You might also be interested in
Replies (105)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
To "anonymous"
And where exactly did I accuse you specifically? Perhaps if you didnt hide behind the "anonymous" button others would know which are your posting. Your interjection here is clearly an attempt to derail this thread and inflame. Are we to understand that anything addressed to any "anonymous" poster will be taken personally by you?
Your comparisons are contrived and lack any credibility or logic. Like your fellow "anonymous" poster you desparately seek to twist commonly used termonolgy to suit your own contrived and pointless arguements.
Clearly you are still suffering from your obsessive desire to post personal insults whilst hiding behind the anonymous button. How sad - might I suggest that you should get a life?
"Your interjection here is clearly an attempt to derail this thr
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was merely setting the record straight.
I also offered an apology to both you and to Becky. If you don't want to accept, that's up to you. But again, if you found any of my previous post (or indeed this one) insulting, I apologise.
I do object to tax agents who are bullied by HMRC being called c
In my book it is the bullies that are the cowards, they hide behind unclear and often contradictory legislation, they manipulate the truth, deliberately take comments out of context and operate from the premise of guilty until proven not quite as guilty.
If HMRC invested as much in training their officers to actually understand business and accounts as they do on interrogation techniques we might get back to a working relationship such as we had when I started in the profession.
I stand by my original comment that HMRC don't want agents as they stop them stripping tax payers assets bare.
If the powers that be spent more time worrying about what money went out, rather than what came in we might move on. The current system stinks where one government department will hang a business out to dry for £10k - regardless of the fact a dozen people will be on the dole and will have claimed that and some back within a month from another department.
Lack of common sense
If the powers that be spent more time worrying about what money went out, rather than what came in we might move on. The current system stinks where one government department will hang a business out to dry for £10k - regardless of the fact a dozen people will be on the dole and have claimed that and some back within a month from another department.
Posted by Old Greying Acc... on Wed, 10/02/2010 - 14:52
There was a case like that locally. A small restraunt/hotel owing £12,000 bankrupted and closed by HMRC. A rough calculation showed that the unemployment benefits for the staff would amount to around £60,000 a year - so - after 2 months the nation was "out of pocket". All because HMRC refused to accept a perfectly reasonable offer by the owner to clear his arrears at £1,000 a month.
Two years on and that business is still standing empty and the staff are still unemployed.
I wonder also, if we can expect legislation to allow us to prosecute tax officers who lie, cheat, and deliberately distort figures in their attempts to screw a few extra pounds out of taxpayers? No? thought not.
Why
"Your interjection here is clearly an attempt to derail this thread and inflame."
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was merely setting the record straight.
Well, since no one mentioned your name, why then did you feel the desire to intervene? Unless of course you have a guilty concience?
Don't bother responding - you have nothing of interest to say and you are becoming decidedly boring.
Another fine mess...
HMRC is also unclear how its proposals will interact with other penalties. You really can't beat legislation that is drafted on the hoof can you?
In passing, I have been highly critical of my own institute, the ICAEW, in recent months for its apparent lack of concern over the first batch of these proposals. Reading Frank Haskew's comments in this month's Taxline, I am cheered to see that the Tax Faculty is taking this next stage of the "consultation" more seriously. Keep up the good work boys and girls!
new! a nony mouse poster
Do not shout at me for past and future posters, please !
I have the following issues :
Our professional bodies already have a disciplinary process (that can be quite draconian) we signed up to this, and fines etc when we qualified, paid our subscriptions (yes we pay for this to) and agreed to abide by ethical standards.
I believe that our professional bodies should govern us not HMRC.
Unfortunately (whilst there are always exceptions to the rule) the standards of the unqualified will never match those of the professionally qualified, purely from an educational point of view. Naturally those that have studied the subject and keep up to date are likely to be better trained to do the job.
I am also concerned that the behaviour of HMRC officials is declining I recently requested one to put all his points in writing because of his aggresive bullying telephone calls (we eventually won our point but it was not a pleasant experience) extra powers will only make this kind of situation worse and prevent agents from defending quite legitimate points. I quote " We can all quote case law at each other, but I do not agree with it " I would hate for this chap to be given the power of life or trade over me.
HMRC would seem to have powers sufficient to deal with this matter! surely clients realise when they get the penalties and would change agents, unfortunately HMRC are still completely hopeless in identifying the cases that require a makeover.
Rebecca ? engaging in the consultation process ? I have had a time presured look before and never figured out how to do this ! Could accounting web run an article on how we do this please ? An idiots guide would be useful for me.
And now for something completely different ! thats so random dad ! for younger members !
Following on from Nony Mouse
What would be useful is if HMRC controlled non regulated agents in a similar fashion to the money laundering system.
To the newbie anony mouse
No shouting I promise.
I agree with you that in principle we are already burdened (some might say over burdened) with professional regulation from our bodies but, in reality, in this instance, ie dealing properly with our clients' tax affairs how effective are they? Last year I had my first control visit from the ACCA in 6 years and whilst overall it was worthwhile and identified quite a bit of rust and worn tread, the officer spent 2 hours out of the 2 days looking at the files of 5 personal tax clients.
Consequently, as far as my work and practices are concerned she would have had to be extremely lucky or have a tax background to have spotted anything wrong with the way I act as agent for my clients. Consequently, if HMRC have identified a significant problem, either in just general care and attention or worse, then why wouldn't they want to apply their own checks?
I have to take issue with you (but not in a shouting manner) about your generalisation that the standard of the "unqualified" will never match "professionally" qualified. In my near 30 year experience I have found just as many rogues and saints on both side of the fence and over recent years have worked with (and been partnered with) many QBEs. I have made the point before that integrity, professionalism and the wish to do things properly are personal attributes and not therefore determined by letters after your name.
The con docs both rightly go to great lengths to explain that they recognise that prejudice can not play a part in this process.
On your other point about the competence of HMRC staff I have the same fear but again, this point was obviously made loud & clear in the first consultation and we must hope that they put their money where their mouth is.
As far as the con docs are concerned and how to respond, you are right I downloaded the latest doc from a link on a previous thread, that I now can't find. The instructions are easy, ie they have a set of questions for you to answer & email but perhaps Rebecca or someone can get the link back in this thread?
Honesty?
I agree with Paul abour QBEs. We employ several, and some of them have far more knowledge of their specialist areas that qualifieds do. You can only learn so much from text books and nothing can replace experience. Anyone who labours under the belief that QBEs are second class citizens is obviously too full of their own importance .
Surely the thrust of the proposals by HMRC are aimed at integrity and honesty as much as compitence.
Passing a few exams does not guarantee honesty and integrity. I know of several cases of qualified accountants convicted of dishonesty - off hand I cant think of a single case involving a QBE. Thats not a scientific measure, just my memory, but you get my point.
And we do need a better and independent way of complaining about offensive and incompitent inspectors. The current complaint procedure really should lead to a prosecution under the Trades Descriptions Act because it should more accurately be called a Whitewash Procedure.
Found it A nony mouse
Bless them hmrc.gsi emailed me yesterday with the link to the December con doc. Have a read through and you'll see instructions on how to respond but it's best to read all the other pages first !:
Own Rules
One of my clients was subject to a PAYE visit a couple of years ago. The outcome was HMRC wanted to see certain documents which I felt weren't relevant to their inspection. Client got a penalty (which we weren't allowed to attend). We appealed against said penalty to Commissioners and won. Inspector said, quite blatantly, we won't appeal but we still want to see the documents and continued to badger for a year. After 6 months of not repling to his letters I received one from another Inspector to say case closed.
The impression I got throughout all this was that HMRC do not stick to the rules they seem to make it up as they go along and they don't give a monkey's about Commissioners. In fact anything to do with raising money for HMRC and Mr Brown gives his nod of approval.
I have been in practice for 45 years ("how many years") and this is really the first time I have come across such an onslaught against business and their agents. I fear if HMRC aren't severly curtailed there won't be a need for agents, Qualified or otherwise.
All we need now is HMRC Accountants Ltd. State run, of course.
OWN RULES
Thanks Paul
Will read and have a go, unless we try we will not really know whether we would be listened to or not.
Own rules, I am glad I am not the only one that feels my entire education and role in society is at threat.
I am looking for a way out, perhaps best to leave all this misery to the incompetent, they at least do not know any better. Ignorance is bliss they say !
Perhaps if my business fails I can become a business link adviser, and tell people all this is easy and theres no need for an accountant as partnership tax is easy. ( yes Lost the client but they came back later when they realised advice was slightly flawed )
Mouse
Send me a job application form...
... for HMRC Accountants Ltd...
... if it is like any other public office its got to pay at least £150,000pa, with index-linked final salary pension, 40+ days paid leave etc etc - might even get a golden hello!
[***], just realised I wont get it - on account of I know what I'm talking about!!
Agents
Crikey, read part 1 section 2.
A tax agent includes Mum, the man in the Pub and the dog.
If you give sarcastic advice in the pub be sure to use a false name.
Also there are agents out there who do not complete a 64-8 but remain hidden from HMRC, they are completely below the radar.
I will now get o with reading section 3
Shimple
If we really wanted to show HMRC that they are over-stepping the mark we could employ all HMRC staff under "Former HMRC staff Ltd". Pay them to sit in an office all day reading con docs, then liquidise the company after a year.
Daft I know, but it wouldn't take many strategic HMRC staff to leave to focus the mind.
section 3
It's ok it has to be deliberate.
Everyone is safe. Claim incompetency !
Section 4
section 4
Thought they could kick in my door any time they wanted anyway!
Nothing new then.
section 5
Was this not covered by TMA 1970 S.20 and section S.19 notices anyway.
section 6
mmm, don't leave a smoking gun on the file, no offence to auditors intended. now where are those Anderson shredders. best not use a computer either ,
(strikes me this is going to be really effective against an experienced and serial offender, not)
on to 7
come on keep up !
OGA
[***], just realised I wont get it - on account of I know what I'm talking about!!
Posted by Old Greying Acc... on Thu, 11/02/2010 - 15:22
Who told you that :)
7 8 9
7,8,9 cool ! o no its not
(2) a tax agent notice does not need to identify the clients of the tax agent (how does that work then, do they keep looking until they discover the name they were thinking of ?)
10. ok
11. Appeal good ! Don't go on holiday, not for long anyway. Hope the post office is reliable to. If you don't get the letter or miss the appeal you might be in trouble.
However the real danger may lie in the Customary backdating of HMRC letters.
12 No appeal ? If they don't want one.
13 Unlucky for some.
14 Now where was that document ?
15 call a lawyer
16 Privileged ?? not again does this cover advice then ? r but only for the qualified !
17 more powers ! does this mean make extracts and apply out of context me wonders ?
I used to think I was perfect...
... but then I made a mistake -
Thought I had got something wrong, but then realised I hadn't!
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
On a serious note, I was meaning only in comparable terms
sorry, was practising for a job issuing PIN numbers in the VAT online registration department, can't find the thread but I am well short of the record at the moment, only five copies of the same letter, but 3 of those came in the post today so there's still time!
the light !
Are these rules a re write without the prison sentences or a proper court of law !
Not really worth the paper it is written on.
Does not address Incompetence which is the real issue.
Perhaps more work for solicitors.
Professional bodies would never protect you from this sort of action and would be likely to hang you again.
finger printing
My daughter has already been finger printed and an eye scan taken, on her first day at secondary school.
Otherwise they would not let her eat her lunch.
They have apparently banned bullying though. Its just state sponsored I feel.
I was so angry I have refused to take part or support any school activity, and sourced other suppliers for sporting achievements etc etc.
Outsourcing
Don't worry - they will probably soon outsource HMRC to India so we will start getting unintelligible 'phone calls from a call centre in Bombay - which wll make a change from unintelligible calls from a call centre in Edinburgh.
Or maybe they will privatise it - Richard Branson will buy it and we will have to pay Virgin Tax (which will bring a whole new meaning to assessing whether a client needs to pay tax :) ).
Only a target of 100 responses?
I feel that we can do better.
Actually I think that we did over Income Shifting, do you all remember that we got a spectacular response to a House of Commons early day motion when we all started lobbying our MPs. Can we not do this again?
I am bemused to find that the term loss of tax" is not defined so it can include tax mitigation. Likewise, the term tax agent appears to be construed to include, if you need it to:
HMRC's officers/employees
Anon (hiding under a new ID) in the pub
MPs debating the effects of proposed legislation
Members of the Judiciary (you know when they make that orbita "...so Taxpayer, in the dock, if I were to take a loan note in company B and make it into a paper aeroplane and then donate it to charity X I would save you £x '000 in taxes," and then, another taxpayer, does just that.
Any of us, in practice, writing, lecturing
Anyone else, so this presumably includes those on Accountancy TV, Money Box etc etc.
To be honest, if it were guaranteed that these proposals would apply to HMRC I would not be half so worried. Well, only a tenth so worried. What is really rattling me is that this is it: the police state is not just on our doorstep, it is knocking at the door. No point being a member of a professional body, in fact no point in helping people with tax!
So, write to your MPs. But I also propose a strike. Let us all file everything on paper again, until 31 October?
Bottle of Champagne?
Rebecca, given how few responded nationwide to the the first con doc I am impressed by your optimism.
If you can encourage 100 from this site to take part in this one there's a bottle in it for you, only one condition......you have to convince John (huffing from the sidelines) Jenkins that if he doesn't vote he has no right to huff (or puff).
PS: Idiots guide?......that'll do nicely.
Accountants no longer need an institute - they need a Trade Unio
So, write to your MPs. But I also propose a strike. Let us all file everything on paper again, until 31 October?
Posted by Nichola Ross Martin on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 00:13
Far better to DEMAND that HMRC start acting correctly. File formal complaints about every single error they make., and send weekly reminders until complaint is dealt with and DONT accept the first "fob off" they send.
If you receive a request for information write back to them and tell them that so much of your time is now taken up complying with their new powers (you have to check everything several times because any innocent error could cost you your livelihood) that it will be at least 3 or 4 months before you have time to respond to their request.
There are 101 ways that accountants could make life impossible for HMRC - the problem is that most accountants will just carry on in the stupid belief that the new powers will not affect them - until one day they find that they do and have.
Nicola has it when she says....
"I am bemused to find that the term loss of tax" is not defined so it can include tax mitigation."
Without a very strict definition of "loss of tax", this will be unworkable.
I am bemused as to why HMRC did not see fit to use "evade tax" since this is a term that has already been well defined via the Courts.
Huff n Puff
Paul, I do exactly what Welsh Dragon has advocated. Where HMRC make life difficult I reciprocate, always have done. The problem I have is experience. I know that whatever representations are made this con doc, in whatever shape or form, will go to the wire because Mr Brown wants to eliminate all opposition to his "tax gathering" plans.
Someone has to bail out Greece, Spain and Portugal. Thats just the start of Eurocollapse (good song title eh OGA).
If there was a politician out there with guts to stand up and say "enough is enough" they would win the next general election hands down so perhaps when we vote we should teach the two main parties a lesson they will never forget - but will we???????????
Loss of tax
Nigel, the reason why HMRC use "loss of tax" is so they can con people into thinking they are losing vast amounts of money and something drastic needs to be done about it, which means everyone is a target.
HMRC nor anyone else for that matter can ever put a value, not even a guestimate on Tax Evasion so they can only chase a few specifics who have clever dicky Accountants working for them.
a decent bottle, I hope
you are on !
If Rebecca and Nichola are getting upset then we Jolly well better get our act together.
Can we ask whether HMRC has read our rule books ? Particulary the paragraphs relating to tax wrong doing, and the action required. Admitted some members would do well to read this as well.
I have really enjoyed this banter for all its ups downs and ins and outs.
The vast majority of us are responsible and professional and need our voice to be heard.
I for one am fed up with being threatened with the naughty step. Particulary when I have done nothing wrong.
Spread the word !!
I just KNEW I couldn't be the only cynical grumpy old man here.
Paul, I do exactly what Welsh Dragon has advocated. Where HMRC make life difficult I reciprocate, always have done. The problem I have is experience.
Posted by johnjenkins on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 10:05
McDoom will soon be history - but the Tories will form the next government so nothing much will change. Sorry but they both rob you, they just do it in slightly different ways (at least the Tories are subtle).
The bottom line on all of this is that we are all (accountants and taxpayer) being criminalised - assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. They did it to motorists, they are doing it to householders with their "green" drivel, and now they are doing it to the professions.
One thing we ALWAYS do is tape record every conversation with HMRC, no matter how innocuous, because HMRC do lie. If these plans come in I would advise every accountant to do so because you need to view every contact with HMRC as something you may later have to be able to prove in court.
I've been advocating
a Gandhiesque movement of passive resistance with HMRC for years...based on the principal that were we all so minded we could (well within the rules of the system) bring it to its knees. Sort of work to rule with knobs on.Nichola's idea is the sort of thing but going way beyond that. Trouble is (and this has been self evident for years from this site) a lot of agents do not want to "cause trouble" or draw attention in case they are somehow "blacklisted" ...its precisely that sort of attitude that allows this insidious process and eventually you end up with a real nightmare scenario that is exactly where this country is headed...and if you think its bad now God help us all should the unthinkable happen and this lot get in for another term...
pembo
New Parliament
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Brown will just creep in but it will be a hung Parliament. This won't be too bad for the country. It will give politicians a chance to reflect and perhaps deliver what the country wants and not what the political parties want. It will certainly kerb Mr Brown's ambitions.
I have been thinking (bit of a strain on a rainy Friday afternoon) about starting a movement to make the checking of tax returns independant from HMRC. Perhaps, Rebecca the best form of defence is attack. What do you think Welsh Dragon?
HMRC - proposed powers for Agents
Well in every body's experience has been that even a firm of Chartered Accountants do operate bureau in dealing with Self Assessment Tax Returns and their intention being to employ some staff who could just enter the relevant details in their system and guess the department being supervise by ex HMRC who may have spent one or two years with Revenue and called experts being ex HMRC - in my experience one firm have dealt with Self Assessment Tax Returns knowingly that the supporting documents provided to them in preparation of Tax Returns are not correct, consequently Income Tax and Higher Rate Tax being wrongly calculated and as a result lots of amount of tax remained not paid
.
Interesting to note the level of disclosures they are demanding.
See Annex B
They are demanding to see:
1. Copies of ALL Corrspondance (ie all emails)
2. All notes of meetings and telephone calls (and by extension all call records if you routinley record them)
3. Time records, fee ledger accounts etc
4. Anything else what so ever to do with the client, no doubt right down to the Christamas card.
Apart from the onerous natrue of the request being proposed and the time it woudl take to respond in full for a client of any size, what right to HMRC have to know what I have charged a client? What conversations I may have had? What emails i may have sent them?
This is all presumably aimed at undermining any tax planning work (tax avoidance is of course a crime now) and identifiyng any contencious issues.
It is in effect making tax agents a vassal of HMRC.
Another 5 years of McDoom - Nooooooooooooooo
God help us all should the unthinkable happen and this lot get in for another term...
pembo
Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 13:02
If McDoom is re-elected you can have all my clients cos Im off. Let's face it 5 more years of uncontrolled immigration and Poland will be empty - I could have it all to myself.
access to your records
I think you may find that they already have powers to interogate your computer, at will.
We already slept walked into that one.
Unless your records are on a different machine to the client being investigated then I don't think you can stop them.
And enter your bedroom if you have been using the laptop in there or reading forbidden texts about black arts before bedtime.
Lets face it if they do this to you its all over and you may as well take the honorable way out.
We already have a police state its what people voted for ! or didn't vote against !
My tip would be not to leave things in an ordered state let them do some work. We have all witnessed Vat inspections where the records were so appalling that the officer could not be bothered and gave a clean bill of health.
Hung Parliament? It should be - with a noose.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Brown will just creep in but it will be a hung Parliament.
I have been thinking (bit of a strain on a rainy Friday afternoon) about starting a movement to make the checking of tax returns independant from HMRC. Perhaps, Rebecca the best form of defence is attack. What do you think Welsh Dragon?
Posted by johnjenkins on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 13:06
The only "hung parliament" I want to see is 650 of the thieving lying rabble each individually hung from the nearest lamp post.
As for the best way to deal with this - in my view it's time the various accountancy bodies actually did something to earn their fat fees. The proposals breach just about every rule of natural justice and drive a coach and horses through the HRA and shoud be challenged in the courts all the way to europe.
What can we as indviduals do? Zero co-operation.
Demand that HMRC put EVERYTHING in writing - never, ever, accept phone calls from them. If they do call you put them "on hold" for 10 minutes, then put them through "identity checks" then, once they prove to you who they are, simply inform them that "for security reasons" you must insist that they put it in writing and hang up. Thats what they do to us.
When you receive a letter from them, write back asking for clarrification of points as you dont quite understand what they are saying. If you can find 5 points in a letter write to them 5 timers, once for each point.
Challenge their every decision. If your tax computations are just one penny different to theirs - appeal.
Keep ALL tax returns until the last possible day before filing and send their computer into melt down.
The idea being to bury them under an avalanche of work.
If you receive a "demand" for all your client's records simply say no - insist that they get a court order - defend that application - then keep delaying the hearing - believe me delaying a hearing for a year is not that difficult. While there is a court case pending they cannot legally touch any records as those records are exhibits in pending proceedings and therefore attract legal privalege. Any HMRC officer attempting to seize them would be guilty of perverting the course of justice (and breaches of the HRA).
You would be surprised how a little thought can really frustrate them. Some time ago we had a letter about a client in Bangor. We replied - and received a response from of all places, Norwich. Again we replied, only to then receive a letter from Portsmouth. Now, a little lateral thinking led to the simple fact - the client is Welsh - he lives in Wales - Welsh is a legal language - therefore I wrote to Portsmouth, in Welsh. Funny but its about 2 years now and we havent heard another squeak out of them.
Can anyone here write Gaelic for our Scottish clients?
and the best one for last
WD (sorry CD) can be the first member of the P.R.A.T (Pembogandhi Resistence Against Tax ) movement...
what I've been doing for some time is reciprocating that highly irritating habit they've got a putting "please reply by xxxxx) when they've just taken 6 months to reply to your last letter....give em a 2 week deadline and when its not met (100-1 on??) write a formal letter of complaint copying Dave "now where did I put those discs" Hartnett...
pembo
And finally (for me anyway)
You seem to have covered all your normal demons, everything from road charging to the Police State battering down your doors......god I'm emailing this lot to the New Quiz, there's a whole show in it.
CD did you really say that you are retiring and off to another country and then talk about uncontrolled immigradion from Poland? Classic.
Anyway I leave you to your two leaders and all the hangers on, huffing, puffing & strutting whilst the real, and far more important, aspects of 2010 pass you by.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/12/05/books/olso3.450.jpg
You never heard of dual nationality ?
CD did you really say that you are retiring and off to another country and then talk about uncontrolled immigradion from Poland? Classic.
Posted by Paul Scholes on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 19:28
And whats wrong with that? I happen to have dual nationality so Im as at home there as I am here.
Dangerous Path
I am concerned about HMRC proposals. I fail to see how these regulations can work. This is a dangerous path. I fail to understand why more AccWeb subscribers are not opposing this. Please put me down as a definite no.
For what it's worth
have another "no" against these proposals.
HMRC need to put their own house in order first before they should come sniffing round ours. Their "customer service" is still abysmal. Only the other day they wrote to me admitting they'd lost a client's tax calculation (!) and could I send a copy? We responded (quoting we could comply for a fee) and they wrote back saying, "Sorry, we do not have any record of that client's name..."
Once they can look after themselves then, and only then, would I even contemplate letting them start proposing ideas along these lines.
HMRC VAT authorisation codes
only 5?I'm up to 16, all identical and all dated the same day. HMRC say "thry are aware of the problem"!
100 replies ??
Does anyone know how many replies to the consultation process there have been so far?
Did accounting web members reach the magic 100?