinions, as well as methods of practising.

The current task is to provide Rebecca with sensible reactions/suggestions/demands as to how we are to take part in this Brave New World.

Regulation The ultimate assessment of our performance is our clients satisfaction. Whilst HMRC has some examples of matters they have chanced to pick up on, other agents have information from changeovers, as do clients themselves. This means that HMRC are not the body in a position monitor the profession, merely one of the players who should  pass on information to an end regulator. FSA or Trading Standards maybe, or a new body completely.

Requirement for qualification/membership of a body:

advantages - none unless they introduce grades of membership which range from 

a. merely signing up to an operational structure for a nominal fee.

to

b. fully qualified Chartered Tax Advisors.

with levels in between  

disadvantages - the creation of a tax underground - in other countries there are agents authorised to file, and other agents which carry out all the same tasks but then pass the package back to the client to file personally. There would then be absolutely no way to monitor the professional standards of that agent as there would be no indication who had prepared the work.

Agent view - if this is the chance to develop a personal reputation with HMRC, in the same was as we did with individual Inspectors in the past, so that your work is trusted and carries weight then I would welcome it. New client work should be excluded from the review for say 2 years to allow previous accountants submissions to have no impact.

Thank you for your hard work Rebecca

-- Marion

that have our threads censored by less experienced younger people - is this some sort of age discrimination - youre so wonderfully PC

... big brother is doing more than watching!

I think the forum rules make the MLR regulations seen sane and sensible. I spend valuable time writing a comment with strict reference to them, taking care not to offend or inflame or question the moderation.

Bring back Pol Pot

... may be

Why are we conflating two completely separate issues?

If we allow ourselves to be drawn down the path of policing who can be an agent and how to judge their fitness we will rue the day. It is an unanswerable minefield. Just look at all the (mostly) nonsense on the various threads.

Taxpayers can now and should always in the future be allowed to appoint whom ever they choose as their agent. That should be the end of the matter. The only policing issue is then 'has the agent been legally/correctly appointed?' A simple procedure can be devised to regulate this. Anyone found illegitimately abusing this should be appropriately prosecuted by HMRC.

The discussion of whether my bit of paper is better than your experience is totally irrelevant in this context.  If we sign up to anything that even remotely includes such a consideration we will (all) regret it. I know Rebecca will say there is no sinister intent behind HMRC proposals. There may well not be ... at the moment. The real point is it is irrelevant. We need, deserve and are entitled to a proper system of communication with HMRC.

Keep it simple. If you want a campaign about the relative merits of different agent's abilities do it somewhere else. Preferably somewhere that will not impede the implementation of HMRC's proposals.

HMRC should realise it will get itself into unimaginable difficulties if it tries to operate any form of agent vetting .

Well said that person

But, there are two clear issues:

1. Who can be agent - in my view, anyone the client trusts (but there must be a process so HMRC can blacklist agents they can PROVE are not "safe", which Joe Public has access to, along the lines of the CB checks for working with children).
2. Who will HMRC grant enhanced rights of access their system to be able to change/correct things autonomously?

The second is more tricky because there are many fine accountants/tax practitioners who are fairly IT illiterate and allowing them to run amok on the HMRC computer would be tantamount to careless, plus if you are not a professional (with or without a bit of paper) tax agent then letting those chappies onto the HMRC system unchecked would be possibly reckless.

Security is an issue, so don't forget also when an agent is given access, it may not be the experienced knowledgeable partner/proprietor that is accessing the system, whether or not with the appointed agents consent!

With the flak that has gone the government's way over computer security over the last few years their caution is understandable.

I cannot imagine that there will be anything like free reign within the HMRC system. After all they do not even let their own people have access each element is isolated.  So we will get some form of watered down limited and isolated access.   If you think about it for a while that is all that we could expect.  For this we are to be closely monitored!!!!

S 

Until they realise things are working better, they are collecting more tax more quickly and issuing fewer refunds for less cost, at which point they will seek to effectively sub-out their work for free by increasing access to live systems, but only to the "chosen" few. Freeing up their workforce for interventions and "random" audits.

Cynical, may be, but I'm not holding my breathe!

But, what is needed really is access to view all tax accounts fully: there is not a despate need for live access to change things, that could be done by a series of forms that can be submitted online for various procedures, such as amending tax codes and re-allocating payments, akin to the SA303.

I do like Marion's idea of becoming a guerilla accountant though! :o)

Expanding on that, there will probably be a ready supply of "regulated" agents happy to rubber stamp transmissions for a percentage!

I beleive that there should be the same treatment for all as we are all taxpayers, but the Revenue likes to call us customers, and we should expect and receive a proper professional service.  There should not be a two tier system and I wish Rebecca all the best in her efforts and hopfully it will mean that all taxpayers get the service they should expect from HMRC.

In a step to move towards a better service I have sent to my MP the Revenue and the ACCA the following suggestions

1. Debt recovery

In cases were legal or distraint action is proposed it is unacceptable that any taxpayer and especially those of more mature years should be subject to this type of action without it being assigned to a named officer who should take personal responsibility for all actions taken by H M Revenue & Customs. This will mean that the taxpayer will have one point of contact with this officer including a full postal address, a direct telephone contact number, a fax number and an e-mail address. Compensation should be payable to the taxpayer for all mistakes including errors in sending letters for monies which are clearly not due.

2. Post

Delays in receiving of letters from HMRC especially those which are time critical is totally unacceptable and the practice of printing and dating of letters many days or it appears weeks before dispatch should be stopped with immediate effect.

3. Telephone calls

The current system which results in "Customers" ie Taxpayers or their agent having to hold for significant periods (experience suggests on average 20 minutes) is unacceptable and this combined with the failure to include fax numbers on all correspondence means that taxpayers are having to incur considerable unnecessary costs. Also the dropping of calls due to high demand should be replaced with a service where callers can leave a message requesting a return call.

At a minimum all correspondence should include a full postal address, a direct telephone contact number, a fax number and an e-mail address.

All offices should be able accept incoming telephone calls and in particular the CAA team at Longbenton.

There needs to be a procedure for identifying that incoming calls from HMRC are genuine eg each taxpayer or agent can set a password which HMRC are required to give so as to identify the caller.

The Revenue website should be redesigned so that the contact details for all Revenue offices can be accessed easily including an address search facility.

4. Language.

In an effort to reduce costs and ensure that there is no dispute the only language that should be used is English and all forms, letters and other documents should be written and printed in English.

5. Records

The proposed action by the Revenue to look at business books and records should be postponed until such time as the Revenue can evidence that they are able to keep proper books and records. The recent failures to keep track of PAYE liabilities evidences that there are serious failings in the Revenue’s record keeping ability and until they can prove that they have a robust and accurate accounting and record keeping system they cannot advise on this matter. Also there needs to be a full and proper consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that the demands of all parties are met. As what is adequate for one business can be totally different to that another.

6. On line filing

The Revenue should not carry out any programmed shutdowns or upgrades to online systems at critical times such as November through to January for self assessment and March to end of May for PAYE/NI and at in the last week of any calender month for Corporation Tax and for payments at any time when payments are due 19th of the month for PAYE 1st month for Corporation Tax.

7. Self assessment Penalties

The introduction of new penalties for late filing of Self Assessment returns needs to be tempered with caution. The taxpayer gets 10 months to prepare the return but the Revenue have 12 months to look at it. This to one sided and the time limit to prepare and submit the return should be extended to 12 months and if no tax is due then no penalty should be levied. Although the penalty would be payable but refunded once return is delivered.

Also if HMRC is unable to evidence that a notice to deliver a return has been received by a taxpayer then again no penalty can be due if the return is submitted late.

8. VAT and notification of errors

We should return to the rule that notification of all errors should not be necessary were the net quantum of the error is less that £25,000 or for business turnover of more than £500,000 then 5% of turnover. This will avoid large number of tax payers having to notify errors on understated input tax due to non receipt of VAT invoices etc.

9. Taxation Reform

a. Consolidation of PAYE and NI into a single deduction with one set of rules pending abolition of NI.

b. Abolition of the scheduler system

c. With the abolition of scheduler system SA returns can be simplified and the process streamlined.

d. Simplified Income and Capital Gains tax rates with no top slicing etc with at a maximum of say 5 Income Tax rates example 1st £10k at zero (equating to the personal allowance), next £10k at 10%, next £10k at 20%, then up to £50k at 30% with 40% thereafter with no NI. Gift aid would be deducted from income as an expense.

e. Taxpayers who are classified as complex should be entitled to tax relief on all fees paid to professional advisors until the law is rewritten so it is simple and understandable by all.

I would add that although implemantation would be complex but not impossible, I firmly believe PAYE should be abolished which would end a vast array of tax problems and take away the worry of unexpected tax demands for millions. What they take home is theirs to spend.

The offset could be various means or combinations of means, such as making wages non-deductible in the employers accounts, charging a monthly payroll levy based on wages paid, etc.

This could be implemented over a long period of years, but in my view the ultimate result would be worthwhile in many respects.

I am not saying this is the only solution, or even a solution, it is just an idea, but, it is about time we started thinking outside the box. As I have said many times recently, I have reached the conclusion that the powers that be need to grasp the nettle and completely rethink tax and tax policy from the ground up in a way that is simple to implement, minimises the ability to evade, is cheap to administer (meaning either more money is available to spend on legitimate projects, or less is needed to be collected) and most importantly is fair and those at the top end of the spectrum can't opt out by hiring expensive tax accountants. 

But, as I have also said, it is also cloud cuckoo land and there are too many vested interests for this ever to happen!

... it is late so ignore me if it is nonsense :o)

OK, level playing field, any one can be an agent and have all the access available, but rather than a qualification, how about sucessfully completing a training course in accessing the HMRC systems.

This need not be as expensive and time consuming as it might sound, it could be done online with interactive training videos with questions and only after sucessful completion and agreeing to the usual legalese clauses would you get given an agent access code - in the manner of the AML training programs etc, may be even user specific for staff with a practice, so agent code for practice, with suffix for each staff member.

I suggest this because in my view HMRC's concern should only be the level of competence of access to it's systems. The level of competence of the tax advisor is for the client to decide, but (for the avoidance of doubt this is said tongue in cheek) it can hardly be any less than that of some of HMRC'S own staff (on both counts)!

1. HMRC are one of the few governments departments that are revenue raising. The reason for allowing agents access to simple functions is due to cuts in their budget.

2. The government needs more money. Instead of cutting HMRC resources it should be investing more into HMRC. The return would be fourfold or more.

3. HMRC needs to be less process driven. This stems from the top who appear to have little experience of tax but lots in engineering processes.

4. Regulation of the accountancy/tax advisor profession is overdue. An independent body is required.

5. Only those who have proved their competence should be allowed to engage with HMRC and vice versa. Many moons ago HMRC tax officers and higher grades had to pass exams. 

6. Never underestimate the power of the state and their unquenchable thirst to know everything about us.

To be succinct, my reading of the views posted is that most agents feel a client should be able to appoint whoever they please as agent and that HMRC should deal with them all equally and as far as the client is concerned caveat emptor. So no, I don't think we all agree a level of competence is required to be a paid tax agent, it is desired of course, but the same could be said of a builder, plumber or car mechanic.

These threads have been useful to me and my own thinking now reflects the above, why should a tax agent be any different to any other trade or profession.

As for weeding out the bad, I have stated, HMRC should be able to propose agents, with proof, to an independant body who if found "guilty", after a right to appeal, can be listed on public record and with whom HMRC can refuse to deal. If client's do not check the list then that is down to them. HMRC could make this clear in a guidance leaflet when a client registers as self employed or forms a company.

In many ways the current system is best as the incompetent will struggle and the bent will tend to attract similar clients so HMRC will know where to find them.

In my view this whole problem for HMRC has been caused by the dismantling of the local tax office network where the Inspectors knew their patch, had a good working relationship with the agents with constructive 2 way dialogue and who knew the dodgy clients and could spend their time effectively on the problem areas. We as agents could also then pick up the phone and have a sensible discussion on a technical point with someone who knew what they were talking about and didn't rely on a script.

In short, this is their mess, they need to sort it at their end and not try and pass the problem on to us  who in the majority do our damnedest to make things work as easily for HMRC as for our clients, despite HMRC's constant denigration of us.

This is supposed to be a free democracy, and the flip side is you get crunchy bits as well as smooth.

As a final aside, why not just make PII cover mandatory for anyone wishing to act as a paid agent, with minimum cover requirements, again, HMRC could make this clear on a guidance leaflet that a new tax payer should as to see proof of PII cover from their agent.

... he posted as I was writing:

May be then there should be a tax agent "Ombudsman" (for want of a better word) with powers to investigate and act on complaints from tax payers or HMRC  tying in with my "blacklist" idea. May be the right to appeal on adverse decisions could be to the representative board suggested in other threads.

The only downside to this is that the unscrupulous agents could be disruptive to their scrupled competitors by filing unfounded complaints.

Sorry but unless I have seriously misunderstood your post I believe you are contradicting yourself. You say the debate about "scrutiny of agents" is sliding off the rails and then suggest 'nobody has answered my question about full professional wide self regulation'.

The point is whoever does the regulation/scrutiny it is the same thing. I totally accept self regulation would be immeasurably more preferable to any HMRC or State scheme. I also accept it is desirable ... possibly. It might give some clients a measure of reassurance, if they can understand what is at stake or be bothered to consider the issue.

However, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. What we want, need and were entitled to from the start of this computerisation, automation and cost cutting dehumanisation HMRC process is a proper basic communication service we can easily access and which works.

For those who wish, we can return to this regulation issue later. Do not side track ourselves with this now. Yes, HMRC may wish to see us address it but there is no reason to allow it to cloud the issue of giving us a proper service now. What we need to focus on is getting back the basics of an acceptable service. (For the record I find the comments of a certain unnamed individual, who appears to claim HMRC service is good, to be an insult. Read the daily experiences of your fellow agents and take note. It is unfortunate that comments like yours are picked up by HMRC and quoted back to us. The rest of us are fighting for improvement).

Tax payer appoints agent of choice .... control this ...  end of story ...  until we get an acceptable service back.

I agree with OGA. The current state of affairs is entirely down to the Inland Revenue's folly in moving taxpayers' affairs to remote locations and closing down local offices. When it became HMRC the problem multiplied four fold.
It may save them money but it doesn't make them more efficient.

No accountant is going to admit to being utterly useless, although I'm sure there are a few conmen out there who earn a living overcharging gullible people. The fear of losing one's livelihood due to HMRC (or persons therein) taking against one, is greater where HMRC have the ability to condemn. Everyone makes misteaks (!), the question is, how many and how serious before coming up before the beak? What sanctions can be taken BEFORE you are disqualified? How many warnings do you get?

On the whole I have to agree with your most recent post here.  What I dont want to see or know about is the q/uq debate.

My preference is as I have said before is a line drawn at a date and everyone on HMRC's database as an agent is in.  I think that all at that point should become associates of an institute/professional body which should be seperate from those currently in existence incl HMRC.  No-one can opt out in favour of another institute/association.  This keeps costs down.

New agents wanting to be in will need show why ie worked for a previously appointed agent.

A lot of trust is passing our way under the proposals and it does involve financial risk to the Govt and unsubspecting taxpayers.  As I have said before we all at Aweb have a great chance to influence what comes out but I fear just saying no to a proposal may comeback at us in a form of central control.

I do not think any of us are saying no. We all want, need and moreover are entitled to (mostly) is what is being offered. What we need to beware of is the price which extracted from us for the provision of a service which should have been in place from the start.

Let's face it, we do not know exactly what extras are on offer nor the liklihood that they will be delivered. HMRC have proved its inability to deliver beyond doubt so far. I can see the outcome quite clearly ... we sign up to (self) regulation in return for the promise of some 'frilly extras' which never materialise. Once you have handed over the keys you will never get them back.

We are losing the plot.

My point is regulation is a minefield. It should not be on the table when discussing the provision of a basic service. Why are you linking the two?

... my vote is tell them to stick regulation of the tax profession where the sun don't shine.

Probably not a helpful comment but it is my considered view having followed this thread avidly: it would in my view create more costs, more red tape and more grit and slow things down as it will lead to more box ticking and checklists as these things invariably do, and, more importantly, more grey hairs!

Further more, service levels by HMRC ARE fundamental to this argument - if they were there we would not need this discussion. The Con Doc is addressing the wrong questions and the wrong issues, it is putting the cart before the horse and until HMRC have returned to a service level of at least acceptable there is no point looking at this issue, IMVHO.

I too have been following this thread with interest and have resisted joining in until now. I am very much afraid Rebecca that you seem to have been diverted by whichever agency is trying to divert you.

Before anybody within HMRC has the audacity to try to bring about any sort of registration of agents, be they qualified or not, the house of HMRC MUST be put into order first.

I would also like the qualified vs non-qualified debate to stop. It is only serving up a smokescreen and giving the impression that we would much rather squabble amongst ourselves than push for a cogent and workable HMRC.

May I suggest Rebecca that you choose one of us with experience and a longstanding relationship with HMRC to go with you to meet Clasper so that, whoever it is, can tell it as it is from the shop floor. This may well stray from the condoc (as you call it) but such an opportunity must not be wasted.