RTI: Not what I would call business as usual

Red_Tape_office_0_1.png

BBC - Bleak House
Owner
Kate Upcraft Consultancy Ltd
Share this content
Tags
42

To introduce our new specialist payroll contributor AccountingWEB asked Kate Upcraft to give us an update on the issue that is causing accountants the most concern: RTI. Here are her thoughts.

The rationale for the move to file payroll data at the time of the pay run rather than annual filing was two-fold:

  • To improve the operation of PAYE as more accurate data would flow to HMRC more regularly; and
  • For that accurate data to pass to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to help calculate and validate universal credit (UC) awards.

We all have our views on whether the first objective has been achieved, but we have perhaps lost sight of the vital importance of the second objective to employers, claimants and politicians?

Let’s consider “improving the operation of PAYE”:

  • The payroll software industry spent millions on upgrading software and we learned all its new intricacies and prayed too it was sending what HMRC wanted although we weren’t quite sure they knew that themselves and worry they still don’t
  • We diligently updated all our employee data and sent it to HMRC to ‘align’ records. Now the latest Employer Bulletin urges us not to send some accurate data as to do so will cause duplicate taxpayer records
  • Sending real time earnings' data has led to an increase in P800s post-year end – 5.5m were sent last year and HMRC had to admit that even these were wrong for some taxpayers
  • The data or the central systems are now so fragile (we don’t know which but my guess is both) that the compliance regime is in tatters – late filing penalties having a retrospective tolerance to October 2014 and automated late payment penalties abandoned.

So how does this sit alongside a national rollout of universal credit that began last week? The entire process relies on accurate, timely and verifiable earnings data to deliver the right amount of UC each month, and more importantly cut the £3bn of error and fraud in the welfare system.

Perhaps it’s just as well that UC wasn’t ready to roll in October 2013, at least we now are fully aware of the UC disputes that are likely to come our way as agents and employers.

With duplicate records still muddying the waters, there is a growing realisation that using direct/indirect BACS payment mechanisms may be the only way to provide certainty of earnings to DWP.     

Most members of the RTI project team in HMRC have now moved on to other projects and the Customer User Group that advised on the project as it developed has been disbanded as HMRC now considers the system to be PAYE business as usual (BAU).

I feel for those HMRC officials who have had the hand grenade lobbed over to their side of the BAU trenches. They now have to wrestle with hundreds of payroll systems and thousands of users all interpreting HMRC’s data needs differently. Internally, that data feeds into as many as 200 central HMRC systems and a new accounting system (known as ETMP) that is beset by issues of its own.

HMRC said the post-implementation review set in motion by the 2014 Autumn Statement  won’t happen yet as it’s too soon - even though the pilot began three years ago this April.

Many businesses and accountants out on the frontline find it hard to swallow the current situation as “business as usual” and will be hoping resources can be found to deliver improvements to PAYE before it grinds to a halt altogether. We’ve all invested too much in this for this to be the end game.

Kate Upcraft AMBCS is the author of the Payroll Unplugged blog and will be continuing to cover RTI and other payroll issues for AccountingWEB. Do  continue to keep us informed of your payroll experiences and problems and will ask Kate to look into them in more detail - Ed.)

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By ringi
02nd Mar 2015 12:21

Agree that BACS is the answer.

I tend to agree that the ONLY way to avoid the issues with duplicate records etc, is to require ALL wage payments to be made by BACS, and the tax information to be included in the BACS payment.  

Employers can be trusted not to make duplicate BACS payments!    Even better if a bank refuses to accept a wage payment, unless the NI number on the payment matches the NI number of one of the account holders.

Thanks (1)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 22:27

The duplicates are HMRC
HMRC create the duplicates, not employers. BACS would solve nothing - they would still create duplicate year to date records.

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 12:27

What I find most frustrating...

What I find most frustrating with HMRC is that it is one set of rules for us and another for them.

Don't get me wrong here as we strive to improve ourselves and the threat of penalties forces us to do so.

Even the most unreliable clients are now beginning to come into line and I feel that we are now in almost complete control with checklists galore getting ticked every week/month to show each payroll's position (instructed/processed/submitted/client advise of payment due to HMRC) - a beautiful record.

And then what happens.....

Well if you have a query then may your celestial being of choice be there to help you!

CIS refunds - no chance!

PAYE overpayments in previous years - no chance!

CIS/PAYE liabilities from previous years though and they're smashing the door down

In a time when ethics are attached to a stick to beat us so that we are all being good, righteous and obedient we are faced with HMRC not telling clients when they have paid too much.

If a CIS refund is due then it just sits there doesn't it... too often it comes up when preparing year end accounts that we find the client is owed money from HMRC so we phone them, "I will pass it to the security team and expect the refund in three weeks"... Three weeks later the same scripted answer comes again so that ultimately we write...

Next comes a letter asking for copies of invoices, bank statements etc.

Hold on a moment though - haven't HMRC already got the proof because the contractor has paid the tax over and reported it to HMRC on their CIS monthly return complete with UTR number!?

I am left to presume that either HMRC do not want to develop such a basic system or there is direction from above to hold onto the cash!

So time goes by and you apply for gross status.... "No!" comes the answer, "Why?" you ask - answer "because the CT was paid late!", "but it was paid late because HMRC didn't pay the client the CIS refund on time!!!"

And so it goes on.

It really is one rule for them and another for us isn't it!

And why oh why oh why can PAYE/CIS not be paid by direct debit?!? How much time would that save us all? It works so well now for VAT (gold stars to HMRC for that) but why not extend the software across to PAYE?

Maybe the answer is that if they did that the computer would want to give credit for all the overpayments for earlier years that are hidden away, invisible on the dashboard?!

I'd say I'm being overly cynical but I have experienced this too many times now to believe that to be the case.

Don't get me started on the unbillable time to sort out such situations!

Oh well at least Auto Enrolment will keep us busy! That great risk where the accountant is being dragged into a system that is bordering IFA territory and ethically we cannot even comment on pensions but our clients need us to set things up with them!

Seriously though it is nice, hand on heart, knowing that at least we know what's going on! We can't afford not to can we.

Thanks (19)
avatar
By rossmcv
13th Mar 2015 11:53

CIS and CT

youngloch wrote:

So time goes by and you apply for gross status.... "No!" comes the answer, "Why?" you ask - answer "because the CT was paid late!", "but it was paid late because HMRC didn't pay the client the CIS refund on time!!!"

 

The most frustrating thing i have found is HMRC chasing for CT payment and I say well you have the CIS deductions but you wont hand it over. HMRCs response... the CIS deductions aren't to be relied on to pay CT... i could scream

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 12:32

@youngloch

Welcome to the real world according to HMRC.

I really do hope someone high up from HMRC gets to read your post cos it's spot on.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By ringi
02nd Mar 2015 12:36

CIS refunds etc

Clearly need lot of work from the HMRC to sort it out!   HMRC has to get its act together before anyone will respect them.   Just answers the phone quickly would help!

But the current CIS system is far too depended on people copying down numbers and typing them correctly into software and websites.   So there will always be lots of records that don’t match, hence making any automated system very hard.

When there was only a few builders in each town, and trades people tended to work for a small number of builders it was not too bad.   The world is no longer like that…

Why can’t ALL sub contractor has a special bank account, with the bank detecting the “holding tax” and automatically creating and submitting all records.    Then a main contractor would just have to check they are only paying into such special bank accounts.

It gets even better, the same special type of bank account could be used by ALL building companies with HMRC telling the bank if they should detect the holding tax or not, so no need for CIS cards!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By clp
02nd Mar 2015 12:37

RTI and small employers

I deal with a couple of small companies with only one or two employees and use HMRC payroll and dealt with a larger company with 60 employees using Sage Payroll

Main issues

- employers are set up to pay people quarterly but you have to submit returns monthly to avoid the automatic addition of estimates due for PAYE and letters from HMRC. I have spoken to HMRC and they dont know how to sort it.

 

- The HMRC payroll software got corrupted last year and I was advised to reinstall and update from a backup. There is now an unsubmitted ye return because of the crash. HMRC have yet to work out how to delete it.

 

- Running HMRC on a laptop which has the same Windows 7 , Security software as the PC. Unable to get the PAYE software to run on the PC. Have been dealing with HMRC for last 7 months and they have no idea.

- Tax codes and YE information by HMRC which doesnt agree with the actual payroll deductions. Car benefits missed odd months payements to HMRC somewhere in the ether.

 

I thought RTI was meant to make life more simple. Not increase the amount of time I spend chasing for tax codes or reminding employees to chase for a proper code. Emergency tax codes now seem to last the year.

Back to chase a £1 "overpayment" - caused when HMRC cancelled an estimate and seem to think it has been paid...

 

CP

 

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
02nd Mar 2015 12:43

Why for the pubs that pay employees cash to save paying the money in they should have to move to BACS just to suit HMRC. Total nonsense.

Osborne and Duncan Smith have got us into a right mess

Thanks (3)
02nd Mar 2015 13:19

It's even worse than that

I recently had a case where a client had a couple of part-time employments and the PAYE record never made to to his reference at HMRC, despite being reported upon his Tax Return.

It's easy to blame small employers for mistakes, but one of the PAYE schemes was operated via Serco...

I'm still awaiting any explanation (plausible would be great) from HMRC...

Anyone else experienced the same?

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
02nd Mar 2015 13:35

CIS

One thing that would make our life a whole lot easier would be to permit agents to view a subcontractor's vouchers online. In the days of CIS25 would could phone HMRC who would fax us a "captured vouchers" list showing all CIS25s credited to that subby. In those days most CIS300s were manual. Today most are online so it should be easier for HMRC to supply the info. We could then reconcile discrepancies before submitting the clam. It would save us and HMRC a lot of time and thus resources. Better still, allow the subby to check their own. If they are told that the vouchers are worth cash in the bank you can be sure many will be checking every tax month that the credit has been applied to their account and if it doesn't appear they will ask questions. This means non-compliant contractors will be identified much sooner which will save tax going astray. It's a win win for HMRC, taxpayer and us. 

Thanks (8)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 13:43

off-topic

 

 

 

shouldn't the cis stuff be on a separate trail? 

 

i agree with the sentiments though.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 14:00

"Off-Topic"

It's HMRC that are perhaps off-topic as PAYE/RTI/CIS are unfortunately all linked and if we are talking about HMRC systems then it needs to be reflected that we should ask, not so much what we can do for them but also what they can do for us as surely that then ends up helping them too!

The article is quite one sided actually only looking at what HMRC are trying to gather without addressing the fact that there are far more issues that affect us the agents and employers because things are just not set up properly in terms of the interaction of their systems.

It is all very well for accurate data to flow to HMRC more regularly but you cannot help but think that HMRC rarely sit down to see their failings in data flowing back down the chain to us and the serious repercussions it can have on employers/businesses.

The business as usual approach sums up the mentality that things get changed one piece at a time leaving us to have to too often bridge the gap that would not be there were the system not properly thought through and the data coming back down far more open.

They make noises every now and then about changing parts but, in reality, they could spend one day with a selection of practitioners and before lunch have a good list of "must do's" that would make a huge difference. I am sure the web developers get equally frustrated.

Thanks (1)
avatar
03rd Mar 2015 14:10

RTI is sooo grate!

 

 

It's the threat of penalties i care about as i run c.100 payrolls.

i don't give a toss how long they take to sort out the operation as long as they leave me alone. NO CHANCE

 

they will issue millions of penalties like electronic confetti, and create chaos for accountants.

 

e.g. only a numpty would impose rules that REQUIRE the payroll rti return in the same month as the payment. Obviously the return should go in once the party is over e.g. 14th of following month etc..

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
02nd Mar 2015 13:54

Too right

abelljms wrote:

e.g. only a numpty would impose rules that REQUIRES the payroll rti return in the same month as the payment. Obviously the return should go in once the party is over e.g. 14th of following month etc..

I agree completely: make it like CIS within 14 days of the end of the tax month.

HMRC's argument for RTI in advance is the figures are needed for Universal Credit. But the self-employed have to report in arrears so UC will always be in arrears so might as well allow RTI in arrears too. Would save a lot of grief.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By cmp1951
02nd Mar 2015 13:57

Business as usual

I would have that it IS business as usual - Situation Normal, All Fouled Up as it would be stated in some circles.

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 14:09

RTI

My wife was recently made redundant. She has two pensions and a new PAYE employment.She received numerous coding notices taxing her employment and exempting the pensions from tax. She is in payroll so thought a call to HMRC would sort it out. They advised her that they had no knowledge of her current years employment (15 years) and that they had been advised by the employer that she left on 5th April 2014 and not 31st December 2014 as was the correct date. She said to them you have RTI so you must have had my figures each month. The reply was we only get told by the employer once a year!! Oh dear. Anyway more incorrect coding notices arrived and we've given up for now...

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
02nd Mar 2015 14:09

I'm amazed that everytime we have these discussions about RTI everyone keeps continually blaming HMRC for the problems. Yes they are repsonsible but why is no one blaming the idiots that advised the current Chancellor while in opposition. This system on or before filing is a nonsense, considering that HMRC tell you on the phone that it takes a month for the info to come through to them.

 

I lay the blame firrnly at the govts door. I can only reason that others don't is because of blind political alligence and refusal to believe anything this govt does it wrong. On this one they are very vert wrong.

Thanks (2)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 14:32

@00

When you have been working with and against HMRC for so long you would know why it's all gone tits up and it's all Gordon Brown's fault.

His greed to get money to cover up his incompetence as Chancellor has caused most of the problems. The rest is that HMRC see most tax payers not on PAYE as dishonest (why else does RTI have to be done at the time of payment). Now we are in a right mess and the next government (if there is one) won't do anything to change it.

Thanks (1)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 14:50

@00 and @johnjenkins

At the risk of being off-topic - and if we introduce politics it quickly will go WAY off-topic but...

RTI was necessary but NOT for the reasons it was advertised for.

RTI was needed because employers (and some of our clients fell into this net) were not paying their PAYE taxes on time. I was once told that an employer should file the slip from the booklet even if they couldn't pay but, SHOCK HORROR, many were not doing so!

This led to a spike of debt on, SHOCK HORROR, 19 May (or often 26 May) when the P35's were filed.

So RTI stopped all that - and a good thing too as it was allowing debts to quickly build up and, in itself, then leading to business failure as with some businesses unless they are being nudged to pay they will not and will then fritter the funds away until the huge tax bill arrive and then they bury their heads.

To me, this was the only solution RTI quickly gave HMRC but this was never held up as an objective.

The problem though is the ridiculous deadlines now imposed and I agree that there was nothing wrong with making it a19th of the month deadline just like we used to have with a once a year rush for the 19 May (or more often with the usual suspects) 26 May.

The crazy thing is that this can all be fixed if they decide to do it.Yes IT upgrades will cost money BUT better one big common sense fix than loads of silly tweaks. Think of the cost saving in admin time dealing with all the problems we currently have (see my original post above)

Thanks (1)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 15:22

HMRC's ETMP

Kate, great article.

I suspect some of the problems with HMRC's RTI systems is that these were designed by people (software developers etc) who really had no concept of practical issues. 

And there is the duplicate records issue which has been known about by HMRC for many years but the real implications of this were not recognised.  This issue has not been resolved.

HMRC introduced ETMP to replace its old accounting (debt management) system probably in order to support/deliver the non or late payment penalty regime. The recent announcement that the regime has been put on ice (perhaps indefinitely) suggests to me that the ETMP is incapable of fulfilling its purpose.

It seems to me the ETMP a least for PAYE purposes is inoperable, so I doubt that HMRC can identify employers who are not paying fully on time. This would surely be a fundamental failure of its duties by HMRC.

The abolition of the annual P35 return which set out the PAYE scheme's tax etc liability can be seen I think as a serious mistake. This return worked for employers and HMRC.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
04th Mar 2015 09:46

RTI abolished p35? really?

 

 

 

looking at my telly i see i have to make 14 RTI filings in 14/15 to fob off hmrcy, including one called 

"05-Apr-2015 final declaration for the year"

this sounds french for p35 ???  - plus ca change as the germans say...................................

 

 

grrrrrrr

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
02nd Mar 2015 15:25

I view the obvious complete ineptitude of the plans by whoever dreamt them up by the fact they still have the idea to take all payroll preparation in house by HMRC. Shows they have no idea how things work in the real world. 

 

Along with the fact that they also want to know which accounts BACS payments go into.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 15:55

Hmmmm

Four times this year on one of my payrolls (my own) HMRC have told me that I have not submitted a monthly return, yet I have HMIT receipts for every month.  Writing letters of complaint have not been graced with a response.  If I ignore the messages, no doubt I will be penalised.

They can send me messages online but I have to write a letter, print it, put it in an envelope, stamp it, take it to the postbox...... and then not receive a response.  Why not allow us to leave a message on the web? - as my bank does, and if anyone is concerned about security they are.

What a one sided situation.

I agree that HMRC should immediately introduce Direct Debits as works so well with VAT.  Maybe that would force them to repay the £120 that I paid in error (just a straight bookkeeping mistake that wasn't found out until after the year end - but this is apparently no excuse and allows them to keep my money).

Thanks (1)
02nd Mar 2015 16:04

Direct debits

I was amazed when I was told RTI was not integrated with PAYE DDs. VAT has been working for about 10 years and Class 2 NICs for about 20 or more. So why not PAYE. I have been told by someone 'on the inside' that HMRC are looking into this but they have to change the law. I don't understand why when VAT and C2NICs work so well. I would have thought that having active PAYE DDs (and CIS) would have made things so much better for HMRC: improved collection and lower costs. But those that make the decisions in HMRC are not at the coalface and don't understand what is going on.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
03rd Mar 2015 14:51

DD law needs changing

I think the problem is that the laws on DD does not allow anything to be taken by DD unless the person/company is informed so many days ahead.    As the PAYE payment is due on the same that that the TRI return is made….

kevinringer wrote:

I was amazed when I was told RTI was not integrated with PAYE DDs.  I have been told by someone 'on the inside' that HMRC are looking into this but they have to change the law.

Thanks (0)
03rd Mar 2015 15:06

But VAT only needs 3 days

ringi wrote:

I think the problem is that the laws on DD does not allow anything to be taken by DD unless the person/company is informed so many days ahead.    As the PAYE payment is due on the same that that the TRI return is made….

That can't be right because currently you can efile VAT on the 7th and the DD is collected just 3 days later on the 10th. With RTI all submissions for the tax month have to be reported to HMRC by the 5th but PAYE is not due until 22nd if paid electronically which is 17 days later. If 3 days are ok for VAT then 17 is certainly ok for PAYE. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 16:11

The problem with DDs

What I wonder would be the reaction of employers were HMRC to operate a DD and take too much/little? If their ETMP is useless and the data unreliable...

Thanks (2)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 16:43

RTI or any other I

for that matter will not make people pay their PAYE. If they've got it they'll pay it. If there's cashflow problems they won't. Deadlines etc. won't make any difference. Ok so HMRC get to know who owes what earlier. Big Deal.

If people want to pay cash for labour, they will.

So again we have a system designed for few that hits most. Classic HMRC.

They should be getting on with Agent strategy (best thing since sliced bread but not going anywhere - I know). That's where the problems will be solved.

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Mar 2015 16:46

DD's

My suggestion about DD for PAYE/CIS would operate in the same way as it does with VAT which is (should be!):

1. Only the current submission would be claimed e.g. no authority to collect earlier arrears

2. That overpayments would automatically however be taken into account

3. That the employer would have the option of paying by DD - it would not be compulsory.

I have to admit that the 2014-2015 RTI submissions, certainly seem to be recorded correctly as to the levels of liability so I don't see an issue with this unless the employer/agent submitted wrong data.

This is the same issue though as with VAT so only competent users should apply but, for the likes of us who, hopefully know what we are doing, it is surely a no-brainer?

One thing the current system cannot adapt to is the fact that we have gone from a P35 designed tax year system to a month by month system.

The fact that overpayments/liabilities get trapped in a single tax year just makes life difficult at times with subsequent payments by to clear those liabilities potentially being applied to the following year, needing to be re-applied etc etc

Thanks (0)
avatar
09th Mar 2015 14:33

dd problem

 

 

 

clearly you work for someone with £bundles.

in the real world juggling cashflow is a tedious way of life.

 

dd entries raping my account just when i wanted to spend the dough on something more important (like a holiday) is a fritemare. All it does is allow my (w)ankers to rape me for massive charges e.g. Scabby Notional Banco de Paella £47 per failure.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
03rd Mar 2015 08:56

Relief, decision made

Been thinking of offering payroll service and Auto Enrolment from April 2015.

Reading these type of threads makes me think it is really not worth the hassle.

Decision made, don't do payroll (or Auto Enrolment) and continue to let the fantastic payroll bureau we use continue with the nightmare.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By ringi
03rd Mar 2015 14:57

What is so hard ....

What is so hard about submitting the PAYE information to HMRC on the web at the same time as you submit the payment information to your bank on the web?

I fail to see why the benefits system should be hold to ransom by a number of employers that refuse to use computer and the web, or who refuses to operating their company in a way that allows them to keep to the PAYE laws.

Just because staffs have been paid in cash at 2am on the Friday night for the last 20 years, is not reason for an employer to keep doing so….   (Unless they have something to hide.)

Staff should be paid based on a payment cycle that allows PAYE to be calculated correctly and gives times to do the TRI submissions before the staffs gets the money.   Simple things like paying overtime for the last week of the month, in the next month’s pay can enable this.

Thanks (0)
avatar
04th Mar 2015 09:52

in the real world

 

 

 

 

most payrolls are operated by accountancy practices, so we are not PAYING the serfs their money usually.

 

so we often have no idea what has ACTUALLY been handed over until a while later so linking it to the payments won't work.

 

That actually was HMRCy original grand skeem rolled out to the consultation groups - we all fell about foaming and laughing hysterically at the idea that 100% of all payrolls in future would be perfect, and HMRCy would never ever send paye codes like k22745 again (yes seeeeriously !) etc...

 

RTI is based on distrust of payroll operators - HMRC want to think SEEEERIOUSLY about why they don't trust them and come up with a sensible solution. I suspect it should revolve around a quarterly submission of all data, by end of following month. - it's called VAT elsewhere !

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
04th Mar 2015 12:47

RTI is just showing that a lot of the real world MUST change.

abelljms wrote:

most payrolls are operated by accountancy practices, so we are not PAYING the serfs their money usually.

so we often have no idea what has ACTUALLY been handed over until a while later so linking it to the payments won't work.

And that is what MUST change if this mess will ever be sorted out!

When the action and the data is not part of a single process, they will always be the risk that the data will be wrong.  

Hence an option for a small employer to hand the complete wage payment to HMRC and HMRC to transfer the correct account to the employee's bank on the same day, would be very nice to have.    Regulations can be put in place to move all liabilities for getting it wrong from the employer to HMRC, with HMRC being also made subject to the banking regulators for this service, as it is a banking service.

There all already systems in place for when a bank message up wages payment, so the same systems could be used to control HMRC.

The largest risk is incorrect tax code, however it is illegal for a employer to ignore an incorrect tax code, to an automated process run by HMRC would not increase this risk.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
03rd Mar 2015 15:39

@ringi

Without employers there would be no PAYE. Some people do not trust banks (I wonder why) and don't have bank accounts.

RTI has nothing to do with gathering up to date information for the benefits system. That is just a by product.

So when you design something like RTI for the wrong reasons then there will always be problems.

Not everyone trusts the new "techno" era and with just cause.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Kazmc
03rd Mar 2015 15:45

.

Unfortunately I do not believe the true scale of the problems with mismatched entries on the dashboard will come to light until after 05.04.15, that is when the fun will really begin!

Thanks (2)
04th Mar 2015 15:53

No P35

HMRC's big selling point of RTI was 'no P35'. I agree. There is no P35. But there is a final EPS with the same questions as a P35. And there is also at least 12x monthly FPS (52 if you pay weekly) plus an EPS for Employer's Allowance and EPS for SMP recovery etc.

Thanks (0)
avatar
04th Mar 2015 16:17

Come on you lot

Do you really expect HMRC to make our lives easier?

No, of course not.

HMRC are all about getting as much money in as possible and stopping any angles they think tax payers might be trying on.

The beauty of it is that it's going to get worse.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
05th Mar 2015 12:44

Remember the first few years of self assessment returns on line…

When is the last time the system crushed due to load?

Things will get better…..   But HMRC does not help themselves by not even answering the phone or reading letters….

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
09th Mar 2015 19:41

It is not your money

The tax you have collected from employees and vat from customers is not and has never belonged to you, therefore you should not be using it to fund your cash flow!

Likewise the money you own for your other bills, is money you have already spend, and therefore should not be spending again to pay for a holiday.

Thanks (0)
avatar
10th Mar 2015 10:08

@ringi

Not quite right. HMRC allow the money to be used as the tax payer sees fit in return for being a "tax collector". The only stipulation is that you pay what is due on time. If HMRC don't want us to use their money they should collect it a different way. I'm sure most business would prefer not to be unpaid tax collectors.

Thanks (0)
avatar
13th Mar 2015 12:46

@rossmcv

You need to remind HMRC that CIS is not a tax. It is a deduction to be set against the tax payers liability. In this case corporation tax.

I've actually had a summons for corp tax vacated because of it. Don't be put off by HMRC saying we can't or won't do it - they have to.

Thanks (1)