Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

An Impossible Dream?

by
31st May 2011
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Rebecca Benneyworth sets the scene for HMRC's latest consultation around its working with agents strategy. There are a lot of good things being offered, but also some significant points of concern. What do you think about the proposals?

The consultation launched on 31 May 2011 is probably the most important document affecting agents working in tax for the rest of their careers. Entitled “Establishing the future relationship between the Tax Agent community and HMRC”* it includes proposals that will transform the way we work and our relationship with the tax authority – which at present might be described as heading for an acrimonious divorce.

Members of AccountingWEB (even recent members) will be familiar with stories of frustration by those trying to execute simple transactions with HMRC on behalf of clients. Unopened post, unanswered telephones, incorrect notices of coding – these are the daily grind of the tax agent. Just getting authority to act seems an almost impossible challenge sometimes.

Well this consultation doesn’t exactly wave a magic wand, but it does look pretty close to it. It offers some radical possible solutions to the litany of complaints – and radical is what is needed in the current state of affairs – but will it work for you?

The pros
“HMRC should provide a service for agents… which should aim to be less costly and time consuming than the current service allows; this service should be simple, easy to use and place control in the hands of those using it”. (page 10)

“For others, there is dissatisfaction with the quality of service for some of their basic transactional needs which add to client and HMRC costs: this can lead to non-chargeable time, or more seriously can damage the agent/client relationship” (page 16)

So HMRC is openly acknowledging that service standards sometimes fall short, and that a simpler, more effective solution must be found for agents – one that is not available to the wider taxpayer base, is special to us. The essential proposal in the document is that agents will be able to enrol for access to a special online agent facility. Under this facility, the following would be possible :

  • No more waiting for authority; agents would self certify that they hold a signed authority from a client (retaining the signed authority) and start work straight away
  • Notices of coding can be amended and generated; for those PAYE clients outside self-assessment, the agent will also control the End of Year reconciliation (P800 procedure)
  • A view of all tax payments and liabilities in respect of a single client, covering all taxes in a single view
  • Use of online education modules to augment professional training on legislation changes and processes
  • Tracking and tracing paper repayment claims and correspondence through the system; and
  • Correspondence and returns / forms that are not currently online can be lodged in an electronic work area, shared by the agent and HMRC.

Well, personally speaking my own response to that lot is “Where do I sign, and how quickly can you bring it in - next month?” As a practice efficiency tool, I would do quite a bit to get this sort of fast track procedure implemented, such as volunteer to be a test practice, or anything asked (within reason). There are, however, some key conditions associated with using the service.

Enrolment
It is sensible for HMRC to control access to their back-end systems (which the above represents) and to limit this to bona fide agents. The intention is that the new “self serve” facility (I would prefer to call it a fast track) would be restricted to paid agents who enrol. Enrolment would entail giving various information that HMRC already holds about agent firms – name, address etc, but in addition the following extra data is proposed :

  • Details of a designated bank account to receive client repayments (if appropriate)
  • Details of the business owners / principals and their memberships of professional bodies
  • UTRs of the agents for their own tax affairs and confirmation that tax returns and liabilities are up to date.

Agent firms using the online self serve system will also be asked to make a security declaration that an agreed level of IT security is in place.

In principle, most agents would not have a problem with the information requested and indeed in respect of some of it there would seem to be a perfectly reasonable basis for the request. But, you may say – is this the thin edge of a very nasty wedge?

The cons
I have not listed enrolment per se as a con, as I see it as a necessary aspect of getting my hands on the “goodies” set out above. No problem there. However, what will happen to all of this information – and is HMRC setting itself up as a new regulator for the tax agent community (ignoring the current involvement in money laundering registration)?

For each enrolled agent, HMRC intends to create an “agent view”, bringing together the details of all clients that we act for. The document states that this “will bring together details of them and their client portfolio into a consistent and coherent picture to support communication and engagement”. As part of this agent view HMRC would include “compliance performance of an agent’s clients”. This, it says, “would provide a foundation for HMRC to target technical updates, support services and compliance campaigns to those agents with the most relevant client portfolios”.

One assumes that this means that each agent will have recorded against their firm the number of clients with compliance failures – such as late returns – and even late payment. I am highly suspicious of any attempt to assess my performance as an agent by my clients’ behaviour. The explanation goes on to acknowledge that the vast majority of agents are well qualified, technically able and competent in their role, but warns “The ‘agent view’ will support HMRC in identifying those agents whose total engagement is significantly outside of the average performance for agents with a similar client portfolio.”

So here is the rub – HMRC will assess agent performance using the enrolment information. Is this a short step to regulation by HMRC? Well, not if you read as far as page 28, where you will discover that HMRC believes that structured self-government of the tax agent market is the correct model for a future relationship. The identification of the very few “wrong ‘uns” would contribute to that end, by raising standards overall.

HMRC is also consulting in this document about our views on the scope for limiting this area of work to those who hold a relevant qualification. Without wishing to spark another rash of a regular debate on AccountingWEB, members might like to read that part of the consultation (page 29 from para 2) and consider their views.

The consultation is open until 16 September. I thoroughly recommend that all of those working as tax agents read it carefully, and make their views known, either through their own professional body or on AccountingWEB. We have launched a discussion group on the consultation which I shall chair, and we’ll be holding a number of special events during the consultation period. I’ll be writing some more in-depth analysis of various aspects of the consultation to get the discussion going, but it is essential that you make your views know – this really will change your life – unless you plan to retire in pretty short order.

AccountingWEB will submit a formal response to the consultation in September - so please give us your views so that we can represent them. Do please also respond to your professional bodies, if you are a member.

*A copy of the PDF document (160kb) can be downloaded using the link below.

Vote in our new poll – “Do you trust HMRC?

Replies (126)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By johnjenkins
03rd Jun 2011 13:58

Why

is there a need for regulation???????????

Are most agents cowboys, are most Accountants bent??????????

So we have HMRC workers "nice" we have agents "nice" so where is the NEED for regulation???????

There is an old saying "never use a sledge hammer to crack a small nut" or something like that.

I think, Rebecca, what some of us are saying is that HMRC are only proposing what we should already be having because they are in such a mess (caused by trying to make everyone compliant) they haven't got a clue as to how to get out of it.

Nothing is perfect so if you go down the compliance route you have to have a fair degree of flexibility.

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
03rd Jun 2011 14:41

A consultation that worked

I could go through loads - particularly on technical matters, but how about one that fits this arena. The consultation last year on dealing with dishonest tax agents, which was, in the profession's view, very wide of the mark and not at all well thought out. The professional bodies, and many individual agents made their views very clear on that one. Result? Withdrawn completely and back to the drawing board. So yes, I have evidence to back up what I say. Putting something out to consultation doesn't always mean doing everything that respondents say, but it does mean taking strongly held views on board when making decisions.

To go further - what about the initiatives that have been developed to try to improve agent service such as the ADL's and AAM's (Sorry Agent Dedicated Lines and Agent Account Managers). Most AccountingWEB members are full of praise for them. How much more proof do members need that HMRC is genuinely trying to improve things?

@John : I don't think anyone would dispute that what is on offer is what we should be getting anyway - but we're not, haven't been and are not likely to with current constraints over budgets. So here's a new idea - one that might get you the service you need, and one which HMRC can look to resource appropriately.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SimonP
03rd Jun 2011 15:23

Humour an old man.

Rebecca B wrote: " I don't think anyone would dispute that what is on offer is what we should be getting anyway - but we're not, haven't been and are not likely to with current constraints over budgets. So here's a new idea - one that might get you the service you need, and one which HMRC can look to resource appropriately."

I'm confused. If HMRC have not been able to provide a decent service thus far and lack of funds will prevent improvement, how would the enrolment of agents change anything?

If the money is not there, it's not there, unless funds are redirected from other areas and presumably weakening those areas or by charging "membership fees", which you state categorically will never happen.

But if this proposed system will be actually cheaper for HMRC to maintain and further funds are not required, then it rather begs the question as to why the heck haven't they rolled it out already and just got on with it, without wasting more money on a worsening service and consultations?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
03rd Jun 2011 15:23

.

Despite the glowing testimonials by some posters the fact remains that disatisfaction with HMRC remains at an all time high.  Just ask the millions of people who suddenly received unexpected extra tax bills due to HMRC incompetence.

In my view this will never improve until personal responsibility is again part of HMRCs culture, where named Inspectors take sole responsibility for a clients affairs, AND, where agents can telephone and email that named inspector.

At present HMRC hide behind call centres and operate on the theory that if something goes wrong just pass the buck time after time until no one knows who is responsible for what.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robert Hurn
03rd Jun 2011 17:01

Withdrawn Completely????

"The consultation last year on dealing with dishonest tax agents, which was, in the profession's view, very wide of the mark and not at all well thought out. The professional bodies, and many individual agents made their views very clear on that one. Result? Withdrawn completely and back to the drawing board" - Rebecca

Or reintroduced it in this proposal.

I know it is not stated in the proposal but it is in my opinion quite obviously the aim.

Anything HMRC withdraw is for their own purposes, but makes those who are naive enough to believe in things like working together, beleive that they have achieved something.  Not noticing that the biggest ongoing complaint for years (authorisations) gets worse by the month.

I have no problem in HMRC introducing new systems if that's what the Government want they will ultimately get their way, but please HMRC drop the pretence of doing it for us.  It is pure politics in the same way that a politician would have you beleive at election time that he/she only wants to be elceted to serve you.  HMRC serve UK Gov that is they way it should be, no consultation will change it.

I know you have stated that you are going to kick up hell if (read when) HMRC beark their word and I believe you, but what will be the result?  Another lip service apology from HMRC and no change whatsoever to the offending item. In a earlier post you mentioned your trust of HMRC staff, was not a senior offical in Scotland jailed in recent years, for amongst other things, buying a castle out of taxpayer money?, trust him?  No organisation or profession including accountants and tax advisors can possibly reach  a state where everyone within it is trustworthy.  Your earlier post appears to suggest thatwe should trust all HMRC staff and anyone they may employ or subcontract to in the future, dangerous.

I hope this won't be taken as a personal attack, clearly we are poles apart in our opinion of the usefulness or otehrwise of consultations.

those are my views, over and out.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whiteways
04th Jun 2011 08:03

Draft Response

Am surprised to see no comment to my Draft Response of 2 June, which seemed to me to be a positive contribution to the discussion. At any rate, below is a paragraph I have added to the draft. Comments invited.

3)Page 16 of the document states, “HMRC acknowledges that it must continue to improve its performance”. Our experience indicates that a significant proportion of errors are perpetrated by HMRC staff. We believe that if HMRC is serious about managing risk, then the same high standards should apply to HMRC staff as apply to the agent sector. By this definition, if HMRC requires agents to obtain a “relevant qualification”, then logically, it should require its staff to obtain an equivalent qualification.

 

Normal

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
04th Jun 2011 10:31

But we are forgetting that HMRC

will have the final say so if we dont come up with positive and resonable ideas we cant complain if the final result is not as good as it might be.

We all have gripes and many have aired them much more elequently that I ever could but we need to push on and show we are worthy of consultation offered us. 

The overall idea appears to work elsewhere so why not a UK version.  As to costs if HMRC can put a good case to the treasury extra funds will be found to implement the changes (look at Ian Duncan Siths changes to benefits) and we will benefit if it works properly and any improvement on the current situation has got to be good. 

IN my view we can be involved in the changes or not and I wish to be involved because it will affect my business

 

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
04th Jun 2011 18:23

A few responses

@bobhurn - I know you said over and out Bob, but I would just like to clarify. and please don't worry, I shall not take it personally as I know it is only healthy debate. I am not saying that every single individual who works for, has ever worked for or might work fro HMRC in the future is trustworthy, or indeed that I trust them. I need to say that because it is important to me that I speak as I find and am not some sort of syncophantic HMRC plant in the profession. AS A BODY I do not believe that the organisation is fundamentally untrustworth in their dealings with us. I do not believe that there is bad faith in any individual from HMRC involved in this consultation. And the truth is, if you read it properly that this consultation states that there will be another consultation on dealing with dishonest tax agents later this summer. (page 30) I know for a fact that this has been a "start again from scratch" job and remains incomplete as yet, so you can hardly say that the same stuff has been reintroduced, because we haven't even seen it yet - it isn't even written yet.

I have had the advantage of responding to a number of consultations over the years, both with AccountingWEB and other organisations. I certainly would not waste valuable time on both this and any others if I thought it was a lip service job, or worse.

I know - and so do HMRC - that authorisation remains one of the biggest problems. It got better for a tiny while and now is pretty tricky again (sorry but that's my form of understatement - I used the same description for chemo). BUT bob, you are now being offered the solution to this - self authorisation. Better to do this than pass bits of paper around the whole of HMRC (badly). So I'm not sure why you don't welcome that?

And for Simon P - The last para of yours is the nail on the head. It will be far cheaper for HMRC by freeing up that resource that currently (but unsuccessfully) deals with 64-8's, amending coding notices etc etc. That resource can be used elsewhere for the one-off cost of developing the computer systems to give us this. Ultimately a lot of popst and phone calls would disappear - I have a feeling the last estomates are that 2/3 of agent contact is progress chasing. This too would all disappear. But in order to do it, they want a better database of who we are etc, so that access to back end is controlled and we get some basic security control. And your conclusion says it all. HURRY UP and bring it on - we can't cope much longer without it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
04th Jun 2011 22:10

Rebecca

We all know it could be a NEW start. OK lets give HMRC the benefit of the doubt that they really want to make it easy for us.

Why, why, oh why then do they include it in a package that causes more problems than it solves.

Why can't they just say. OK lads we are going to put our trust in you and give you the info you need and should have.

As you said Rebecca, they will never do that and whatever they give us is the best we are going to get.

I, for one, do not accept that and I am sure, eventually, HMRC will have to allow us info without strings. They really don't have an alternative cos they are in such a mess.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
05th Jun 2011 09:42

@john jenkins

YOu may be right but the one difference between yourself and HMRC is that if you dont do the job properly you will loose business (and eventually starve!).  HMRC is guaranteed an income (taxes) and does not need to change.

I hope that those that will make the decisions are following the debates on AWeb and when this new scheme is implemented go at it with trottle fully open (that bits for C_D and his motor bike) so that we all HMRC, taxpayers and agents see a big change.  If that happens we will quickly forget how bad it had been

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robert Hurn
05th Jun 2011 12:46

Implementation & Mandate

Better to do this than pass bits of paper around the whole of HMRC (badly). So I'm not sure why you don't welcome that? - Rebecca

I agree that Agent Self-Authorisation (ASA) would be a major step forward, my fear is how it will be implemented.  I foresee that on ASA day someone in HMRC will have data protection issues and decide that clients must sign a form allowing the agent to self-authorise, the form ( a new 64-8 in reality) will not have been designed let alone printed or uploaded to the HMRC website and this will not happen for many months.  When the form is finally available another HMRC officer will decide that for a belt and braces approach a copy of the form will need to be submitted to HMRC, thus we will be back to the 64-8 position that we have now, with one important difference.  The system is now ASA thus any complainants will be told "it's the agent's responsibility.  I say this in light of the following that has occurred recently:

Taxpayers chasing a repayment are told, almost as a matter of course that we have given incorrect bank account details on the tax return, untrue on every occasion.  As one client said recently "you are both blaming each other, how can I know who to believe".  We have had to work very hard to retain this client.  A 64-8 is rejected as it is a photocopy (it was a form download from the HMRC website) the form was returned directly to the taxpayer with a covering letter effectively accusing us of incompetence. 

HMRC cannot expect us to forget everything that has happened and afford them trust from day one, they must regain the trust that they once enjoyed and this will require providing an efficient and honest service over many years.  Staff must be trained to understand that giving an easy answer to get the taxpayer off the phone is dishonest and unacceptable.

In my opinion the proposals introduce de-facto agent regulation, if HMRC can grant an agent ASA then  presumably they can also withdraw the facility, whilst this would not disbar the agent from acting it would have an adverse affect.  We must bear in mind that the Government regularly states evasion and avoidance as if they are the same thing.  I fear that they will have the same approach in assessing agents those who undertake tax planning will be grouped with the dishonest agents.

If consultation is to have any value (and my views on that are already clear) the first stage must be a written response stating what will not happen. (i.e. there will be no agent regulation or new 64-8 form as a result of these proposals).  Personally I am in favour of regulation that puts dishonest agents out of businesses but as others have said this role cannot be undertaken by HMRC playing judge, jury and executioner, this would represent a serious conflict of interest.  I would, though not keen, prefer to pay for an independent regulator. Those of us who are members of PBs already pay for regulation, an independent system is required for those who are not regulated by professional bodies (note this is not a Q/NQ issue as some unregulated agents have chosen not to continue their subscriptions to PBs).

I hope that I have explained that I am not anti-HMRC, but nor am I prepared to forgive and forget on the promise of jam tomorrow.  I predict that these consultations will be an unmitigated disaster for tax agents.  I mention this as when it happens and I complain others will say that I am being wise after the event.  The only practical response to the invitation is to decline to be involved and state that the level of trust required for constructive consultations no longer exists between the proposed parties; and publicise the same.  Maybe, just maybe, someone in HMRC might start to appreciate that there is a problem. 

Better still should those prosing to "represent us" in the consultation, given the views air on AW, not establish a mandate to do so?  After all HMRC will view you as representing the whole industry when a significant number, myself included do not wish to be represented.

Perhaps a vote on AW would at least give some indication as to whether agents wish to be represented. I may not want to be represented in Parliament by my MP, but was given the opportunity to express my preference via an election, thus he can claim to have a mandate to represent me. 

So what do you think Rebecca, put it to a vote?  If the majority are in favour I will accept this and if they are against will you do the same?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
06th Jun 2011 09:49

Wouldn't

it be great if HMRC asked AW to submit proposals for a working relationship between agents and HMRC instead of asking us to comment on theirs. I'm not saying we know better than HMRC. The reason for saying AW is that it seems to have a broad mix of views and is not tied to the indoctrination of any Institute or body. Perhaps, Rebecca if you do a poll the wording of the questions could be such that a consultative document might be extracted at the end?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robert Hurn
06th Jun 2011 11:05

Excellent suggestion John

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
06th Jun 2011 11:16

John

Great idea - perhaps we should frame our responses as a document entitled "The future relationship between tax agents and HMRC". If members continue to make as many constructive suggestions as possible I can draw up a draft in pleanty of time for you to comment on it before submission. Obviously some of it will need to respond to their suggestions, but I certainly was not thinking of restraining our response to approving or otherwise of HMRC's views.

Bobhurn - I do accept your view bob, and I will get a poll organised in the next few days. My gut tells me that quite a lot of members  will want to make their views known - although I guess they could do that individually and to thier professional bodies (if members). But I will look to get a view by vote.

I really don't need any more contributions from those who have already made thier point on the subject of HMRC service levels etc. Got that lot on board and will represent those views when the time comes. New balls please.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dcls14352
07th Jun 2011 14:17

Statement of fact

Everything done by HMRC is done for HMRCs benefit. This is a simple statement of fact like Tesco exists to serve it shareholders not its customers. Tescos only has to serve it customers well because it exists in a competative market which explian why HMRC is rubbish. We live in a stasi state run by civil stasi for their own benefit and corporate interests. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robert Hurn
07th Jun 2011 15:06

Soviet Control

I believe that HMRC have moved away from integrity and democratic principles over recent years, but to say we live in a Stassi state is nonsense and disrespectful to the many lives lost to that and other communist regiemes.  I have yet to hear of a critic of HMRC being dragged from their bed in the middle of the night to disappear for ever, because of their views.  You have clearly never lived under Soviet control.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SimonP
07th Jun 2011 15:33

@BobHurn

"Taxpayers chasing a repayment are told, almost as a matter of course that we have given incorrect bank account details on the tax return, untrue on every occasion.  As one client said recently "you are both blaming each other, how can I know who to believe"."

Since the taxpayers must have a copy of the tax return before they can authorise filing, clearly all they need to do is turn to page TR5 where this information is provided. QED.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SimonP
07th Jun 2011 15:54

@RebeccaB

"New balls please."

That's a bit sexist, isn't it? Are HMRC really THAT bad?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whiteways
07th Jun 2011 16:39

Dismayed

I am truly dismayed by the lack of constructive comments on this thread on what should be a serious issue. 

In a final appeal to reason and common sense, I am posting a re-drafted conclusion on my response posted earlier.

In the absence of any sensible comments, I will go it alone. It may be that HMRC won't listen to me any more than anyone here does, but at least I am trying. Which is more than I can say for some.

 

Normal

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Conclusion: The issues raised in this consultation document are serious and far reaching, and will have a significant impact on this firm and its dealings both with clients and HMRC for years to come. In recent years, the regulatory burden on accountants has increased considerably, and the effect has been disproportionately heavy on small firms such as ours.

We feel strongly that there are significant flaws in what is being proposed which, if implemented, would have a severe effect on this firm and its clients and compromise our ability to provide the best level of service, as well as increasing compliance costs, with little or no benefit in return.

The proposals in this document regarding increased regulation would increase this burden still further, to the point where it may be difficult for many small firms, who supply a simple, cost-effective service, to remain in business. Ultimately this would restrict choice, damage competition and increase costs significantly, particularly for small businesses.

We welcome the opportunity to engage in this consultation process and would hope that although we are a small firm, our voice will be listened to and our concerns addressed.      

 

 

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
07th Jun 2011 20:23

Don't give up, whiteways

I have really valued your input and will ensure that your views are put across. However, do also feel welcome to send your own response in too if you like.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whiteways
07th Jun 2011 21:03

Thank you

I appreciate your sentiments, Rebecca. I will be sending in my own response to HMRC, as one of the "little guys". You are of course welcome to include any of the points I have raised in your own response, as you think appropriate.

I for one will be watching avidly to see whether HMRC listens. As far as relations between them and the agent community are concerned, this consultation has the potential to be "make or break".

Let's hope they don't blow it!   

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Eric Robinson
08th Jun 2011 13:14

Definition of "Fact"

 

Comparisons between HMRC and any State sponsored Secret Police are simply outrageous.

The remarks display a total lack of any understanding of the function of HMRC and the people who work under its control.

The fact is that there are still a good number of very competent people within HMRC who struggle to implement and administer poorly thought out and badly judged policies. The trouble is that numbers are dwindling and such replacements that are put in post have no appreciation of how things were before the descent into chaos.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mpurcell
08th Jun 2011 16:40

Focus on the real issues

I have read through all the above and at times I despaired. It is quite obvious why, as agents (and taxpayers), we have the appalling 'service' currently foisted on us. We are weak, sometimes frightened, frequently deceived, misled and lied to by HMRC and most unfortunately we are disunited.

Why argue here about qualifications? It is not the issue. For the record I qualified over 25 years ago but I have no problem competing in the marketplace. If you are good enough you will succeed. No group is perfect and it is a fool who tries to set him/herself on a pedestal above others by insulting their ability. Prove your worth by the service and advice you give. We should all be free to operate as we see fit. We members and our various institutes should sell the virtues of our qualifications but not by denigrating others who are different or 'less' qualified. It is certainly not a role we should be handing over to HMRC and anyone who advocates this should beware.

Surely every single one of us agrees that the current situation is unacceptable (I cannot print my actual feelings)? Yes, in reality, from what I can see, what is on offer will be a vast improvement. I accept that we are only being offered what should always have been provided. Is there another way of achieving such changes? Well, after 6/7/8/9 years of watching the rapid decline I think not.

Sorry Rebecca I do not trust HMRC, neither the organisation nor the arrogant and unaccountable management which has failed us all for many years. That said this seems to be our best opportunity to engage in change for better. However, I firmly believe we need to ensure that HMRC does not and cannot control who can register as an agent. What we need to debate and agree on is how should this be administered. There is no comfort to be had from being told HMRC do not propose use this scheme for this or any other purpose. If we leave it within their potential remit to regulate who is an agent or which agents can use which bit of the service we will only have ourselves to blame in the future.

Let us at least put the dreadful experience of the last few years to good use and try and take control of our own destiny in some small way.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By KH
08th Jun 2011 18:38

Agree with mpurcell

Except I think I probably have a bit more trust in HMRC than mpurcell does ... my dealings with them have been fine, but I lament the horrendous delays in getting 64-8s actioned, and even trying to find out the UTR for a new client when I have been accepted as agent, but can't get online access due to zero UTR (you can't even use online services to get online access without the UTR!).

I think all agents MUST be taken on board by HMRC, regardless of qualification or lack of such. Qualifications don't seem to be the problem, whereas ability does, and I've yet to see any qualification guarantee ability in anything apart from passing that particular exam.

I think the system, whatever it is, should be rolled out over several years, starting with the big boys first ... after all, they are the guys who really make or break the government's coffer, and when one of those guys screw up, well all suffer (viz banking crisis over dodgy US mortgages not being spotted or reported when in its infancy). Also, the big boys have the resources to put inline whatever is expected of them by HMRC, whereas the smaller practices might find themselves seriously pinched if there are more fees, costly upgrades, masses of technical catch-up issues, etc.

I would love to see targeted CPD, in that once HMRC knows your client base, and the level of work you undertake, then they can suggest (and even send out) appropriate info and guides to keep the agent up to speed in his/her sphere of activities.

HMRC's online systems currently have sufficient firewalls, security, authorisation codes, etc to the extent we can alread log on to loads of sensitive info ... so is there a need to have any more security than at present? And, if so, surely it is up to HMRC to instal it on their own systems? … The rest of us are already tied into MLR and Data Protection Act, so what more is needed or expected of agents in this regard?

I am very wary of HMRC administering some type of overseer responsibility, but then I'm also not entirely clear why I am concerned ... so far my time with MLR has been fine, so if that is indicative of the type of overseer role that HMRC is inclined to, it's fine by me (so far!).

I wonder whether the power of the top six accountancy professions is going to use this as an excuse to exclude all non-qualified agents ... now that is something that worries me, as I've seen this type of political manoeuvring in other areas (chiropractic being the example which most readily springs to mind).

I am convinced that this consultation document will lead to what is being put on the table .... to me it looks like it has been decided on, and all that needs doing is finishing touches.

I'm not sure that what is being offered by HMRC will in fact be of any help to my practice ... it's small, c.70 clients, and I find the current systems, 64-8s aside, working well for me. -- KH

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robert Hurn
08th Jun 2011 19:58

Shouldn't Need to check

Since the taxpayers must have a copy of the tax return before they can authorise filing, clearly all they need to do is turn to page TR5 where this information is provided. QED.

I take your point QED, but in my view clients should not be mislead by HMRC

Thanks (0)
avatar
By HMRC confusing
24th Mar 2016 20:55

RE: HMRC's false demand for 600K?

I have received a demand for 600K from HMRC in Nottingham.  I live and work in Oxford.  The fact of the matter is this debt does not exist.  This woman from HMRC in Nottingham who has a very close relation with A.J. Sargeant an IP, done this deliberately in order to cause deliberate financial damages to me.  Whenever I complained the woman stopped working on my case.  The senior complain officer is saying that HMRC are not asking for this demand now, but, this woman in Nottingham HMRC insist that this is a debt and needs to be paid.  I am going to Tribunal.  The person in charge of this department is not clarifying the situation.  I have asked several time for the address of Jenny Granger, they refuse to provide her contacting details.  Does anyone has the contacting details of  Jenny Granger who is in charge of Small Firm compliance department.  I need clarification of the position of this claim.  It sounds no one wants to help.  I even got ADR involved in this case.  The woman from Nottingham didn't show up for the meeting!!!  Has anyone else been harassed by HMRC in Nottingham?  I need some good advice regarding this injustice.

 

 

Thanks (0)

Pages