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.
Replies (54)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
<"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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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 !!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Separately we can argue about the direction of tax submission.
Why I am not surprised that you brought this up?
It's almost as if a change of tax submission methodology helps software vendors profits.....
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
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
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 ?
No, but they could be 'one time only'!
MTD will make Labour voters vote Tory at the next election ?
I find that surprising.
Sorry, if I was not clear.
'One time' Tory voters - traditionally labour voters who only voted tory once - will switch back to labour.
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.
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%.
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.
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).
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
I don't know, but I would expect HMRC to allow quite a few exemptions as this gets brought in.
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
All the people I am currently working with on submitting live returns are unrepresented. Hence their additional accountancy fees are zero.
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.
>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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did say management figures rather than accounts.I would suggest that the word "never" is not accurate.
I've never found one.
>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.
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".
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.
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.
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 ??