Meeting Mike Clasper
You might also be interested in
Rebecca trained in London with Kidsons and, on qualifying, spent some time as Chief Accountant of a manufacturing company. She now has her own small practice in Gloucestershire that comprises of owner managed businesses and small companies.
She also lectures extensively for a range of professional bodies, accountancy firms,...
Replies (29)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Strategy
seems to be the key word here. Is there any indication of how that strategy might work? Clearly we are going to have self-serve which is a great leap forward. If the strategy bit is how agents can help progress our "relationship" further then also that is a great leap forward. I know you're waiting for the but , or however!!!
The question I'm going to ask Rebecca is. Have you come away with the feeling that things between us and HMRC are going to take a turn for the better or is the status quo stagnent?????????
THANK YOU AND WELL DONE
persevering with us lot what a trouper you are - stress you could well do without!
Strategy sat a gee
But where does enrolment come into it. Fine, yes HMRC should have a strategy for dealng with agents, but that is up to them, I have strategy for dealing with HMRC. Who can or cannot be an agent is not and never should be within the remit of HMRC. see later post, enrolment is already compulsory for online services!!
I still don't want self serve, I don't give a stuff what the rest of the world do, more fool them I say. So, if I just view, and don't change things myself and ask them to, what then? Will I be fined, will I be taken off the list? - OK, now seen "full" article, which answers this (with the caveat, "yet"), point remains HMRC should not get it wrong, they have access to more information more quickly than the tax agent, it is their incompetence in the first instance and their systems should be improved, they should "get it right first time"* not leave us to wipe their behinds for them.
Still, nice to have a bit of background, now we know Wallace is in charge I can't wait to see the prototype taxomatic agent interface.
* To finish on a very serious note, I do take exceedingly strong exception to element 4 of their strategy - agents invariably do get it right first time ourselves - it is HMRC who [***] it up big time with their inability to deal the simplest of requests properly.
Well Done Rebecca
I hope that we will have a plan of implementaion so that we can help HMRC as much as then can help us.
Its good to know that we are following in the footsteps of others. Hopefully less stress all round
hubris
"Agents invariably do get it right first time ourselves......" : not, it has to be said, in my experience !
The
reason why most agents invariably get it right first time is because our training didn't allow for anything else. I know that some larger concerns will write off any differences that they consider not to be material, however my first boss (junior partner) wouldn't allow me to get away with a penny (the old addage £3000 one way £2999.99 another. I was going to put it in LSD but I thought OGA might get too nostalgic).
With the advent of Pausing, listening, learning etc. I am hopeful that HMRC will take our views on board. Lets face it they really don't have a choice.
Oldersimon ...
... I would bow to your experience, but with the caveat, your work is in the area of picking up the pieces where it has gone wrong.
In many cases, had HMRC a decent system of communication to iron out problems up front, e.g. specialist help centres, then agents would not have to take a punt and see what "they" say, which, when faced with downward fee pressure and rising red tape burdens, is unfortunately what frequently happens with tax matters outside their area of knowledge. VAT are the worst offenders for this, with the stock reply, "it is all the the VAT notes which are self explanatory"!
That HMRC will not commit to firm, binding, advice pre filing is ludicrious and self defeating in my opinion.
HMRC giving binding opinions
Absolutely right oldersimon. If the Revenue will not give an opinion beforehand how do they manage to come up with differing opinions afterwards. i.e. if the knowledge is there why not impart it before the tax return is submitted - it makes no sense.
Surprising responses?
Sorry, I can't find the part about the "surprising responses" mentioned.
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Catti ...
... see what you mean :o)
I would also like clarification, was this meeting a meeting, or was it a lecture? Because from what we have been made party to so far, it seems a typical HMRC one way communication channel, bearing all the hallmarks of the dreaded "S" word I hoped we had send the back of with the departure of Bliar, Brown and Campbell.
Sorry to seem cynical, and may be the intentions are sincere (and probably are), but when agents have been treated with the utmost contempt for the last decade can you blame me.
However, the more I think about it (as a tax payer, not as an accountant), the more I realise what complete and utter tosh our tax system is. I think I would be more impressed if HMRC were to say, we have commenced a complete rethink of the tax system so it is fit for purpose and the modern world, and these proposals form part of that, in the meantime, bear with us, and we will invest more in AAMs and communications systems in the interim.
However good communications and relationships between HMRC and tax agents are, it still doesn't address the overly complex rules, many of which are a blatent mockery of commonly accepted fairness. They are full of pits and traps that ensnare those least able to avoid them and seriously adverse financial consequences can occur through quirks of nature (such as dates of birth and death (even gender)).
Last bang of the drum: I know, it won't happen; because too many people make too much money from it being thus! Fact is though, if we had a simple fair system, the tax take requirement could quite feasibly halve, and the economy would grow because people would be buying goods and services, not paying tax (and would thus be incentivised to be successful).
If "Call me Dave" wants to call me to discuss my proposals, he can feel free to, the first would be to do us all a favour and abolish PAYE.
UPDATE - now I have seen the "full" article some of the above is now redundant - 15/06/11 - 16:15
Re. getting it right
I would add, you need to differentiate between routine tax matters, which I, and I assume Mr Clasper too, are referring to, and those of a more complex or less customary scope.
Just to be clear (again)
Any references to Wensleydale cheese are intended to only be humourous, and contrary to any impression I may be making to the contrary, and quite possibly also perversely, I feel happier with HMRC being in the hands of an engineer than those of an accountant!
HMRC's 3 aspects of operations
"He explained that HMRC has to balance three conflicting aspects of its operations:
Collecting tax and closing the tax gapThe experience of customers, andCosts."
Nice to see the motives laid out clearly - although the priorities for HMRC are obviously just collecting the tax and the cost of doing so.
The "experience of customers", 'service delivery' and all that other type of business-speak is simply to get agents to agree, maybe without realising what they may be committing to, as the consultation has been spun so as to make out its all about doing things better. Yes they probably will be done better (more tax collected at a lesser cost to HMRC) - because the agents will be obliged to do more. In particular, policing their clients. And making it harder for imperfect clients to find an accountant to act.
Imagine if the legal profession worked in this way. I suppose it would mean a safer society, at a cost of more miscarriages of justice.
Self Serve
I am not quite sure what is meant by self-serve, but if it includes being able to amend the tax codes of clients with PAYE income that would be very useful. I have also recently had experience of two HMRC investigations, one of which was settled with no adjustment and the other with minimal adjustment (under £2,000). In both cases, the clients went through an extended period of anxiety not knowing when they would be able to get on with their lives. I therefore think that the time has come for a tax neutral fixed penalty regime to be introduced for small traders.
The way it would work is once culpability had been established above a deminimis limit, an option would be put to the tax payer to pay a fixed penalty for closure of the investigation or to continue on with a "traditional" investigation with the inherent costs and uncertainties.
Once the fixed penalty had been paid and the investigation had been closed, the only way it could be re-opened is if evidence arose later which indicated that there may have been further omissions above a set ceiling. For example a taxi driver may pay a fixed penalty of £3,000 and he would be safe unless evidence later came to light of evasion which was either not related to the main source of income under investigation or was above a celling of say (in this case) £10,000.
But ....
Rebecca,
Did you ask him why the Revenue wants mandatory 'enrolment' of agents, if this is not regstration/regulation?
Amending PAYE codes
HMRC are more likely to have detailed information on this than I, clients "forget" to mention part time jobs, small occupational pensions etc. On the latter because there is a widespread urban myth that pensions are tax free still prevelant amongst many lay people.
Likewise, HMRC would know better than I on sources of unearned income as they are reported direct by the financial institutions.
The only thing on a tax code I would be happy about would be income from sources I deal with.
I would welcome being able to see a clients tax code online, and would be happy to point out to HMRC where I thought there was an error/omission/discrepancy and report to them, whether by telephone, fax, e-mail, letter or may be an "online code correction request" (along the lines of an SA303)
And it is incumbent on HMRC to have a competent officer/system to quickly, professionally and accurately process said request. In these days of increasing litigation and automatic penalties I would be unhappy changing something that affects my clients tax liability if I could not be 100% sure I was in possession of all the facts.
That said, HMRC should never put any non PAYE adjustments on a tax code without explicit consent by the tax payer.
Any way, reference above, get rid of PAYE and the coding notice problem goes away :o).
Catti
Agree with you Catti
My RSS shows the folLowing:
Face to face with Mike Clasper
Rebecca Benneyworth reports on Monday evening's meeting at which the HMRC chairman explained the Agent Strategy in more detail. Unaffiliated agents at the event came up with some surprising responses.
Can't see anything in this article that relates to the last sentence.
Editor/Rebecca/Anyone please expand??
Enrolment as agents?
(memo to self - do some work!)
I AM enrolled as an agent! I have userID and password and it lets me view many "heads of duty" online (who thinks up these names!), to varying degrees of detail - why change, why not just expand what is available. "They" must (or should if not) know from the system so far who is "competent" to use the systems properly!
Bizarre editing transposition - all my fault
Please forgive any confusion caused by our introduction and the original version of the article that appeared. We have two different versions - one that registered members can see and one that casual visitors (and search engines) see.
Somehow while editing the page, I managed to swap the two elements - so that casual readers could see all the agents' comments and those who were logged in only got the overview.
Human error, I'm afraid, for which I apologise to all those who have read the article so far - and to Rebecca who put so much effort into compiling it. I'll make sure that members get a second chance to see the contents in Monday's Tax wire.
Thanks to all those who brought this oversight to our attention.
Expanding the online
Just one or two tweeks would greatly improve. Why have two bank accounts? How do you find out whether a client is Shipley or Cumbernauld when they ask how to pay having binned anything with HMRC on it? The only way is to phone the agent line with all the ID ballyhoo and timewasting. Where the website says 'How to Pay' no indication is given.
Who on earth thought up this iXBRL? Clearly Sage has fallen over and so have many packages. Why not use the simple self employed chart for the vast majority of small companies? HMRC can then query entries if they wish by still looking at the PDF's. Why did not all the software providers say 'sod off!' HMRC couldn't have done anything in effect. Why labour us with geek speak that I had to look up on Wikipedia before I believed what I was seeing. It is a process fraught with error, designed by a committee and destined to turn accountants into garbling zombies. I am not a luddite, having been computerised (on Olivetti P652) since 1979 and at 64 coped with Mr Gates' many reincarnations of operating systems. I am still unconvinced that most small enterprises couldnt be adequately summarised on about 60 codes All this plethora of taxonomy results from giving the programmers too much leeway in excessive gigabytes and is lining the geeks pockets at our expense. Will the last accountant to leave this country turn the lights off, please!
Oldshoremore
Couldn't agree more.
recently sent a ct600 by ixbrl or whatever the dratted thing is called using our software and somehow when the revenue captured it their end it has a different year end and the tax due is some £5,500 less than it should be. None of the figures at the Revenue's end look anything like the figures that I filed. When I contacted the Revenue I was promised a call back from a manager within 2 working days and I have now been waiting a fortnight!!
Worse and worse.
Enrollment fees, compulsory PI - for the very small practitioner, this just gets worse and worse.
Why not just beat us with a stick and be done with it?
Sorry I have been a bit quiet!
Last week, it was poor John S having IT nightmares - this week it is me! My very new very snazzy laptop refuses to boot up and you know how many hours you waste trying everything! OH has it now and is V confident. I've resurrected old one but of course can't get at my inbox etc etc. Darn nuisance.
Anyhow, I was a bit puzzled by the comments you made until I got to John's apology. All clear now. I was a bit surprised that so many of those present were cool about all aspects of enrolment and regarded this as something they needed to do to be in business. There certainly wasn't any baulking! They even offered to pay (as you can see above!). Brian Redford knocked that back as not on the agenda.
I'm going to do a detailed article on the why of enrolment from HMRC's perspective, which I hope will clear up a few questions. I do understand that members are very sensitive about this, but I'll give you more detail on it - in the next day or so if I can claw back some time spent playing computer non-geek. Late night on the way to catch up!
Our meeting with Mike Clasper
Rebecca,
It was good to meet up at the meeting with Mike Clasper in Leeds on Monday and to hear your opinions first hand.
The ICPA was very well represented at the meeting and I'm still reviewing their comments and views and
we have a further meeting in London this month where again there will be a large ICPA representation.
Once I have their views and I've added to them the views expressed to me by members via email and 'phone calls etc I'll be in a better position to express the overall ICPA view.
I suppose the single most important matter to emerge from the meeting was as you point out that HMRC do not want to be regulators which was stressed at various intervals by both Brian Redford and Mike Clasper.
The consultation is one of the most important documents being placed before the profession and warrants careful consideration by anyone acting as an Agent and hopefully your work on behalf of Accountingweb members and the work of the ICPA will ensure it receives the responses it merits.
Tony Margaritelli - Chair ICPA
strategy
the word itself implies more headline grabbing and less delivery.
the chaps who have to be managed by all these chiefs, dave hartnett; bedford etc.etc. are eternally on the recieving end of reorganisations closures and relocation notices by the department at the behest/advice of highly paid managment/it consultants who sell the name strategy to these HMRC cheifs.
fact;
they are totally out of touch: and couldnt do an inspectors job if they saw one;
The attitude at the department remains guilty until proven inccocent and 9 out of ten times they are writing to their "customers" and not the agents over a matter the agent is dealing with thanks to those highly paid management consultants.