Tax agents unite! Please, please respond to this.

Tax agents unite! Please, please respond to this.

Didn't find your answer?

Please come and join in on this thread https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic/tax/working-tax-agents-what-it-all-about/403804

I am not exaggerating when I say that HMRC's proposal for new powers to fine anyone who gives tax advice are the final nail in the coffin for tax advisers.

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 11:41

Ostrich syndrome

Unfortunately too many will take the attitude - "it wont affect me" - until its too late and they suddenly find that they too have been "fined" and put out of business simply for a genuine mistake. Guilty until proven innocent is the basis they will work on - BUT - you will never get the chance to prove your innocence.

This is the police state in action - and we are in the firing line.

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
12th Feb 2010 13:21

What action?

There s a long list of comments at the article so I may just have missed this but what practical action is open to us? A debate here is all very well but the government and HMRC are pretty unlikely to take notice of a debate in an online forum.

Given how much HMRC struggles to deal with its current responsibilities this seems an insanely dangerous idea.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
12th Feb 2010 17:31

Nichola

"I am not exaggerating when I say that HMRC's proposal for new powers to fine anyone who gives tax advice are the nail in the coffin for tax advisers".

If you reread this sentence I think you'll find that you are exaggerating or alternatively you might wish to rephrase your concern. I suspect that the act of giving tax advice will not forthwith be a criminal offence and give rise to a potential fine.

Whatever the proposals are, I'm all in favour of the agent taking his or her share of the responsibility for submitting a decent set of accounts via the tax return. For too long the incompetent agent has been totally immune on the basis that the taxpayer has legally been the person responsible for a correct return. We all complain about incompetence of HMRC staff (and contractors where IT systems are concerned) but I've had more than my fair share of picking up the pieces from useless agents that shouldn't ever be allowed near a 64-8.

WD - I challenge you not to respond.

Tom Egerton

 

 

Thanks (0)
Nichola Ross Martin
By Nichola Ross Martin
12th Feb 2010 18:11

Oh dear!

Well, Tom.

I know that they say that ignorance is bliss, but I think that you should know that any tax advice that you give to anyone (paid or unpaid) that leads to or could potentially lead to a loss of tax for anyone will be enough to land you with a fine. Think long and hard about what that means, basically its censorship, no tax planning advice, ever.

I think some tax lecturers (not RB) will be having a few sleepless nights about this. It will certainly kill tax publishing.

 

P.S. lord knows what all this BEST REPLY Nonsense is doing it seems to have a mind of its own!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
12th Feb 2010 18:45

Don't take any notice of me Nichola

The global warming theory went over my head as well.

A bit surprised you raised the question of the "Best Reply" feature since I recall this was one of the "improvements" to the new site.

Glad you took the rephrasing option, although I think you mean "a loss of tax for the Exchequer" rather than "a loss of tax for anyone".

Sorry about the sleepless nights and the threat to tax publishing but I suspect that in 12 months time I'll still be bombarded with application forms for expensive tax courses that I can't afford to attend (with the exception of the excellent PTP courses).

Ignorance? Maybe, but I'll still continue to do my honest best and sleep very well.

Tom Egerton

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
12th Feb 2010 21:45

It's all down to the 6 Nations Rugby

This is the only major event that I can think of that might have caused the type of frenzied paranoia spluttered by Nichola and others on the above link in the past week.  I can only imagine that it drives them loopy to see those blokes huddle together to talk about them.

Nichola you have lost credibility in joining the mob on this one.  As history has shown by turning into the very thing you perceive your enemy to be you create chaos.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By zebaa
13th Feb 2010 11:47

Whoa...

I am amazed if others can not see the danger with HMRC's proposal. As it happens I think that it going through is unlikely, but then taking photo's in London would not have occured to me as a cause for police action several years ago either. So it COULD and if no one does anything then it becomes more likely.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
13th Feb 2010 23:18

Again, practical action

Regardless of how "best reply" came to be attached to it, the question I asked hasn't been answered. What PRACTICAL action can we take about this. Because sitting on here agreeing (mostly) amongst ourselves that it is a bad thing isn't going to make any difference as to whether any of these plans get implemented or not.

Is there a formal channel for objecting to this proposal? Are the professional bodies making representations and seeking individual member support? Basically, what can we do to make our voices heard by those with the power to implement or turn down these proposals?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
14th Feb 2010 10:36

So

That's 2 supporters, 2 sceptics, 1 don't know and over 89,994 who couldn't be assed to respond.

On a more serious note, perhaps Nichola could point us in the direction of which paragraphs in the consultation document give rise to her concerns regarding fines for being a tax adviser, censorship, the end of tax publishing etc. I've read the whole of the document on HMRC's website and I'm struggling to marry the two.

I'm afraid it's not good enough for me to accept these ravings without proper reasoned evidence. After all we've still got Arctic Systems deniers contributing to this forum.

 

 

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 21:19

Ditto THomas34

I'd be grateful for clarification on where exactly they refer to fines for giving any tax advice.

I did read the linked article and have commented but I would be interested to read evidence for the draconian penalties/sanctions referred to in this thread - I didn't see anything coming close it it in the linked one.

Many thanks.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
14th Feb 2010 22:35

Monsoon

I think the furore is more directed towards the draft legislation which accompanies the consultation document - just follow Mark Lee's link in the previous thread if you can scroll down past the rest of the irrelevant c**p (not the fault of Rebecca who started a good thread).

It's 31 pages long, has the same expiry date for comment and is worth printing out.

I can only guess that Nichola is referring to the bottom of page 11 (Part 1 paragraph 3) when attempting to assemble her army, but who knows?

The subject of the proposed legislation is "deliberate wrongdoing" and since wrongdoings are both intended and accidental mistakes I guess that cases will be decided on whether errors are "deliberate" (intentional, fully considered, not impulsive, slow in deciding, cautious).

 

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
15th Feb 2010 08:47

OK all

Those who would like to make their views known now have an easy route. I have prepared a summary of the proposals in the Article "Working with agents - a roadmap". This article includes links to two longer articles detailing the proposals regarding reports to professional bodies and deliberate wrongdoing.

Each of these articles has an email link at the foot so that you can fire off a response immediately, although a single response from each would be better than several.

Once you have made your responses, please log on this Any Answers thread that you have done so. If 100 members respond I'll personally fund a decent bottle of bubbly for the one picked out of the hat from the thread listing respndents. If you can make 200 then I'll run to two bottles. No cheating please - only log your response on the thread once you have submitted it.

Thanks (0)