Share this content

The worm that turned?

Time to do something about the MTD ITSA fiasco

Didn't find your answer?

Enough is enough.

As a profession we have put up with all the stupid initiatives heaped on us over the years, but really MTD ITSA is the final straw.

A firm can have hundreds or thousands of tax returns to file annually and currently has between April and January to get them all done, which is barely manageable, but we are used to it and the system works.  

Now we are expected to file them quarterly.  They are not simply 'updates', they are tax returns.  Don't be fooled into thinking any initial concessions to allow estimates, or rubbish to be filed will last.

This is just not feasible.  It will be January every few months.  

What are we supposed to do?  Quadruple our fees?  Quadruple our staff?  (can any firms even manage to recruit anyone at this time?)  Sack 75% of our clients?  Who else would even have capacity to take them on?

This is going to take a wrecking ball to the entire profession and the taxpaying public. We are sleepwalking into an almighty mess and nobody is doing anything about it.

We have heard this week that the professional bodies have written to the Government expressing their 'support' for the proposals but merely urging 'delay'.  Support? Delay?  This thing needs strangling at birth.

I am loathe to say trade union, but is it now time that some sort of professional accountants association was formed that takes a more confrontational approach and loudly and rudely calls out this BS?

Thoughts?

Replies (436)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Aug 2021 13:08

Well, good luck with that. Your professional bodies don't support you.

The only response we can make is "we told you so" after the entire system goes teats up.

If this is a success, it'll be because there are more bookkeepers in the UK than all other workers put together.

Thanks (9)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By David Ex
27th Aug 2021 13:35

lionofludesch wrote:

Well, good luck with that. Your professional bodies don't support you.

I don’t know what the professional bodies said but I’m guessing it was not wholeheartedly positive. If the Treasury and HMRC haven’t listened to professional bodies or the House of Lords committee, I’m not sure what can be done.

What intrigues me is what on earth the benefit is supposed to be - unless it’s just ultimately PAYE for the self-employed.

Thanks (7)
Replying to David Ex:
RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Aug 2021 13:44

David Ex wrote:

What intrigues me is what on earth the benefit is supposed to be - unless it’s just ultimately PAYE for the self-employed.

It's the elimination of all errors from taxpayers' returns.

Thanks (4)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
28th Aug 2021 13:46

Good one

Thanks (3)
avatar
By BIGWAL
27th Aug 2021 13:52

Fully concur Jon, though no thoughts on what can be practically done.
My PB is certainly not representing the general view to HMRC. - no doubt because they're to busy promoting software suppliers'MTD solutions and getting additional income for doing so. (Not seen that income go towards reducing our membership fees)
If it wasn't for us ensuring clients are compliant, HMRC would collapse and all sorts of rubbish would go through as tax deductible and never be picked up by them.

Thanks (5)
avatar
By BIGWAL
27th Aug 2021 13:54

Sorry - Duplicated

Thanks (0)
Replying to BIGWAL:
By petersaxton
27th Aug 2021 13:59

BIGWAL wrote:

Sorry - Duplicated

Both of them were equally good.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
27th Aug 2021 13:55

I sort of agree
BUT nobody cares about small firms and their small clients
Particularly ICAEW

Thanks (9)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
27th Aug 2021 14:15

In the same way people get the politicians they deserve, we professionals get the professional bodies we deserve. They did next to nothing to call out the Loan Charge for the unfair nonsense it was (a 20 year tax hit all in on go: no wonder people were killing themselves and in the end it was only the independent protest group(s) that brought about change there) and all the other HMRC retrospective taxes they have supinely accepted, despite warnings & protests from the likes of me and many others over the years. Now you are seeing the full consequences of HMRC's slippery slope. There is something called the Tax Professionals Forum Group that regularly meets with HMRC and are supposed to keep things like that in check, but guess what. Yes; that's right, they are all appointed by HMRC (like the supposedly independent GAAR Panel)! It will be the mother of all fiascos. How will HMRC & the FTT have the capacity to deal with all the penalty appeals etc?

It has been commented elsewhere here today that the ICAEW etc. are effectively only run by and for the benefit of the Big 4, so don't hold your breath there.

Thanks (5)
By SteveHa
27th Aug 2021 14:02

If the old IRSF and FDA were still around and effective, you could be sure that they would be making noises. Unfortunately, the merger of the IRSF with the CPSA and NUCPS diluted the Inland Revenue representation (and something I'm sorry to say I was instrumental in), and a power grab by the very left wing arm following means that even HMRC staff no longer have a sensible say in policy.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
27th Aug 2021 14:13

What actual evidence can you point to that shows that it will take you longer to do this work than it does to prepare accounts and the SATR at the moment?

Where have you come up with the quadruple multiple?

What folks do not seem to be understanding here is that its not a big rush once a quarter, you do the work every day, week and month as the transactions come through at your own convenience. Do that and once a quarter its not like "January 4 times a year"

Certainly from the VAT experiment, taking the whole process from entering data up to final accounts/SATR I would say things are better and quicker with clients on cloud accounting.

I fully expect there will now be 85 comments telling me how ridiculous I am, and I am not trying to provoke an argument, all I can tell you is thats my actual experience of doing this, and I would ask the OP respectfully have you actually done this for a client for a year and compared the two, and have you found that MTD did actually take 4 times longer?

Thanks (7)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
27th Aug 2021 14:40

What is your client base?

If they are people that are already keeping records in a digital format, then you are probably right. Anyone that is already keeping digital records won't have to do much extra work.

Those registered for VAT will also be a bit ahead of the game, but not all. Some still keep manual records and only use the digital solution at the end of the quarter. Regardless, they are used to having to keep their records up to date quarterly anyway.

But it is not those clients we are talking about. It is those who do not keep digital records now. It is those who do not submit quarterly returns. It is those that have rental property and are used to getting a statement from their agent once a year.

All these people will require extra work to comply with MTD. All these people will need to be chased more often (since spaced reminders over 10 months still leave many at the last minute). The work might not quadruple exactly, but these people are a large proportion of the tax return filing public.

For your practice and its clients, you may not be being ridiculous. But I suspect that is only because you have chosen to only take on clients that operate in a certain way. If we all behaved that way, a huge chunk of the taxpaying public would go unrepresented. Perhaps that is HMRC's goal after all.

Thanks (10)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
27th Aug 2021 15:06

stepurhan wrote:

What is your client base?

We have a mixed bag like every practice, I agree the turnover limit should be raised so that only, shall we call them "proper businesses" are included.

But, no we did not have an especially high percentage of clients on software until MTD was first announced and then we embraced it, and I can tell you categorically that I would not like to go back to the old days of preparing VAT returns at the very last minute because there were records missing or because we had to wade through a box of receipts, those days are thankfully over.

I will give you an actual example. A (non VAT) landlord with 30 properties used to take us maybe a couple of days a year in January, it was a nightmare because there would always be some completion statement or bank statement missing, since moving them onto software the book-keeping is now done every month, any queries are dealt with that month, SATR done in May, client gets regular management accounts, takes us less time than it did before.

Thats what you get from bank feeds/cloud accounting that would have been impossible before.

People will say well you could have done that without MTD, but we all know clients dont think like that, they will think thats the way we have always done it why should I change, the motivation for this client was upcoming MTD and now he is seeing the benefits and so are we

Thanks (3)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
27th Aug 2021 16:46

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

We have a mixed bag like every practice, I agree the turnover limit should be raised so that only, shall we call them "proper businesses" are included.

But, no we did not have an especially high percentage of clients on software until MTD was first announced and then we embraced it


What would you call the turnover limit for a "proper business"? I would assert that should be £85,000. Do you think it should be lower than that? If so, how low and why?

But to get back to your client base, what you had when MTD was first announced is irrelevant. It is your client base now that I was interested in. But since you have brought up your earlier position, let me ask a different question.

When you started moving clients to all digital records, did you lose clients as a result? Are there jobs you refuse to take on now because they don't want to use software?

Because the tone of your not wanting to go back to the "old days" sounds very much like this is more convenient for you, not the client. You talk as if moving everyone onto software as if it is as easy as falling off a log. It isn't.

Your anecdote about it working well for one particular client is meaningless against the total number of taxpayers in the UK. I also cannot help noting that you deliberately chose an anomalous case. A person with 30 properties is quite likely to have yearly rent over £85,000. Flagging them as non-VAT is, at best, disingenuous. We both know that property rental is more often than not exempt from VAT, so it is possible to have a huge income from it without VAT ever being a consideration. This is not the smaller property rental businesses I was referring to.

That is even without considering if HMRC's systems are up to the job. Just recently we have heard how HMRC's systems are messing up the simple job of providing a single figure for tax returns. If they cannot even manage that simple task, how is the grand scale IT of MTD going to work?

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/personal-tax/tax-return-data-feeds-m...

If it served a clear useful purpose for both taxpayers and HMRC, I might still support it regardless. It doesn't.

Thanks (8)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
27th Aug 2021 17:07

stepurhan wrote:

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

What would you call the turnover limit for a "proper business"? I would assert that should be £85,000. Do you think it should be lower than that? If so, how low and why?

well if its 85k that takes everyone out doesn't it, because over 85k they are already in MTD for VAT. I think if you went up to 25/35k you would at least weed out all the BTLs and the sideline businesses that are more of a part time hobby, but then again it makes the whole thing a bit pointless, certainly those with profits below the PA should be excluded

The rest of your questions -
No, we have only moved those that we felt would benefit or those that had to, we have warned the rest that it is coming and started preparing them for it

If you mean those that keep filthy receipts in a shoebox and come in on the 30th January, yes we refuse to deal with those. That question will become irrelevant wont it when everyone is in MTD, I have had one client that has said he will retire before he needs to comply but I highly doubt he will

I only gave you one example, there are plenty of others, its really not that complicated or expensive to get them setup, both the clients and us reap the benefits.

Yes of course we all know HMRC are the problem, the whole point of my original reply was that almost everyday there are people on here claiming how onerous this all is, the OP here claimed it would quadruple his workload - again I ask will it really? Not in my experience

Thanks (0)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Aug 2021 18:12

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

If you mean those that keep filthy receipts in a shoebox and come in on the 30th January, yes we refuse to deal with those.

Ah, right.

So your client base isn't as mixed a bag as you implied.

You're picking out the competent ones.

Who's dealing with the filthy receipts in a shoe box ?

Thanks (4)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By petersaxton
28th Aug 2021 11:09

I never accept a lot of receipts. I ask them to sort receipts by type of expense and add them up and put them in an envelope with a description and amount. I tell them I will charge a lot more if they dont. They always agree to do what I ask!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
avatar
By SXGuy
27th Aug 2021 17:00

I think you are in an extremely fortunate position where your client type is such that you already have systems in place to make the deadlines easier.

And for those types of client you have already apportioned your time each month to deal with their affairs.

So to you, there is no major change.

However, for someone like me who mainly deals with small business year end clients who regularly hand over a book, or receipts each year in order to prepare accounts and self assessment it will be a massive change.

And where I may devote x amount of time each year to service those types of clients along side the monrhly bookkeeping clients I do already have, I'll now have to split that time across the year.

I would not expect those types of client to drop a bag of receipts off each month nor would I want the endless cycle of feet coming through the door

Someone who ignores 5 months of letters to meet a jan deadline now being chased every month to meet a quarterly one.

Fees won't quadruple but they will certainly double in my opinion. Mainly because at the very least we'll have to adopt some basic form of bookkeeping on a regular basis.

Thanks (4)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
27th Aug 2021 17:10

SXGuy wrote:

Someone who ignores 5 months of letters to meet a jan deadline now being chased every month to meet a quarterly one.

Yes we have plenty of clients like that, getting them on Bank Feeds was a godsend, no chasing required (apart from when the feeds drop out but thats another issue)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
27th Aug 2021 18:22

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

SXGuy wrote:

Someone who ignores 5 months of letters to meet a jan deadline now being chased every month to meet a quarterly one.

Yes we have plenty of clients like that, getting them on Bank Feeds was a godsend, no chasing required (apart from when the feeds drop out but thats another issue)

I'm a software developer. I can see how bank feeds can make things much easier for businesses and even sole traders so long as you can convince them to always use the right account and even the occasional mistake isn't a big problem.

But I'm struggling to see how you make it work for the BTL single property H&W joint ownership who are using an agent to manage the property. Even if they have a separate bank account there will probably be 24 transactions - 12x money in from agent, 12x money out to their personal account. If you're really lucky they'll also arrange to pay things like the buildings insurance via that account too. Somewhere you've got to magic in the gross rents and expenses (do agents also offer a feed?) and then, of course, you're going to have to split the money and expenses to upload it to MTD. None of it is impossible but it's going to be a hassle four times per year rather than once.

It gets harder still if they have two properties with different ownership proportions. Do you then tell them to have a separate bank account for each property?

I guess it gets even more fun where there are complex webs of ownership and multiple accountants involved because A, B and C are each successful business owners each with their own accountant. A, B and C have a side hussle of a few BTL owned jointly in different ways. (I guess this already causes a headache but it's only once per year, it will be five times per year)

If you have multiple properties through an agent, do they consolidate payments? I'll bet at least some do.

I cannot even see how the quarterly submission can be pushed to letting agents to do because people might have multiple properties through multiple agents but the MTD api only has a single "property business" and even if it didn't, how do the agents know what proportion of the money to upload to each of the owners?

I can see how the "self managed" property business isn't very different to any other self-employment. And bank feeds probably do give most of what you need. But there's possibly approaching a million taxpayers who use an agent to manage their property.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
avatar
By creamdelacream
27th Aug 2021 14:49

I agree, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. For VAT registered clients it's no extra work and for those that are not VAT registered they have to have their books up to date at 3 more intervals per year than they previously did (if they didn't already). It's not 3 more self-assessments, it's a quick submissions of rough income and expenses, i.e. a button click. Some positives are that it gets businesses into a routine of keeping records up to date and reviewing their figures more regularly and eventually paying tax quarterly (we all know that's coming). Surely that's better than the year end shoe box and no memory of transactions that happened a year ago and then a tax bill they didn't plan for.

I do accept for very small businesses who are so small they don't pay tax or have a feeling for their numbers it does add a small amount of inconvenience, so I think some exemptions would make sense.

It's not all bad, think if it as an opportunity for your practice and a positive for your clients. You might as well because it's going this way with or without you.

Thanks (3)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By David Ex
27th Aug 2021 17:23

creamdelacream wrote:

it's a quick submissions of rough income and expenses, i.e. a button click.

I do my own return (and not VAT registered). How much is the button going to cost me - upfront and annually?

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By creamdelacream
27th Aug 2021 18:46

There's free software or bridging software will be available. Even if you used something like Xero, if the subscription fee is a hardship you don't really have a business

Thanks (2)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By David Ex
27th Aug 2021 19:02

creamdelacream wrote:

There's free software or bridging software will be available. Even if you used something like Xero, if the subscription fee is a hardship you don't really have a business

Not a hardship just a completely unnecessary expense.

Income tax is based on annual profits, not transactions like VAT. Some people appear to be rationalising on the basis it doesn’t really matter what you report. That seems bizarre, to say the least.

And why would companies not be included? You don’t need to spend too much on Any Answers to know that small company records are not likely to be any more accurate than an unincorporated business.

It is what it is but I can think of more pressing priorities for HMRC. I’d far rather they put in a bit of effort themselves actually reviewing what people submit in their returns. That would have some purpose.

Thanks (1)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By creamdelacream
27th Aug 2021 19:05

Like I said there will be free software so the expense should not be an issue. I do agree that there should be an exemption for micro businesses as they won't have much (if any) tax to pay anyway. But, even if there is no exemption the worst case scenario is you spread the work you do each year across the quarters and add a few minutes per quarter for the extra submission.
To me this whole thing is a storm in a teacup, it's really not a big deal and there could be many benefits to requiring businesses to complete their bookkeeping more regularly. If it's going to be mandatory why don't we focus on the positives the benefits can bring rather than just being outraged and complaining.

Thanks (1)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
27th Aug 2021 20:13

I'm afraid you lost the moral high-ground that you're trying to occupy with the phrase "if the subscription fee is a hardship you don't really have a business"!
You don't know (and patently don't understand the motivation of) the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that keep 1+ people off unemployment/UC and pay their taxes - but don't see their job as being to keep you in business.
"why don't we focus on the positives the benefits can bring?" ... feel free to list 'em.

Thanks (6)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By David Ex
27th Aug 2021 23:28

Hugo Fair wrote:

"why don't we focus on the positives the benefits can bring?" ... feel free to list 'em.

That’s my feeling. I keep saying it but the HoL committee weren’t convinced in their review.

You can try and find positives but it’s 5 reports required annually rather than 1 - of which, apparently, no-one’s really bothered about the quality of the content. I’d rather businesses were focusing on, err, business?!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By creamdelacream
28th Aug 2021 08:53

I am not holier than thou, I'm merely stating a controversially positive outlook on it. Again there will be free software available that businesses could actually use as bridging software by entering totals if they want to carry on with Excel or whatever.
So with the cost question resolved, how much extra work is there really? It's not like you have to do the whole years work 5 times per year, you break the whole years work down into 4 segments, so it's more about frequency rather than additional work.
Positives could include things like:

1. A micro business may find more regular figures useful. Granted not all will all the time but there may be instances where they do. For example, a business might find out they will have a cash flow problem in a few months if they carry on as they are that they wouldn't have known after the fact. They may discover sooner that a product or particular service they sell has a much higher GPM than they thought so they can trey to sell that product or service more aggressively sooner.

2. A business owner trying to remember in January transactions that happened last April has less chance of getting them right than transactions that happened 3 to 4 months ago, so less mistakes

3. When regular tax payments are introduced their bill will be divided across the year. This avoids situations where they can trade for the first 21 months without paying anything then realise they have spent the tax money and end up in a bad situation.

4. Bad businesses are more likely to stop trading sooner once they realise it's not viable. The sooner someone closes down a bad business and does what they are meant to be doing instead the better for everyone.

5. If a mistake has been made paying a supplier too much or missing a customer payment it can be spotted quicker meaning more chance of getting that extra cash than a year later.

6. For the clients who ask their accountant to take care of the quarterly submissions rather than just the final submission it forces more of a relationship with their accountant. I think sometimes more regular conversations could bring about benefits that may not have been had if there were no obligation.

I could go on and on here but they're just off the top of my head. Now, I accept that there will be some businesses who will see little benefit most of the time in which case it just means they spread their workload where they didn't before, albeit with a few minutes work on top each time.

Thanks (3)
Replying to creamdelacream:
RLI
By lionofludesch
28th Aug 2021 09:25

creamdelacream wrote:

2. A business owner trying to remember in January transactions that happened last April has less chance of getting them right than transactions that happened 3 to 4 months ago, so less mistakes

In which part of HMRC do you work ?

Thanks (7)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
28th Aug 2021 09:37

lionofludesch wrote:

creamdelacream wrote:

2. A business owner trying to remember in January transactions that happened last April has less chance of getting them right than transactions that happened 3 to 4 months ago, so less mistakes

In which part of HMRC do you work ?

As predicted some people on here on just out to disagree with anything reasonable which is why I try to avoid these threads now - someone points out the blindingly obvious fact to anyone working in practice that it is both easier and more accurate to prepare books from records that are only a month or two old than a year and a half old when no one can remember what happened and might have lost the paperwork, and they get accused of "working for HMRC"

it would be nice if we could have a reasoned discussion instead of it always descending into this

Thanks (5)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
RLI
By lionofludesch
28th Aug 2021 09:58

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

As predicted some people on here on just out to disagree with anything reasonable which is why I try to avoid these threads now - someone points out the blindingly obvious fact to anyone working in practice that it is both easier and more accurate to prepare books from records that are only a month or two old than a year and a half old when no one can remember what happened and might have lost the paperwork, and they get accused of "working for HMRC"

it would be nice if we could have a reasoned discussion instead of it always descending into this

Easy for you to say. You've already said that you simply reject the difficult jobs.

Of course it's no problem for you !!

Thanks (3)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
28th Aug 2021 10:03

lionofludesch wrote:

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

Easy for you to say. You've already said that you simply reject the difficult jobs.

Of course it's no problem for you !!

With all due respect, you assumed that I said that, I never did say that, in fact you could not be more wrong we have plenty of difficult jobs believe me, anyway I can see that you just want an argument so I will not be responding any further

Thanks (2)
Replying to Winnie Wiggleroom:
RLI
By lionofludesch
28th Aug 2021 10:32

Winnie Wiggleroom wrote:

With all due respect, you assumed that I said that, I never did say that, in fact you could not be more wrong we have plenty of difficult jobs believe me, anyway I can see that you just want an argument so I will not be responding any further

Here's what you said.

"If you mean those that keep filthy receipts in a shoebox and come in on the 30th January, yes we refuse to deal with those."

No response necessary. Plain for all to see.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
28th Aug 2021 18:13

Agree
Bookkeepers tend to keep books
So will not see the issue

People who refuse to deal with the disorganised tiny little trader will never see the problem

Those clients do not have bookkeepers

Thanks (5)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By David Ex
28th Aug 2021 17:33

creamdelacream wrote:

Positives could include things like:

….

Might be right but that doesn’t answer the key question which is what on earth were HMRC thinking.

It’s like saying HMRC have cut off both my feet but on the positive side, I’ll save on buying shoes.

Whatever the supposed purpose(s) behind MTD for IT, I don’t think the proposed implementation achieves them. Whether there might be some incidental benefits (which may still not justify the incremental cost/effort) is not really the issue for most taxpayers and advisors affected.

Thanks (3)
Replying to David Ex:
RLI
By lionofludesch
28th Aug 2021 17:56

David Ex wrote:

creamdelacream wrote:

Positives could include things like:

….

Might be right but that doesn’t answer the key question which is what on earth were HMRC thinking.

It’s like saying HMRC have cut off both my feet but on the positive side, I’ll save on buying shoes.

Whatever the supposed purpose(s) behind MTD for IT, I don’t think the proposed implementation achieves them. Whether there might be some incidental benefits (which may still not justify the incremental cost/effort) is not really the issue for most taxpayers and advisors affected.

I have to say, I thought the positives looked pretty thin.

Especially the cash flow forecast. I can't see your average subcontractor spotting that one.

The world is full of dreamers.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
By petersaxton
28th Aug 2021 20:04

""why don't we focus on the positives the benefits can bring?" ... feel free to list 'em."
Here's one for a start: Records available to an accountant soon after year end rather than clients bring records in in January.

Thanks (1)
Replying to petersaxton:
avatar
By David Ex
29th Aug 2021 15:58

petersaxton wrote:

""why don't we focus on the positives the benefits can bring?" ... feel free to list 'em."
Here's one for a start: Records available to an accountant soon after year end rather than clients bring records in in January.

Fixed that for you.

Four sets of random numbers available to an accountant soon after year end rather than clients bring records in in January.

Thanks (2)
Replying to creamdelacream:
neand
By neanderthal
28th Aug 2021 11:07

no software can do the work by magic wand! you need time and staff and resources and clients copoperating to do the actual work writing the books before they hand them over to your bridging software!

Thanks (4)
Replying to neanderthal:
By petersaxton
28th Aug 2021 11:19

I moved a client over to Xero before he had to go on MTD for ITSA and that was because he used to write up his records for a year in a book. I explained he wouldn't have to do that in future. He's now sent me csv files of bank transactions from the beginning of the year and bank feeds set up. He teases my that I'm sending him orders. I tell him the more he can do himself properly the less I will have to do. He soon came round to my way of thinking!

I'll have to make more of an effort when I have to put more clients on MTD for VAT in one go and also with MTD for ITSA but I think a bit of bullying and explanations will go a long way.

Thanks (0)
Replying to petersaxton:
avatar
By SXGuy
29th Aug 2021 10:30

How will you tackle getting all your clients to re authenticate the open bank feeds every 90 days? That's a lot of phone calls.

Which is yet another issue of mine.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By johnhemming
29th Aug 2021 10:46

I am working on a system where this process is automated and when the bank feeds need reauthenticating the client gets an email with a link to reauthenticate it. This is currently in beta test with one firm of accountants.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By SXGuy
29th Aug 2021 15:42

Had not thought about doing it like that and it does indeed sound like the perfect solution. One part I'm stuck on is how it would work with the cloud software provider I use.

Currently when the feed expires there's a link to re authenticate but it directs you to your bank and back again to the software once successful. How that could be altered to use an email link I guess will need to be passed over to the software provider for consideration.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
By petersaxton
29th Aug 2021 16:19

Xero sends emails already.

Thanks (0)
Replying to petersaxton:
avatar
By SXGuy
30th Aug 2021 07:35

Yes and the software I use does so already. But I believe its only to the admin of the account holder, which would be me. They would need to allow the emails to be sent to a nominated email address as in the client. I'm currently in talks with them about it. Hopefully they inplement a solution.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
By petersaxton
30th Aug 2021 09:35

SXGuy wrote:

Yes and the software I use does so already. But I believe its only to the admin of the account holder, which would be me. They would need to allow the emails to be sent to a nominated email address as in the client. I'm currently in talks with them about it. Hopefully they inplement a solution.

This is exactly one of the reasons I use Xero! I got an email from Xero telling them their bank feed would stop if they didnt act so I forwarded it to the client. They told me they'd already got an email from Xero and had acted. I love Xero.

Thanks (1)
Replying to petersaxton:
By petersaxton
30th Aug 2021 09:39

I think it's funny how some people think I'm a cheerleader for Xero. At XeroCon there's crazy people who act all happy clappy. I go there and talk about what Xero needs to do better. That doesn't mean I cant appreciate the good things they do.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
By petersaxton
29th Aug 2021 10:58

I have standard emails set up using FastFox Text Expander. I would only phone if client didn't have email or sms.

Thanks (1)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
28th Aug 2021 14:15

Agree
A significant number (all) of my small clients agree that their rent received is not a business
Same with the 'retired' traders that only now work for existing friends.
They also do not think that they have a business
BUT either way the State will treat them as they had a business with the significant increased costs. My fee £250
They get Zero benefit but incresed fees and compliance costs, at least double, because the UK is doing the equivalent of landing the man on the moon as a race to be first.
BUT expecting the SA taxpayer to pay for it
Not all taxpayers contributing
And guess what
There is no race
The 'gold medal' will be make of chocolate and enscrusted with white stuff
No other state cares
PURE VANITY PROJECT
Tax payments and real tax data unchanged in quality or timing

Thanks (2)
Replying to creamdelacream:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
27th Aug 2021 17:24

".. with or without you" - but the question is without How Many (taxpayers)?

Irrespective of whether or not as an Agent you see this as threat or opportunity, there are already a lot of unrepresented taxpayers - and this number will increase dramatically once Agents 'clear out' their less technocratic clients.
A few of those may adapt a technology solution AND enter everything correctly, but the vast majority will either enter rubbish or refuse to partake (either as overt refusal or by failing to pay book-keeping/agent fees).

So you may find yourself compliant and with happy clients, but if the underlying system falls apart then your schadenfreude won't last long.

Thanks (6)

Pages

Share this content