I have just gone on the parliament website here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/589102
to find the figure of only 715.
'Change the Income Threshold for MTD ITSA to the VAT threshold to £85K'
Surely there are more than 715 Accountingweb members?
Related resources
Replies (42)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I don't know why there aren't more signatures. Husband and I have signed, but just looked at the petition and we are 2 of the three people who have signed in our constituency.
Raising the MTD threshold for ITSA to the VAT registration limit seems very sensible to me.
Yes, but we don't all have to agree! I certainly don't, whilst i don't think £10k makes sense, £85k certainly is not the right figure. The tax threshold would seem to be a sensible figure, so for this year i would vote for £12,570, but not £85k!
Limit is income, not profit
Result is still people who pay no tax getting caught in the blunderbuss
Nothing stopping your clients volunteering, if that is what you want
Why do you think the tax threshold would be a sensible figure? As Paul has already pointed out, the limit's based on turnover not taxable profit. So it’s quite likely to drag in a pile of landlords with one or two properties, who normally engage minimally with SA and/or have most of their tax dealt with under PAYE.
Yes, but we don't all have to agree! I certainly don't, whilst i don't think £10k makes sense, £85k certainly is not the right figure. The tax threshold would seem to be a sensible figure, so for this year i would vote for £12,570, but not £85k!
Can't agree with that. Once you're in, you're in for ever, so the £12570 would wither on the vine. And I'm not sure how relevant a personal allowance based limit would be to, say, a pensioner with a rental property.
Plus - as said above - your limit is based on turnover, not profit.
I still believe £85k is way too high, we need to get the tax system digital, that is the bottom line. Far too many naysayers on here with their heads firmly [not] in the cloud!
I am all for MTD and see no issues with it whatsoever, it's coming, so we may as well get used to it without causing added complications of income levels.
I still believe £85k is way too high, we need to get the tax system digital, that is the bottom line. Far too many naysayers on here with their heads firmly [not] in the cloud!
I am all for MTD and see no issues with it whatsoever, it's coming, so we may as well get used to it without causing added complications of income levels.
Equally, £12,500 is way too low. What's the rationale for your extraordinary claim that "we need to get the tax system digital" ? Who are "we"?
One of my major concerns was the amount of work I would need to do to get over three quarters of my clients onto digital accounting, whether that be by educating them to keep their own records or by doing it myself. The timescale was too short and adding an extra year didn't help a great deal though I eventually came up with a solution.
What's the rationale for your extraordinary claim that "we need to get the tax system digital" ? Who are "we"?
It's inevitable innit.
Shouldn't be forced on people the way it is being (though in government's eyes the protections/exceptions written in mean it's not being), but in 50 years time people won't believe (or understand) how they did things in 2021.
Hmm, I can think of plenty of things from 1971 that many people now find hard to believe ... but not many from 2011, or even 2001, unless you include the various pronouncements of Alastair Campbell!
But it's not really the inevitability that's at stake (with lots of factors still to play for - from the categories of exemption to outright civil disobedience). It's the Janus-faced approach of HMRC who simultaneously:
* cling to the mantra that they cannot get embroiled in anything that might interfere with market forces (the reason that they won't write/commission any software that could be used, for free, by all taxpayers); and yet
* determine (and demand compliance with) a methodology & technology, that a substantial portion of taxpayers would not have voluntarily chosen.
Without re-hashing many previous posts, there are plenty of alternative routes that could have been taken (segmenting the market in terms of taxpayers and using more carrot than stick, for instance) - all based on carrying the 'customer' with them, not forcing new life-style behaviours on them (to no-one's benefit save HMRC).
Somewhat tongue in cheek ... but can you imagine the furore if in the past they'd suddenly announced that quills were out and only fountain-pens could be used to complete forms (and employed an army of checkers to inspect the inky figures). Or that exercise book-styled cashbooks were no longer acceptable records - only after conversion to punched-cards would the data be deemed OK (even though the taxpayer could no longer read their own records)!
The step-change from filing VAT online to the MTD variant is barely measurable in terms of tools and processes within a business, and the same can be said (to a slightly lesser degree) when RTI came along.
But MTD for ITSA is akin, for many, to being told that almost everything they do currently is wrong and needs to be replaced ... and, oh by the way, we'll let you know the right way when we've finished trying to work it out.
Hey, I'm not defending HMRC nor the appalling way the implementation is being mishandled. But that HMRC (and the tax system at large) should fall no more than 20 years behind the rest of society doesn't seem that outrageous a suggestion. How many people these days get paper bank statements, for instance? [Actually, we do on one account... ironic... but again, not the point.]
Btw, you're the first person I've noticed on this thread acknowledge there's a benefit to HMRC. Others (IIRC) said no-one benefits.
How many people these days get paper bank statements, for instance?
Everybody - if they have any sense.
They're your failsafe. Not to mention much less likely to be sniffed at by folk trying to verify your identity.
Just beat me to it. Although I know I'm in an increasing minority, I still get (and keep) paper statements ... much easier to cross-check/annotate and the pinnacle of proof.
On that last point, I was horrified to find (when doing the estate accounts for my parents) that Barclays doesn't keep electronic records for the same number of years that HMRC can demand 'missing' returns.
I had to create a 'quilt' out of stitched together partial statements / some cheque-book stubs / supplier receipts / notebooks ... with only a few guesstimates to hold it all together.
It worked and kept HMRC happy, but that's several weekends that I'll never see again!
Just a point of order, but... 'increasing' minority? Is that right?
I wondered the same actually with my "appalling mishandling"; did I mean maybe "appalling handling" or "outstanding mishandling"?
Just a point of order, but... 'increasing' minority? Is that right?
It is, until it crosses the 50% mark. Then it becomes an "increasing majority".
Actually TD is right ... in that what I intended to convey was "an increasingly tiny minority" (i.e. it is the tininess that is increasing not the minority within the whole).
Your definition, of course, is more mathematically correct (but fails to capture my intention, obscured as it was by inept phraseology)!
They have the records but not easily accessable at the branch
A "request" enforced by HMRC with produce the records
At my request most of my clients
Reason is that there get a reminder to start the process and as yet not seen any annotations to bank statements on Fred's mobile phone
The transactions are less than 5 weeks old and even I can remember the Amazon and paypal transactions.
For some writing on the paper bank statement is both start and finish of the recording system
It's inevitable innit.
It may well be inevitable that every taxpaper will keep digital records - but why is there a "need"?
You say every taxpayer will keep digital records. And you mean, I assume, irrespective of MTD. That tells you there is a need. People wouldn't do it if it wasn't advantageous.
You say every taxpayer will keep digital records. And you mean, I assume, irrespective of MTD. That tells you there is a need. People wouldn't do it if it wasn't advantageous.
Advangeous, perhaps. But it doesn't mean that there's a "need".
It's advantageous to get my electricity from the grid. But I don't need to. I could buy a generator.
You expect MTD software for the PAYE people that only have PAYE p11d and expenses to claim?
And dividends and interest to declare
I fail to see any benefit at all in a two tier system, the poorest in MTD for SA and the richest doing the old fashioned thing, possibly on paper.
By that logic, we wouldn't have e-filing now.
Not heard anyone complain about that in the two-tier terms you now employ - though actually it really is, because of the different filing deadlines. What we have now is far worse than what's proposed for MTD.
IMHO.
By that logic, we wouldn't have e-filing now.
Not heard anyone complain about that in the two-tier terms you now employ - though actually it really is, because of the different filing deadlines. What we have now is far worse than what's proposed for MTD.
IMHO.
A one month deadline is better than a seven month one ?
Worse in terms of two-tieredness.
Do (ex) accountants never read anything in context?
(That said, I confess I read Paul's comment that I was responding to back-to-front, with the rich doing things digitally and the poor forced to use paper.)
Even supposing there is a case for digitising the tax system, it’s far from clear (to me at least) why that should necessitate almost everyone having to report transactions quarterly to HMRC. HMRC seem adamant that that's going to be to everyone's benefit but for those at the lower end of the income scale it’s difficult to see how the benefits will not be outweighed by the disadvantages and extra costs.
Surely there are more than 715 Accountingweb members?
15 accountants and 700 chancers who joined to get some free advice and never returned.
If the professional bodies aren’t making significant representations to the Treasury then what chance is there that a petition will have any impact.
The whole petition “thing” is a ridiculous and expensive sham to make it appear that the Government has a connection with the real world. It doesn’t.
EDIT: And raising the threshold entirely misses the point. The hundreds of comments on here, when MTD for IT has been discussed, have failed to identify any benefit for tax payers or HMRC. Arguing for an increased threshold just looks like smaller practices trying to make it someone else’s problem rather than taking a principled stand.
This must be at least the third that I have signed
Problem is none of the landlords are sufficiently aware of what is coming for them
EdIt
I had already signed it per the email
one of only 2 in this constituency
none in the other half of town
Re the limit
as others here have commented - really MTD should be scrapped. But surely if enough people sign then HMRC must listen and then we can direct them to this website where the vast majority are anti... isnt it at least a start?
But surely if enough people sign then HMRC must listen
Absolutely not. Can’t think of any specifics but I’ve seen any number of petitions making perfectly sensible suggestions which just get dismissed out of hand. It’s a sham.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Parliament_petitions_website
Writing to MPs in number might be slightly more likely to have some impact but maybe not.
If the petition was done in the final year before implementation, then I think it would attract a lot more signatures. Trouble is, hardly anyone outside the industry knows about it yet, so imo, it's a tad too early. Once the business community latches on, then it will (hopefully) be a different ball game
But by that time HMRC will have got to their Mastermind moment, "I have started so I will finish"
But by that time HMRC will have got to their Mastermind moment, "I have started so I will finish"
A lot of accountants might think "MTD has started so I will finish".
I would imagine that more people would be signing petitions if they understood what was coming.
Landlords are one group but there must be thousands of subcontractors and other small business owners who'll have a bit of a shock.
And it's not helped by HMRC saying what a great idea it is*. Such a rosy view must mean that some taxpayers are positively looking forward to MTD.
*For them, obviously.
Never understood this push for the 85k limit - if your turnover is above 85k you are more than likely VAT reg and in MTD anyway, so increasing it to 85k excludes everyone else that is not in it already, why would they agree to do that? The petition might as well say scrap MTD for non VAT reg.
Put up a more reasonable solution and I will pay attention.
Never understood this push for the 85k limit - if your turnover is above 85k you are more than likely VAT reg and in MTD anyway, so increasing it to 85k excludes everyone else that is not in it already, why would they agree to do that? The petition might as well say scrap MTD for non VAT reg.
Put up a more reasonable solution and I will pay attention.
My solution is simple, start at (say) 75k and reduce by 10k every year. That way, everyone isn't rushing in all at one go, and allows HMRC to iron out any wrinkles with less people straining the platform.
As a sole practitioner, I’ve had considerable success with asking my clients to sign up to the petition. Perhaps other practitioners would like to do the same? An email to your client with a link to the petition is all that’s needed. I mention the petition to every client I talk to and they have been so grateful to have this pointed out to them!
