Share this content

MTD mandation and Lucy Frazer

MTD mandation and Lucy Frazer

Didn't find your answer?

Ok with regard to the thankfully confirmed forced MTD "delay" 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/businesses-get-more-time-to-prepare-f...

What got my goat up here is the "lie" (IMHO others may disagree) that with regard to forced mandation doing 4 or 5 submisions a year for small scale bods is going  to be any of the following. 

"The digital tax system we are building will be more efficient, make it easier for customers to get tax right, and bring wider benefits in increased productivity."

If Lucy Frazer MP was just talking generally she could not have picked a worse time to make the above comments IMHO.  

If anyone wishes to pass their  thoughts in this regard onto Lucy here is  her  email address :) - i have sent my opionion in this regard already. 

[email protected]

 

Replies (54)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By David Ex
23rd Sep 2021 18:01

rmillaree wrote:
<

"The digital tax system we are building will be more efficient, make it easier for customers to get tax right, and bring wider benefits in increased productivity."

It’s meaningless, banal platitudes and unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable!) assertions. Was Ms Frazer a management consultant in a former life?

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
23rd Sep 2021 18:37

Strangely enough, No ... she's a Barrister who entered Parliament in 2015 and has already been: Solicitor General for England and Wales, and then Minister of State for Prisons.
Not sure what relevance any of that has to the Treasury or to tax collection services, but then the quote doesn't provide evidence of understanding in these areas either!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By David Ex
23rd Sep 2021 18:43

Hugo Fair wrote:

Not sure what relevance any of that has to the Treasury or to tax collection services, but then the quote doesn't provide evidence of understanding in these areas either!

That’s the long and short of most ministries and ministers, sadly.

The statement is just nonsense but typical politician speak.

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By Open all hours
27th Sep 2021 06:42

Three lies in one sentence is pretty good going, even for a member of this government. Feels like a bid for the leadership to me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Open all hours:
avatar
By johnhemming
27th Sep 2021 07:10

I did not vote for this government (happens I supported remaining in the EU). However,
a) For it to be a lie the person saying it has to know it is untrue.
b) There are good arguments that in the round it is true. You can argue about specific elements such as whether doing quarterly submissions is warranted. However, the general principle of having links between HMRC systems and taxpayers systems has to be a good thing.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By bernard michael
27th Sep 2021 09:44

johnhemming wrote:

I did not vote for this government (happens I supported remaining in the EU). However,
a) For it to be a lie the person saying it has to know it is untrue.
b) There are good arguments that in the round it is true. You can argue about specific elements such as whether doing quarterly submissions is warranted. However, the general principle of having links between HMRC systems and taxpayers systems has to be a good thing.

Who for??

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By johnhemming
27th Sep 2021 10:52

bernard michael wrote:

Who for??


For taxpayers. I do hear people complaining about the difficulty of getting information corrected at HMRC. If you have routes for reconciling data with HMRC that don't involve having to get someone to respond to a letter or answer the phone I would have thought you would prefer that.
Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By bernard michael
27th Sep 2021 11:08

johnhemming wrote:

bernard michael wrote:

Who for??

For taxpayers. I do hear people complaining about the difficulty of getting information corrected at HMRC. If you have routes for reconciling data with HMRC that don't involve having to get someone to respond to a letter or answer the phone I would have thought you would prefer that.


It'll smack of HMRC insisting they're correct and accountants having to be involved @ nil profit to sort an unnecessary mess - again !!
Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Sep 2021 14:38

johnhemming wrote:

bernard michael wrote:

Who for??

For taxpayers. I do hear people complaining about the difficulty of getting information corrected at HMRC. If you have routes for reconciling data with HMRC that don't involve having to get someone to respond to a letter or answer the phone I would have thought you would prefer that.

I've used the online routes to provide data to HMRC about my own income but my tax code's still wrong. I'l just have to wait until HMRC get round to dealing with it ("we're very busy - Covid, you know").

The existing routes don't work. There's no reason to suppose that the new routes will be any better.

EDIT - Can't even get a two-step code at the moment. That's the quality of the system.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
27th Sep 2021 14:08

Oh, John ... I think you're defending a 'position' instead of your usual open mind.

It may be that "the general principle of having links between HMRC systems and taxpayers systems has to be a good thing" - but it's a wholly unproven assertion.

It's also a long way from refuting the statement that "The digital tax system we are building will be more efficient, make it easier for customers to get tax right, and bring wider benefits in increased productivity" contains 3 untruths.

And there's no logical connection flowing from your assertion that shows the govt's claims are "in the round true". My argument isn't with you, but with the govt's re-iteration of sound-bites that are neither supported by quantifiable evidence nor believed by most practitioners.

Thanks (2)
RLI
By lionofludesch
23rd Sep 2021 18:45

Customers is the word I'd take most issue with.

Thanks (6)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
23rd Sep 2021 19:02

I tend to agree with you on this. This was something that changed quite a while ago, but I think it is pretty meaningless. A similar changed happened with the railways moving from passengers to customers. I suppose you can still be a customer even if you fail to get anywhere other than the railway station.

Thanks (3)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By AdamMurphy
23rd Sep 2021 20:02

We can choose whether we get on a bus or a train, or walk or drive a car. That makes train passengers customers.

We can’t choose where we pay taxes to. Well, except for the rich.

Thanks (3)
Replying to AdamMurphy:
avatar
By johnhemming
24th Sep 2021 06:59

However, as someone who likes travelling by train I like the idea that I will be able to go somewhere on a train when I go to the railway station and hence be a passenger rather than find myself stuck waiting in Euston for hours simply being a customer.

Thanks (2)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By David Ex
23rd Sep 2021 20:07

johnhemming wrote:

I tend to agree with you on this. This was something that changed quite a while ago, but I think it is pretty meaningless.

It’s up there with calling convicts in prison “guests” which I am sure I once saw.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
25th Sep 2021 23:53

Could be worse, you could be a stakeholder.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnhemming
23rd Sep 2021 19:01

You are putting up the email address that is used for constituents. It probably has an autoresponder which asks for people's postal address. If there is any volume of emails those which are not constituents probably don't go to her.

In the end there are systems for handling communications towards many politicians. There are routes which work and will get substantive responses, but that is not that likely to do anything.

If you want a response go to your own MP and get them to write to the minister asking for a response or indeed to ask a written parliamentary question.

Separately we can argue about the direction of tax submission.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
24th Sep 2021 08:18

johnhemming wrote:

Separately we can argue about the direction of tax submission.

Why I am not surprised that you brought this up?

Thanks (1)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By AdamMurphy
24th Sep 2021 13:35

It's almost as if a change of tax submission methodology helps software vendors profits.....

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
24th Sep 2021 09:50

Why are we not cheering the good news about the extra time to avoid MTD ???

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
blue sheep
By Nigel Henshaw
24th Sep 2021 10:56

bernard michael wrote:

Why are we not cheering the good news about the extra time to avoid MTD ???

Because all it does is give us yet another year of endless debates and moans on here! And even more uncertainty next year when we wonder once again if it will be kicked further down the lane, the whole thing is farcical

Thanks (4)
Replying to NH:
avatar
By bernard michael
24th Sep 2021 11:06

NH wrote:

bernard michael wrote:

Why are we not cheering the good news about the extra time to avoid MTD ???

Because all it does is give us yet another year of endless debates and moans on here! And even more uncertainty next year when we wonder once again if it will be kicked further down the lane, the whole thing is farcical


Are But - It's another year free of having to explain to clients the unjustifiable and a year closer to reality setting in with HMRC. Perhaps the Labour Party will put the abolition of MTD in their manifesto. That would creak the Blue wall a bit
Thanks (2)
Replying to bernard michael:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Sep 2021 11:12

bernard michael wrote:
Perhaps the Labour Party will put the abolition of MTD in their manifesto. That would creak the Blue wall a bit

Ah - you think that the folk most affected by MTD are likely to be Tory voters ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By buttinski
24th Sep 2021 11:18

No, but they could be 'one time only'!

Thanks (0)
Replying to buttinski:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Sep 2021 11:24

buttinski wrote:

No, but they could be 'one time only'!

MTD will make Labour voters vote Tory at the next election ?

I find that surprising.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By buttinski
24th Sep 2021 12:53

Sorry, if I was not clear.
'One time' Tory voters - traditionally labour voters who only voted tory once - will switch back to labour.

Thanks (0)
Replying to buttinski:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Sep 2021 15:08

buttinski wrote:

Sorry, if I was not clear.
'One time' Tory voters - traditionally labour voters who only voted tory once - will switch back to labour.

If they're traditional Labour voters, I think they'll see the error of their ways.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
24th Sep 2021 11:32

For all these extra jobs the MPs take on to experience 'real life', they never appear to do the jobs or volunteer their time to projects that affect the 80%.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GHarr497688
24th Sep 2021 22:40

So I have a hairdresser who is 55 and doesn't use a computer - never studied them as she cuts hair. When we get her manual books in which is usually in May for 5th April year end - by June her tax is bang up to date. How can we at the same time put all her books on a computer from 6th April. She can't use a computer and she doesn't understand spreadsheets. We also have to file meaningless figures four times year. What would the point be in all of this. Can someone explain where we are to find the time and how is she to pay us to do this. I really don't understand.

Thanks (3)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By adam.arca
25th Sep 2021 07:48

This is the example (and several dozen others like it) which needs to be winging its way to Lucy Frazer and other deluded fools who listen to HMRC without bothering to discover what the opposite argument is.

I really feel the politicians have made a deal with the devil when it comes to HMRC: we (the government) will cut your funding and force you to offload thousands of experienced staff and, in return, you can have whatever you want. ‘Just ask and we’ll give’ seems to be the order of the day (or millennium, even).

Thanks (1)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By johnhemming
25th Sep 2021 09:26

The ministers response will probably be that some taxpayers will get an exemption.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By bernard michael
25th Sep 2021 09:34

johnhemming wrote:

The ministers response will probably be that some taxpayers will get an exemption.


But will the hairdresser example quoted be granted one - I doubt it
Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By johnhemming
25th Sep 2021 11:15

I don't know, but I would expect HMRC to allow quite a few exemptions as this gets brought in.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
26th Sep 2021 08:05

johnhemming wrote:

The ministers response will probably be that some taxpayers will get an exemption.

Unless their definition of ‘some’ is similar to my definition of ‘all’, it won’t be enough

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By johnhemming
26th Sep 2021 08:21

All the people I am currently working with on submitting live returns are unrepresented. Hence their additional accountancy fees are zero.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
26th Sep 2021 12:51

Yes, but is their time valued at zero as well? In a world, where we are increasingly encouraged to think in terms of opportunity costs (even if the term isn't understood by most, they hear about the 'cost of mental health' or of reduced education) ... the time spent entering and/or massaging data is time that could have been used either on the business or on more enjoyable aspects of their life.
If there are no savings but increased costs, then it's hard to appreciate any benefits.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By johnhemming
26th Sep 2021 13:18

>If there are no savings but increased costs, then it's hard to appreciate any benefits.

Obviously their time matters. The real question is whether including doing the MTD work if it takes longer now that it did previously. The main issue is needing to keep records on a more timely basis (at least once a quarter). There is no reason why the amount of time taken need go up.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Sep 2021 13:34

johnhemming wrote:

>If there are no savings but increased costs, then it's hard to appreciate any benefits.

Obviously their time matters. The real question is whether including doing the MTD work if it takes longer now that it did previously. The main issue is needing to keep records on a more timely basis (at least once a quarter). There is no reason why the amount of time taken need go up.

If you had a hundred entries to make, I would suggest to you that it would take less time to enter all hundred one after the other than if you closed down and restarted the programme after entering each one.

An extreme example, perhaps, but that's the principle.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
26th Sep 2021 14:46

lionofludesch wrote:

If you had a hundred entries to make, I would suggest to you that it would take less time to enter all hundred one after the other than if you closed down and restarted the programme after entering each one.

An extreme example, perhaps, but that's the principle.


That is an extreme example. However, if you have 25 entries to make each quarter then that is a more realistic example.
Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Sep 2021 15:22

johnhemming wrote:

That is an extreme example. However, if you have 25 entries to make each quarter then that is a more realistic example.

It'd still take you longer.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
26th Sep 2021 17:42

There is, however, a question as to whether resolving all the uncertainties at the end of the year will take longer in aggregate than resolving them weekly, monthly or quarterly whilst maintaining timely records.

There is also a good argument for maintaining some current records to have a reasonably usable set of management figures.

Hence I would say this would be swings and roundabouts.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Sep 2021 18:00

johnhemming wrote:

There is, however, a question as to whether resolving all the uncertainties at the end of the year will take longer in aggregate than resolving them weekly, monthly or quarterly whilst maintaining timely records.

There is also a good argument for maintaining some current records to have a reasonably usable set of management figures.

Hence I would say this would be swings and roundabouts.

Small business clients are never interested in management accounts.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
26th Sep 2021 18:32

lionofludesch wrote:

Small business clients are never interested in management accounts.


I did say management figures rather than accounts.

I would suggest that the word "never" is not accurate.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Sep 2021 18:43

johnhemming wrote:

I did say management figures rather than accounts.

I would suggest that the word "never" is not accurate.

I've never found one.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
26th Sep 2021 19:53

>johnhemming wrote:
That is an extreme example. However, if you have 25 entries to make each quarter then that is a more realistic example.

But how realistic or typical? Even if you completely exclude expenditure, that volume: a) suggests an average sale in excess of £100; and b) means a sale only once every 3+ days. That's a very specific subset of the market (who are already restricted to those using the cash basis) - and certainly excludes anyone wanting to use the till-roll/day method.

And it's missing the point anyway.
The process facing a non-bookkeeping accountant (identify issue / raise query / discuss / resolve query) is what takes the time - not merely adjusting a number.
If that process is run once for multiple potential issues (probably grouped into a smaller number of types), then it will take less time than running the process for each potential issue as it arises.
The converse can sometimes be true (where early identification of a major error type prevents it from recurring every day), but these are generally much rarer circumstances.

So it depends (of course) on the type of business, the volume of transactions, the competence of the taxpayer and/or book-keeper ... and what percentage of total effort by accountant was always going to be outside of purely reviewing the books.

Full circle ... back to my comment "If there are no savings but increased costs, then it's hard to appreciate any benefits".
The "need to keep records on a more timely basis" is not a benefit to the taxpayer, even if it becomes a legal requirement.

Thanks (1)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
26th Sep 2021 12:43

Unlikely (as you obviously know) given that the current starting-point is based on technological exclusion - defined primarily as unable to get internet access.
[Note: 'unable', not simply 'unwilling' or finding it unaffordable.]
Once you move into the harder to quantify aspects (like lack of experience let alone expertise with applications, right through to actual fear/phobia), it'll be an uphill struggle to get exemptions ... and good luck with "don't want to do it".

Thanks (1)
avatar
By GHarr497688
24th Sep 2021 23:11

So I have a hairdresser who is 55 and doesn't use a computer - never studied them as she cuts hair. When we get her manual books in which is usually in May for 5th April year end - by June her tax is bang up to date. How can we at the same time put all her books on a computer from 6th April. She can't use a computer and she doesn't understand spreadsheets. We also have to file meaningless figures four times year. What would the point be in all of this. Can someone explain where we are to find the time and how is she to pay us to do this. I really don't understand.

Thanks (1)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By rmillaree
25th Sep 2021 10:42

" What would the point be in all of this. Can someone explain where we are to find the time and how is she to pay us to do this. I really don't understand."

Other than johnhemmings i am struggling to find anyone else who sees ANY sense in ANY of this with regard to "forced mandation" . Maybe for some subgroups specifically those who claim means tested benefits - for the rest it makes Zero sense for those that dont "need it" - it really a a bit of an affront when the individual and the accountant know the exact situation here of what needs doing and how simple it currently is and some other faceless or named bods who frankly have no clue are piping up with nonsense saying manndation "may make sense" . However unless individuals and accountants start shouting very loudly this nonsense may soon be upon us - even then i fear it may be too late. The only way i could be brought onboard is to flip the mandation to only those people claiming means tested benefits with the rest simply having the option if they so choose. Perhaps for those who submit 3 monthly vat returns there is some argument - but even there that will be extra work for the many that simply do enough to comply with the "vat side of things" at the vat return time.

Thanks (0)
Replying to rmillaree:
avatar
By johnhemming
25th Sep 2021 11:18

rmillaree wrote:

Other than johnhemmings i am struggling to find anyone else who sees ANY sense in ANY of this with regard to "forced mandation" .

I have given a link to a firm of accountants which have produced a video in support of it.

Where I am unusual is in a willingness to argue in favour of it in a forum which is perhaps one in which there is more opposition than elsewhere.

That does not mean that I am the only person who takes that view.

I also understand how it works in practice.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By bernard michael
25th Sep 2021 11:49

johnhemming wrote:

rmillaree wrote:

Other than johnhemmings i am struggling to find anyone else who sees ANY sense in ANY of this with regard to "forced mandation" .

I have given a link to a firm of accountants which have produced a video in support of it.

Where I am unusual is in a willingness to argue in favour of it in a forum which is perhaps one in which there is more opposition than elsewhere.

That does not mean that I am the only person who takes that view.

I also understand how it works in practice.


Are you sure it's not a cartoon ??
Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content