Share this content

MTD TIN

Apparently MTDfIT is "just a button press" for accountants

Didn't find your answer?

As predicted in the thread about TIN's, this document is gobsmackingly out of touch

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/customer-costs-and-benefits-f...

Not only can we train a Joiner to use digital accounts (currently on paper records) in 8 hours for £163, than annual on costs including software is £185 for the 4 filings, £158 is for the software and £24 for the agent.   Yup we are going to charge him just £6 for quarterly filing.  That so mad I will say it again, accountants are going to charge just £6 per quarter for a joiner who was on paper records to file MTD, based on one unit of time per year (presumably they think we charge £50+VAT per hour)

This INCLUDES time spent communicting with the customer, and no time for checking, as it wont take any longer to do this 5 times a year vs once now.  Apparantly.  

See the "ongoing quarterly agent costs"

Quarterly agent costs

For businesses operating MTD ITSA HMRC has assumed that many businesses that use an agent to submit their end of year tax return will use an agent to check and / or submit the quarterly updates that will be needed under MTD ITSA.

This estimate is only applied to ITSA-only businesses because typical VAT businesses already submit quarterly returns and are not expected to incur any additional cost for providing quarterly MTD updates.

Although the estimates include time spent communicating with an agent quarterly, they do not include the time the agent will spend checking quarterly submissions as an additional cost as HMRC believes the need to submit quarterly spreads the cost of checking over the year but does not increase it. Chargeable agent time within this estimate has been assessed as 6 minutes, being the smallest unit of time agents and accountants typically charge for.

 

Replies (67)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By David Ex
24th Sep 2021 09:23

Makes your blood boil!

Presumably it’s £1.4 billion not million?? Casually saying here, have a £330 unnecessary cost in year 1, as if it’s trivial.

4.2.3 Overall cost estimates
HMRC estimates a transitional cost to business of around £1,383 million and a net increase in the ongoing costs of tax compliance of around £152 million for those businesses mandated to use MTD for ITSA. This equates to an average transitional cost of £330 and an annual cost of £35 per business within scope. The following sections breakdown the average costs per business in more detail.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
24th Sep 2021 11:15

Good to know how little HMRC values the accounts and bookkeeping sector
But the ongoing costs are net of savings to businesses per the TIIN
I will be looking for those savings

Thanks (3)
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Sep 2021 14:04

HMRC never think that the taxpayer might not record all his transactions completely accurately.

Errors are only possible with manual record keeping.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By AdamMurphy
24th Sep 2021 17:23

Exactly. I have one client who keeps immaculate paper accounts, she even does her own year-end journals with accruals and prepayments, always spot on.

But of course she's not playing around taking photos with her camera or using a bank feed, so it must all be a pile of carp.

Thanks (3)
Replying to AdamMurphy:
avatar
By Vallery Lee
08th Oct 2021 08:29

Does she want a job?

Thanks (0)
Tornado
By Tornado
25th Sep 2021 17:56

The level of knowledge that HMRC has about the way the tax system works in practice is quite frankly ........... unbelievably appalling.

They would do better to book an appointment with an Accountant who could properly assess their plans and advise them accordingly. These sorts of clients who think they know it all are usually destined for a disaster and should really seek professional help.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By North East Accountant
30th Sep 2021 09:41

HMRC provide firm proof that ...........they haven't got a clue!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By raybackler
30th Sep 2021 10:57

None of my clients do anything without a reminder. I remind them to let me have information for monthly payroll. I remind them each quarter to let me have or process expenses and mileage for the VAT Return. I remind them to let me know when sales invoicing is complete for the VAT Return. I remind them of the amounts to pay for PAYE each quarter. I remind them of the direct debit date and amount for the quarterly VAT payment. I remind them to let me have the additional information, such as buy to let income and expenses that I don't have for the Self Assessment Tax Return. I recommend quarterly dividends and remind them to approve them. I advise them of the Self Assessment payments in January and July and check that they have been paid.

The reason for this list is that we will now be reminding MTD for ITSA businesses to take time out to make the quarterly updates. We do check the data in their accounting systems as the year progresses, so no extra work there. However, we will now be checking against tighter quarterly deadlines that don't necessarily tie in with the VAT quarters. More work for those businesses. Also, I won't be advising businesses to just click a button. We will make quarterly adjustments, because otherwise the information is nonsense. More work there.

HMRC have not disclosed why they want quarterly updates. My guess is that in time they will abandon the twice yearly payments on account system and move to quarterly payments of income tax. If this is the case then it is better to be prepared now and make sure the quarterly figures are useable and not nonsense. More work there.

All of my clients already use cloud software for their limited companies, but not for buy to let property. They will probably be forced on to cloud software for this. Spreadsheets can be corrupted and can't be checked as easily by us. Furthermore, the previous quarter(s) already submitted can be corrupted, so would continue to need verification. More work there or more cost if using cloud software.

Most clients just want us to relieve them of as much of the compliance burden as possible so they can get on with running their businesses. They won't be pressing any buttons without support from an accountant.

There are undoubtedly people out there, who file their own self assessment tax returns and every time I look at what they have done, when they eventually seek help it is a mess. HMRC seem to think that tax agents, to use their description, are not needed for this class of "customer". My experience is that they badly need support and more will be in search of an accountant.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By spuddle
30th Sep 2021 11:19

Zero "benefits" - additional unnecessary costs - more stress - madness - but little hope they will listen and concede any of it but we need to keep sending the messages.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By adam.arca
30th Sep 2021 13:08

In fairness, MTDfIT will be "just a button press" for me and some (many?) of my clients, at least to begin with:

STEP 1: point clients in direction of some cheap software or provide spreadsheet

STEP 2: advise client to enter something, anything

STEP 3: client or accountant does indeed just press a button every quarter: why get up close and personal with a steaming pile of tu*d? But we'll all be charging much more than £6 for the privilege if clients can't manage it for themselves.

STEP 4: ignore the quarterly submissions and start again at the year end doing pretty much what we do already but without the benefit of all the workarounds which the profession has developed over the years to crank out accounts in a cost effective manner (because of course it's vital to the future wealth of the nation that all those £2.41 transactions are recorded individually for future audit).

STEPS 5 TO 999: gradually work on clients to make their bookkeeping a bit more MTDfIT compliant when we've got our feet under the table with the new system and have a much better idea of how it's really going to work (but definitely not doing any of that in the lead up to the whenever it is that this rubbish gets introduced).

Thanks (1)
Replying to adam.arca:
Tornado
By Tornado
30th Sep 2021 13:41

Whilst you have devised a way to deal with this situation, the main fault here is that you should not be having to do this.

It is the responsibility of HMRC to provide us with a system that works properly and it is NOT our responsibility to try and devise work-arounds to compensate for HMRC nonsense software.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By adam.arca
30th Sep 2021 15:57

Completely agree.

It's just my first pass on a "least worst" solution for me and my clients if and when this madness comes into being.

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Sep 2021 15:11

Your STEP4 is where it's least clear how it's meant to work (and about which I've been moaning for what feels like forever).
Why? Because we don't yet know how the results of "starting again at the year end doing pretty much what we do already" will be applied by HMRC.

They may:
a) be looking for adjustments to figures supplied in the quarterly returns (what databases regard as 'modifying' existing data); or
b) be looking to replace the entirety of what's been supplied so far via the quarterly returns (i.e. delete and update).

The latter is unlikely (albeit cleaner) as it would be an admission of failure in terms of HMRC's avowed objectives ... but if it's the former then you (or rather we) will have to do extra work - if only to ensure that 'incorrect' figures provided previously are zeroised (where appropriate) instead of merely omitted.
In other words you now have to be cognizant of what's already been submitted - not merely start with a blank piece of paper and prepare accounts as usual.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By adam.arca
30th Sep 2021 15:53

My understanding (and I stand to be corrected on this) was that each subsequent submission totally replaced earlier ones. And as only totals are being submitted anyway (I think), HMRC would have no way of knowing whether an underlying transaction has been amended or simply wiped out.

Nor should they be so [***] as to insist that each submission can only build on previous ones. There are dozens if not hundreds of reasons why bookkeeping / accounting may need to be re-started mid year (hardware disaster immediately springing to mind) and the door has to be left open for that to happen.

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By adam.arca
30th Sep 2021 15:55

[***] = a.n.a.l.

Aweb need to switch off their a.n.a.l. swear filter

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By johnhemming
30th Sep 2021 16:16

There are two separate types of submission. There are the periodic submissions which can be updated as well (unlike VAT). Then there are the end of year adjustments.

The end of year adjustments are a variation on the periodic figures. They do not replace them. Hence the figures for any one value such as say Admin are
P1+P2+P2+P4+ADJ

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Sep 2021 16:32

Based on John's response above, your "STEP 4: ignore the quarterly submissions and start again at the year end doing pretty much what we do already" will indeed require extra work.

Because, after you've got the final accounts, you'll have to re-visit every figure which you would previously have filed ... check what the running total is from the already submitted 4 quarterly sets (plus possible other in-year adjustment files) ... deduct that running total figure from its equivalent value in the final accounts ... submit the resulting difference in a year-end Adjustment filing ... so that you're in a position to submit the actual (confirmatory) EOPS.

Note: the figure required in the year-end Adjustment filing may well be -ve, and indeed may be needed simply to re-set the figures previously submitted to zero.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Sep 2021 16:53

There are, indeed, folk on here who are totally unrealistic about their approach to MTDfIT.

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By North East Accountant
30th Sep 2021 17:17

Sounds like a pragmatic plan.....so I'm hoping HMRC don't stick with their original idea which was.

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
EOPS

Plus if there are any errors in earlier quarters then an amended quarter return is required.

So also,

Amended Q1 (AQ1)
AQ2
AQ3
AQ4

I wonder when HMRC will let us know as the regulations were very sparse so I expect them to be beefed up as time goes on.

Thanks (1)
Replying to North East Accountant:
avatar
By johnhemming
30th Sep 2021 17:42

EOPS has no values.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Sep 2021 19:02

As we now know - for which thanks, as it's not been announced that way anywhere else.
But that doesn't reduce the effort that is concerning (almost) everyone ... it just means it's now one more extra click AFTER you've done all the work.
So have I misrepresented anything in my post at 16:32?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By johnhemming
30th Sep 2021 19:53

Most of the things I write in this forum come from the API specifications. The one thing recently I have written that did not came from a question I asked HMRC (the issue about doing periodic returns on a cash basis).

Hence it has all been announced publicly, but various people have not understood this and have hence said things that are not true. I am not heavily critical about this because people often make mistakes.

However, it is not fair to imply that this is not public.

There is this final click to agree the figures. Given that the idea is that different parts of the return could be generated in different places I think having a formal assent by the taxpayer or their agent is required.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Sep 2021 21:00

We could quibble about the clarity & availability of announcements/clarifications by HMRC - but the confusion is at least evidence that more needs to be done on that front.
However, you've avoided my main question in previous post:
"So have I misrepresented anything in my post at 16:32?"

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 06:55

I don't think you have misrepresented anything. If you are going to submit a year end adjustment you need to calculate the variation between what the system has and what it should have and submit that variation.

This gives the details for self-employment
https://developer.service.hmrc.gov.uk/api-documentation/docs/api/service...

How any particular MTD software implements this will, of course, vary.

The data will always, however, end up as this:
{
"income": {
"turnover": 1000.49,
"other": 1000.49
},
"expenses": {
"costOfGoodsBought": -1000.49,
"cisPaymentsToSubcontractors": 1000.49,
"staffCosts": 1000.49,
"travelCosts": 1000.49,
"premisesRunningCosts": 1000.49,
"maintenanceCosts": -1000.49,
"adminCosts": 1000.49,
"advertisingCosts": 1000.49,
"businessEntertainmentCosts": 1000.49,
"interest": 1000.49,
"financialCharges": 1000.49,
"badDebt": 1000.49,
"professionalFees": 1000.49,
"depreciation": 1000.49,
"other": 1000.49
},
"additions": {
"costOfGoodsBoughtDisallowable": 1000.49,
"cisPaymentsToSubcontractorsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"staffCostsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"travelCostsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"premisesRunningCostsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"maintenanceCostsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"adminCostsDisallowable": -1000.49,
"advertisingCostsDisallowable": -1000.49,
"businessEntertainmentCostsDisallowable": 1000.49,
"interestDisallowable": 1000.49,
"financialChargesDisallowable": 1000.49,
"badDebtDisallowable": 1000.49,
"professionalFeesDisallowable": 1000.49,
"depreciationDisallowable": 1000.49,
"otherDisallowable": 1000.49
}
}

For example:
costOfGoodsBought
is
The adjustment to the cost of goods bought for resale or goods used. Expenses associated with the running of the business. The value must be between -99999999999.99 and 99999999999.99 (excluding 0 or 0.00)

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
01st Oct 2021 13:49

Thanks for the detail, John ... which may well be publicly available but seems not to have hit the radar of PBs et al.

The process is at least logical ... but I find it worrying that they've chosen the 'delta' route yet again.
I can see why they don't want the year-end Adjustment to simply replace all the YTD running totals (as it would undermine the claimed purpose of the quarterly returns) ... but it's a hostage to fortune, based on their RTI experience with EYU.

This too required the 'delta' values (not replacement ones), which was fine when the principle was to use an EYU to notify the amount of change to any value you'd already submitted to HMRC via FPS files - as you (the employer) could be safely presumed to know both what you'd previously submitted and to what you wanted the figure changed.

What no-one had considered was the scenario where the originally submitted figures were correct - but where HMRC had 'corrupted'* these at their end.
By definition the employer wasn't privy to these incorrect figures - so, when asked by HMRC to submit an EYU to correct these errors, they were placed in an impossible position!
This farce continued for nearly 7 years (with innocent employers being wrongly visited by debt collectors and vast amounts of wasted time by software suppliers in proving the errors were being created at HMRC's end) ... before the recent move to replace the EYU with an FPS variant that fully replaces previous YTD figures.

* = there were a lot of different ways in which HMRC corrupted perfectly valid submissions - some quite complex.
The simplest to explain was where an employee moved from ER1 to ER2 - and the FPS from ER2 happened to be processed by HMRC before the FPS from ER1 (even it had been submitted later) ... which according to HMRC system rules meant the employee had concurrent jobs (not true) and so added together the YTD earnings figures on that person's record.
Not surprisingly the software then detected a substantial 'underpayment' of tax and started up all the chasing processes (and issued incorrect new tax codes etc)!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 14:49

Hugo Fair wrote:

which may well be publicly available but seems not to have hit the radar of PBs et al.


I think the difficulty is that the knowledge tends to be spread between people so they don't know the whole story. Hence although the coders may have access to all of this information it does not get through to the people who are writing the explanations.

In any event I now have a computer that is quiet enough so that I can produce a video without an annoying fan sound. Hence I will be doing some more videos about MTD. If there are particular subjects people would like me to cover then please tell me and I will do those first.

I do videos as streams as single passes and I don't edit them. That means they are not necessarily as high quality as they could be, but it means it does not take that long. Hence I can concentrate on getting the facts right rather than making them pretty. Editing videos can take a really long time.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Oct 2021 16:27

johnhemming wrote:

I don't think you have misrepresented anything. If you are going to submit a year end adjustment you need to calculate the variation between what the system has and what it should have and submit that variation.

John - are you saying here that a taxpayer with a small rental business could submit four quarterly returns showing (say) £3000 income a quarter and nothing else

followed by

An end of period adjustment showing increases in rent, void periods, interest charges, repairs, agent's commissions and loads of other expenses - all as some sort of journal ?

If that's true, the quarterly returns are even more pointless than I had first thought.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Tornado
By Tornado
01st Oct 2021 16:40

"If that's true, the quarterly returns are even more pointless than I had first thought."

Pointless is a very good description of the hoops that people will have to jump through to produce exactly the same tax declarations as they do at the moment using the much better thought out Self Assessment system.

I don't think you need to be an Accountant to realise that all of this is nonsense.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 17:43

lionofludesch wrote:

John - are you saying here that a taxpayer with a small rental business could submit four quarterly returns showing (say) £3000 income a quarter and nothing else

followed by

An end of period adjustment showing increases in rent, void periods, interest charges, repairs, agent's commissions and loads of other expenses - all as some sort of journal ?

If that's true, the quarterly returns are even more pointless than I had first thought.


No.
Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
01st Oct 2021 18:32

So where do they get reported then?
[An increase in rent may not be reflected via bank feed because tenant hasn't got round to changing DD in time ... a void period in bank statement may not be due to a rent holiday but because landlord has agreed not to charge as an offset for tenant paying for an emergency repair ... these and many others are the day-to-day reality even in really simple accounts].

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 19:12

Hugo Fair wrote:

So where do they get reported then?


I really do not think it is possible that everything but an out of date rent is reported via an adjustment. That would be a really extreme case. Obviously the technology would allow this, but I cannot really think of a situation where this would happen.

In theory all sort of things can happen. Practice is another point.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 00:26

johnhemming wrote:

lionofludesch wrote:

John - are you saying here that a taxpayer with a small rental business could submit four quarterly returns showing (say) £3000 income a quarter and nothing else

followed by

An end of period adjustment showing increases in rent, void periods, interest charges, repairs, agent's commissions and loads of other expenses - all as some sort of journal ?

If that's true, the quarterly returns are even more pointless than I had first thought.

No.

Well, thanks for explaining, anyway.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
01st Oct 2021 14:39

John, is this final click designed to agree just the trading figures, or is it to agree all the other elements of income and allowances that may be present. It seems to me that the quarterly filings and subsequent adjustments are making life much more difficult compared to the current SATR

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 14:50

There is an EOPS final click for each business. Some people may have more than one self-employment. People also will have a business for property (fhl and uk other) and foreign property. If they have these types of property.

AFAIK the theory is that these things could be agreed separately and brought together in the final submission.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
01st Oct 2021 17:19

Lots of EOPS then. And brought together in the final submission? Like an SATR then!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
01st Oct 2021 18:02

Rebecca Cave seems to think EOPS does have values, quite separate from the quarterly filings. It’s really hard to believe this is not completely cut and dried by now.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
01st Oct 2021 18:16

Agree. I'm not sure:
* if HMRC aren't certain and so have fed duff info to Rebecca (and others); or
* if Rebecca has had to guess in the absence of detailed formal guidance'; or
* if John is assuming that a technical spec is fixed (rather than possibly just being a stake in the ground during 'agile' evolution of the full spec); or ...
Your guess is as good as mine (and I'm sure there are other possibilities)!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Oct 2021 18:18

Jo Nokes wrote:

Rebecca Cave seems to think EOPS does have values, quite separate from the quarterly filings. It’s really hard to believe this is not completely cut and dried by now.

I thought I knew what was required. Now, after John's clarifications, I've no idea.

Luckily, I don't need to know.

Quite apart from the debate as to whether small businesses should be doing this at all, what a shambles this all is. No wonder it's been put back a year. I very much doubt whether 2½ years will be enough to educate accountants - let alone their clients.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
avatar
By johnhemming
01st Oct 2021 19:14

Jo Nokes wrote:

Rebecca Cave seems to think EOPS does have values, quite separate from the quarterly filings. It’s really hard to believe this is not completely cut and dried by now.


The question is which direction.

To agree EOPS you are agreeing that the values are correct.

However, that does not mean sending the values to HMRC (in the EOPS)

I did give a link to the API specification for this.

Hence if you want to change the values HMRC have you cannot do this with EOPS.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
01st Oct 2021 22:59

I’m afraid giving links to the api is not something I care to pursue. But you are saying that Rebecca has got it wrong, that Hugo is correct when he says we’ll have to assess what’s been filed, and so we need to file an adjustment to get the end result that we have deemed to be accurate. And we have to do the same thing for each business, and for each property business. And so the quarterly reports will not be a good guide to assessing the tax liability, just giving the government a heads up on the economic trends. Glad it’s all clear

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
avatar
By johnhemming
02nd Oct 2021 10:23

I give links to the API so that anyone who wishes to check what I am saying can do so.

I am quite happy to answer questions, but you are misrepresenting my answers .

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 00:30

Quote:

I did give a link to the API specification for this.

I would be surprised if as many as one in a hundred forum members understood this.

It may as well have been written in Klingon.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
02nd Oct 2021 08:43

Quite

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
02nd Oct 2021 10:26

Well here is part of the quote from the API that I have above:

For example:
costOfGoodsBought
is
The adjustment to the cost of goods bought for resale or goods used. Expenses associated with the running of the business. The value must be between -99999999999.99 and 99999999999.99 (excluding 0 or 0.00)

The fact that I don't insert spaces in the name of the data element: costOfGoodsBought to make it cost Of Goods Bought

Really does not strike me as something that makes it incomprehensible.

What that answer gives is confirmation that the adjustment is what it says a variation or delta on the original data.

How all of this is handled by MTD software is a completely separate issue.

The software can work out the adjustment from the data provided by the accountant and what is on HMRC's systems.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 10:51

johnhemming wrote:

Really does not strike me as something that makes it incomprehensible.

Well, that's not the bit I found incomprehensible.

Let me make my question as plain as I can.

Can I submit nil quarterly returns with all the real figures entered as deltas in the EOPS ?

If not, what is preventing me doing that ?

It's a little bit over the top but I want to make the question as clear cut as possible.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 10:51

johnhemming wrote:

Really does not strike me as something that makes it incomprehensible.

Well, that's not the bit I found incomprehensible.

Let me make my question as plain as I can.

Can I submit nil quarterly returns with all the real figures entered as deltas in the EOPS ?

If not, what is preventing me doing that ?

It's a little bit over the top but I want to make the question as clear cut as possible.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnhemming
02nd Oct 2021 11:02

lionofludesch wrote:

Can I submit nil quarterly returns with all the real figures entered as deltas in the EOPS ?

It's a little bit over the top but I want to make the question as clear cut as possible.


Reading EOPS as meaning a business adjustment because EOPS itself does not actually submit any figures.

Technically you can. However, that would not be complying with the rules much that I would not expect much enforcement to start out with.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 11:12

johnhemming wrote:

lionofludesch wrote:

Can I submit nil quarterly returns with all the real figures entered as deltas in the EOPS ?

It's a little bit over the top but I want to make the question as clear cut as possible.

Reading EOPS as meaning a business adjustment because EOPS itself does not actually submit any figures.

Technically you can. However, that would not be complying with the rules much that I would not expect much enforcement to start out with.

Thanks.

That's jolly interesting.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
Tornado
By Tornado
02nd Oct 2021 11:01

John, I know that you mean well but you seem to view MTD ONLY from the point of view of a Developer and not as a user, and whilst I am sure that your comments are genuine, this does not help users in any way.

CostOfGoodsBought is fine in programming terms but is not the usual way to identify elements of income and expenditure for users.

The skill of programming is to have a a logical thought process and creativeness or going off-piste is not really acceptable. You live in a world where the answer is literally Yes or No. In the world of the user it is important to have a holistic view of of our clients' needs and wants and adapt accordingly and the software that we use or are required to use should allow us to do this.

The Irony with the MTD project is that it is completely muddled thinking and there is no real compatibility with, for example, the work that you are doing and the work that others are doing, so we have ended up with ridiculous anomalies in the system that used to be easily handled by Self-Assessment but with MTD, there has clearly been no consideration of how the various modules integrate.

It seems to me a bit like Grand Designs where there are a number of people working on various elements of a new property but the Project Manager has failed to check that it will all fit together and the project fails or requires significant changes to end up with something habitable.

MTD should be shelved indefinitely until the project is properly planned and executed. It is the sole responsibility of HMRC to make MTD work and this is what they should do before requiring us to use it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
RLI
By lionofludesch
02nd Oct 2021 11:07

Tornado wrote:

CostOfGoodsBought is fine in programming terms but is not the usual way to identify elements of income and expenditure for users.

Exactly. Cost of Goods Bought is an expression I'd never heard before. Cost of Goods Sold is what I'd expect to appear in the accounts.

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content