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

Working with tax agents – what is it all about?

by
8th Feb 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The second consultation from HMRC on powers in relation to tax agents runs for another three weeks or so, and there is just time for you to get involved if you have views you wish to express.

AccountingWEB.co.uk responded to the original consultation held last April and will be making a response to the current consultation, so if you have views, do let us know and we will pass them on.

The consultation sets out the objectives of the current focus for HMRC. Simply put, HMRC’s intention is to ensure that… "More tax returns and claims are correct when submitted." (para 1.2). In more detail, the basis of what is viewed as a programme of work, rather than a single exercise is to see how the tax profession and HMRC can work together to ensure high standards of professionalism, and to encourage equivalent standards among those tax agents not affiliated to a professional body.

The agenda is set early on in the current consultation, explaining what steps will be part of this overall objective:

  • Ensuring that HMRC has effective powers to undertake its policing role in respect of tax agents, but acts reasonably and proportionately in doing so;
  • Ensuring that there are sufficient and accessible safeguards
  • Taking account of the principles underlying recent changes in the new tax penalty regime and how these principles might apply to tax agents
  • Considering whether there is a greater role for disclosure by HMRC to professional bodies, and
  • Seeking to understand how HMRC can work with unaffiliated tax agents to ensure that they are maintaining high standards

A starting point

The document therefore assumes to HMRC the responsibility for policing the agent community. While many members might debate or dispute this statement, this principle is not open for debate. Is it right that the tax authority should effectively police an agent's work?

Before we get sidetracked, and possibly overwrought, it would be very useful to separate out the strands of our work in a way we quite possibly do not at present. We are considering here the role as agent, and not the role as advisor. The objective of ensuring that tax returns and claims are right first time does not in truth have much to do with the 'dodgy tax schemes' or otherwise that we may or may not recommend to our clients, unless those schemes are misrepresented on a tax return. There is an element of crossover to the extent that an agent genuinely but incorrectly believes that a certain transaction is subject to a certain treatment, when in fact it is not, but if we can link that aspect in through consideration of technical ability, we may be able to segregate our role as advisor (and advocate when clients are subject to compliance activity) from the simple reporting role.

So, to return to the question – can we accept that the tax authority has the right to police those who represent to others that they will complete and submit their tax return on their behalf? I suspect that we have to acquiesce to this point, as HMRC provide the agent facilities and if we are to retain status as agents we must accept that HMRC may wish to 'control' who can be members of the 'agent club'. So HMRC must retain absolute control over who can register as an agent and thus have access to agent privileges.

Some have commented that HMRC's refusal to recognise an agent would be tantamount to restraint of trade – but I disagree. Being a member of this club is useful and makes the business of acting as an agent and adviser simpler, as I can correspond with the tax authority directly, and am recognised by the legislation in respect of penalties. If I am excluded from membership, I can still peddle my wares, but the tax authority will not make it easier for me by conferring special privileges on me. So I think a successful challenge to the road we are on unlikely.

Next steps

If we accept that it must be the tax authority's right to control who is a member of the club, then as existing members (who were admitted by default) we are being asked how this policing might work and on what basis members may be called to account. HMRC takes pains to state and restate in the consultation document that it is only a very small minority of agents who will be affected by these powers – but I disagree. Every member of the club will be rightly concerned what sanctions are available if we break the club rules, by accident or design, and what safeguards there are to support us if we get caught up in the process. We shall all hope never to be affected by them, but we must get involved now to protect ourselves.

My concern

I do want to spare a thought here for those agents who have performed well over a number of years and who suddenly, through illness or personal circumstances fall short of the standards expected of them. Their inability to cope, and the natural reaction to hide the problem can lead to serious problems, but I would like to ensure that an agent in this position has a supportive regime which will help them resolve the issues when inevitably things are bad enough to come to the notice of the tax authority. I do think these circumstances are worth bearing in mind as we develop the new regime.

However, the new proposed regime does separate out the behaviours that it wishes to sanction, and provides some indications of the approach the tax authority will take. So let's get down to brass tacks on what is planned.

The current proposals

The consultation document outlines the proposals being considered now in the context of a wider programme of work, but it is useful to focus on exactly what proposals are now 'on the table'. This comprises powers and approaches in three different sets of circumstances:

  • Misconduct by agents who are members of a professional body;
  • Deliberate wrongdoing by agents, and
  • High-volume agents

Misconduct

While HMRC has existing powers to report members of professional bodies to their supervisory body in some cases, this power is used infrequently and to no great effect in the recent past. The consultation document follows responses to the 2009 consultation in seeking to make better use of this power, and HMRC's view is that no change in the law would be necessary to meet their intended aims. So the proposal here is that a change in procedure be implemented as follows:

  • When a problem area is identified of sufficient concern that a report to the professional body would be considered, the issue will be raised first with the agent concerned, to bring the problem to their notice and try to put measures in place to resolve it
  • Only where the agent did not engage in this process or where a problem persisted despite efforts to resolve it would a report be made

The proposals will be discussed in detail with the professional bodies, and there are also plans for a reciprocal arrangement under which tax agents can raise the behaviour of HMRC staff who they feel have behaved inappropriately – which is a suggestion I am sure that the agent community would welcome. Where a report is to be made, there will be a process designed to ensure that the misconduct was serious enough to warrant disclosure.

There is no statutory definition of misconduct, but in the consultation document, HMRC seeks to revisit the considerations applied when the relevant law (s 20 CRCA 2005) was formulated. Although the power to report was designed to be used in cases of "frequent error or unethical behaviour", HMRC believes that it can also cover persistent errors, failures to take reasonable care or negligence. Although not absolutely clear, I assume (and hope) that the 'persistent' qualifier applies also to the failures to take reasonable care. One lapse would hardly, in my view, be sufficient to set a disciplinary process in train.

The consultation also envisages that there will be some cases where a report to the professional body will be made without seeking to resolve the issues with the agent. This would most likely be in cases where the conduct is likely to result in exclusion by that body.

HMRC reports that under a voluntary process implemented before the merger of Revenue & Customs, contact was made with agents where there were concerns about their work, and it was not necessary to make reports to professional bodies; clearly it is hoped that this success can be repeated.

I will deal with the other sanctions proposed for deliberate wrongdoing and high-volume repayment agents in a separate article, but to conclude this analysis, I would urge members of professional bodies to contribute to this consultation. There is one clear issue here. In seeking powers to deal with tax agents, HMRC is taking a piecemeal approach to a major piece of work. Those who are members of professional bodies are an easy target as the law and mechanism for reporting to the professional body, and for the action by the body are established. However, no such reports are possible for those who are not members of a body, and other sanctions will be developed to deal with those agents. It would be highly unfair for those agents who are members of a body to come within a regulatory regime before any sanctions are developed to deal with other tax agents, so HMRC should give assurances that all agents will be subject to a process for misconduct at the same time.

Tags:

Replies (105)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Feb 2010 14:26

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?  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Feb 2010 14:42

"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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Feb 2010 14:52

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Feb 2010 15:05

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
10th Feb 2010 19:30

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.

Thanks (0)
Nichola Ross Martin
By Nichola Ross Martin
10th Feb 2010 20:48

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!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 11:40

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 !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 11:52

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.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
11th Feb 2010 12:29

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?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
11th Feb 2010 12:39

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.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
11th Feb 2010 14:07

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 !:

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ConsultationDocuments&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_PROD1_029995

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th Feb 2010 14:42

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.  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 15:09

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

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 15:22

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!!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 15:30

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

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th Feb 2010 15:31

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 15:38

section 3

It's ok it has to be deliberate.

Everyone is safe. Claim incompetency !

Section 4

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 15:47

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 !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
11th Feb 2010 15:49

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 :)

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 16:15

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 ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 16:27

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!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 16:47

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
11th Feb 2010 17:27

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
11th Feb 2010 18:29

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 :) ).

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
11th Feb 2010 23:20

Round of applause

It quite lifted my heart to read this after the M25 twice today. Feeling too old for this lark (lecturing and driving that is).

Anyhow, even if it hasn't stayed purely on topic,what a brilliant example of chewing over the issues this thread is.

I'll get to work over the weekend with an "idiot's guide" for those who don't want to read the whole thing, and a How to respond. I'll try to create an email form for you to use. I was thinking of doing an AccountingWEB.co.uk response, but of course if you want to respond personally I think that would be good - it would enable you to ex[ress how you are thinking rather than me try to get a consensus (which is a mite tricky given the variety of views). Obviously those who have contributed to this thread (and one anony mussy in particular) clearly don't need help with the content but my take is that lots do.

Lets go for 100 responses guys! (Could this be a record?)

Thanks (0)
Nichola Ross Martin
By Nichola Ross Martin
12th Feb 2010 00:13

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?

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Feb 2010 00:33

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 08:45

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.   

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
12th Feb 2010 09:28

Not going to the mattresses yet

(If you didn't understand that you have missed out)

Sorry, Idiot's guide was a bit rude. I'm working on a plain English summary and a call to action. I thought 100 was quite optimistic (it started off as 200 and I backed down). If I can make it easier for everyone to respind then that would be great.

Off to lecture..

Thanks (0)
Me!
By nigelburge
12th Feb 2010 09:48

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Feb 2010 10:05

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???????????

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Feb 2010 10:14

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 10:43

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 !!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 11:02

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.  

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 13:02

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

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Feb 2010 13:06

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?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 14:44

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

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 15:00

.

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.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 15:38

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 15:47

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.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 16:02

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? 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th Feb 2010 17:32

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

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Feb 2010 19:28

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

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 19:49

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th Feb 2010 19:30

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.

 

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
14th Feb 2010 17:35

Plain English guides done

Will be up and live at 8 tomorrow morning with a "Road map" summary and two detailed guides on the main proposals. I've also listed a few "points to think about" on each to help the creative juices flow. Email links at the foot of each article, but I suggest that you make one response each covering whichever aspect you feel strongly about. It's easy to respond, and I'll start a thread in Any Answers so that everyone who responds can log there so we can keep count of how many A/Web members respond.

Phew - long Sunday!!

Thanks (0)
Image is of a pin up style woman in a red dress with some of her skirt caught in the filing cabinet. She looks surprised.
By Monsoon
14th Feb 2010 21:16

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By aayzed
15th Feb 2010 13:53

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"!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Mar 2010 15:27

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?

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
26th Mar 2010 15:58

Count me in

Sent my response in...99 to go

Thanks (0)

Pages