Writer
Columnist
Share this content
HMRC and money
istock_HMRC-costs_malamus-UK

MTD ITSA: What will it all cost?

by

Wendy Bradley pulls apart the policy documents on the costs and benefits of MTD ITSA and discovers some astonishing assumptions leading to quite unbelievable conclusions.

6th Oct 2021
Writer
Columnist
Share this content

Two policy documents about the costs and benefits of MTD ITSA were published on 23 September 2021:

I recommend reading them, as they’re a good laugh.

Unbelievable time costs

Say you are an averagely competent business owner. You already have a tax agent, who prepares your annual tax returns, and charges you for that work. Under MTD ITSA you will have to send summaries of income and expenditure (NOT tax returns) four times a year. Your agent is going to check them, of course. How much time (and cost) is allowed for that check and submission in the costs and benefits document?

Six minutes.

“HMRC believes the need to submit quarterly spreads the cost of checking over the year but does not increase it”

I’m prepared to believe it might take the accountant six minutes to check the summary - provided they don’t find any problems in it - but how long will it take to communicate with them and ask them to do the check, progress chase, get the results?

HMRC assessments of cost are similarly based on what the “averagely competent” business would do – lean, prepared, digital savvy, up to date on tax law, and requiring only six minutes of their agent’s time to submit a quarterly digital update of their turnover and costs.

Are we laughing yet?

Astonishing paper to digital speed

Only 1.5% of MTD novices are estimated to need new hardware and the figure HMRC use for that is a £200 laptop.

HMRC assume that it might take businesses four hours with an agent’s help (six hours without an agent) to move from keeping paper records to using software.

I’m not exactly a computer novice, having been digital since the days of using dial-up to log onto CompuServe. But I’ve just upgraded to a new laptop and so far it’s taken me the best part of two days to set it up and get it running. It’s still not working at optimum efficiency, so I’ve had to pay the extra £200 for telephone support. I thought I might be “averagely competent”.

Risible ongoing costs

The Standard Cost Model used to calculate administrative burden is based on the extra costs of fulfilling obligations imposed by HMRC and not on the regular costs of doing business.

If HMRC makes people move from paper records, to buying and using a computer and software, is the cost of the software licence included in the figure? Since the figure given in the costs paper is actually between £158 and £317 pa I thought it must exclude the cost of a software licence. I checked with HMRC and, no, the cost of a software licence is considered an MTD cost and is included in that figure.

Mythical free software

Both policy papers are confident that there will be free software for the smallest businesses. If this free software exists it would be helpful if those papers pointed us towards it.

The only page I could find was this guide (last updated on 23 September 2021) which lists a grand total of seven software packages (without any indication of cost) and five “in development”.  Surely there should be an indication of which packages offer a free version for the simplest tax affairs, if you’re extending MTD to people with a £10,000 turnover.

No laughing matter

Laugh or you can cry but the basic premise is simple. HMRC ought to have a modern computer system so we can transact with it as easily as we do with our banks. That will cost money.

Pretending that the costs will be covered by extra tax brought in by abolishing tax errors is risible. There has been, as Rebecca Cave reported, an actual uptick in the VAT tax gap for the first returns made under MTD for VAT.

Pretending that the costs will be covered by extra tax means you move into trying to get the TIIN to come out with bigger benefits than costs, which means your figures are open to ridicule.

What else is in the TIIN?

Equalities, for example: “The government has been clear that if a business cannot go digital, it will not be required to do so.” Wait, what? Where have they “been clear” about that?

If that is the case, then why are we talking about mandation at all? After all, digital submission of SA tax returns has never reached 100% but the world still keeps turning. If MTD ITSA is as good as HMRC thinks it will be, then people will turn to it because it is better, easier, cheaper and simpler, not because it’s illegal for them not to.

Incidentally, the justice system assessment in the TIIN makes no allowance for an increased number of cases of people refusing to go digital and HMRC taking enforcement action against them. Does anyone actually believe in this stuff, or is it all a big joke?

Sunny uplands and shiny people

Both policy papers envisage sunny uplands where tax is simple and seamless and friction-free transactions take place in minutes without any of us being troubled by them.

I was also amused by the shiny happy people talking about the wonders of MTD in these case studies. No disrespect to the people quoted, but you really have to laugh.

---

Want to keep up with the debate around MTD? There are over 60 panels, workshops, seminars and lectures at AccountingWEB Live Expo this December, covering MTD, Autumn Budget and much more - many with CPD attached.

AW Live

Replies (62)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By TaxEye
06th Oct 2021 10:12

very good

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Nick.Ferriter
06th Oct 2021 10:16

Hi Wendy,

This is a good article and summarises well everything most of us working in accounts feel/suspect/knew already.

The burden put onto the lower end of the market is going to be horrific. Even the simplest of things is bringing in issues, like moving a manual client and their Collins book to an identical copy on Excel for MTD for VAT.

The delay for one year is not unexpected but it really needs a whole rethink.

Cheers!

Thanks (15)
Replying to Nick.Ferriter:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
06th Oct 2021 12:45

The most fundamental flaw in the 'justification' figures (even before we get to ludicrous optimism and downright obfuscation) is the disjunct between:
* revenues flow every time, but
* costs only occur once!

The cost of 'going digital' isn't just buying the hardware and licences (or indeed in trying to get it all to work) ... but in keeping it working when Microsoft update the operating system or Google change Chrome or ... (insert suppliers of choice).

In exactly the same way that 6 minutes of work by an Agent doesn't happen in a vacuum ... you have to clear your mind, find the salient records, review them, note potential anomalies and then (after potential interruptions on behalf of other clients) chase the client for missing/corrective data, get it amended (or do it yourself), re-review to ensure you don't need to repeat any of these actions and submit a return which may only contain a few figures. Oh and then keep an eye open for whether HMRC actually acknowledge receiving the submission!

That is a simplified list, but I'd like to see any of the appropriate civil service mandarins carry them out (even with dummy/incorrect values) in the 6 minutes ... and then try to do it again and again and again, whilst the phones ring and the emails ping - knowing that HMRC are standing by ready to support their 'customers' by blaming them.

Thanks (9)
avatar
By johnjenkins
06th Oct 2021 10:17

Wendy, most Accountants of a certain savvy would already have poo pooed quarterly updates as soon as they were mentioned. Experienced Accountants know what the time and money cost is without dissecting documents. Mind you you're spot on they are a giggle. Problem is the people that matter will believe it. Where do the people come from that write this sort of nonsense?

Thanks (11)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Oct 2021 10:18

Good news then
I can tell all my worried clients that they can ignore MTD
That will take a lot longer than 6 minutes per person though. If it were 6 minutes and each only had one submission, so no traders with rent income, a mere 20 hours, assuming no gaps and interuptions and no coffee and no misdialling or being sociable or dealing with ANYTHING not attributable to the six minute window

Thanks (10)
avatar
By euanjohn
06th Oct 2021 10:23

I'm afraid this is another example of an attempt to mislead Parliament. It is common practice to drastically understate costs to get a project approved, then by the time the true picture emerges, it is too late to turn back.
Parliament was told that HS2 would cost £55 billion whereas the true cost will be north of £200 billion, and due to increased remote working, the previous assumptions regarding job creation now look absurd.
But that does not excuse the ICAEW failing to shout loudly that MTD is a complete farce and should be abandoned immediately. I think the Institute supports HMRC more than it supports its own members.

Thanks (20)
avatar
By Donald MacKenzie
06th Oct 2021 10:35

NOTHING takes just six minutes. It can take that long to locate and open the files and read up any comments from a client. That is before we start to look at numbers and before we start to ask for clarification of numbers. HMRC is making the case for MTD by pedalling untruths.

First rule of project promotion - lie about the benefits, closely followed by rule 2 - understate the costs, then rule 3 - ignore the problems.

I do not see four quarterly reports increasing workload by x5, as some have said, but certainly expect at least a doubling of work for the smaller clients. The three hour a year once-a-year jobs will consume six or seven hours.

Thanks (15)
Replying to Donald MacKenzie:
avatar
By HMRC Escapee
06th Oct 2021 11:27

'First rule of project promotion - lie about the benefits, closely followed by rule 2 - understate the costs, then rule 3 - ignore the problems'.

... alas Classic HMRC behaviour as they unveil yet another 'dogs dinner'.

From my time in HMRC the only winners were outside IT consultants, HMRC heads and senior staff who see initiatives like this as promotion opportunities, who quickly move onwards and upwards leaving devastation in their wake.

Thereafter both HMRC staff and business struggle for years to come with the new IT 'wonder system'.

Thanks (12)
avatar
By lh3f9764bg1g
06th Oct 2021 10:35

They can do it themselves for our clients for £6 per quarter - but don't expect us to do it for such a ridiculous amount.

Thanks (8)
avatar
By fozia
06th Oct 2021 10:39

Thanks Wendy, excellent article highlighting the obvious cost/benefit skewed view that HMRC have on MTD ITSA.
MTD VAT was sensible, but the reality is with MTD ITSA the group of taxpayers that it affects is so vast from a computer illiterate granny with rental income (above £10k) and state pension to a high earning tech savvy self-employed consultant. The cost/time spent will be highest for the smallest clients and lower at the other end. We are going to be forced to increase fees for the lowest earners, whose lives will not be made any simpler/easier taxwise as they will genuinely take most of our time for all the reasons you have mentioned.
The £10k threshold is simply too low and they need to introduce MTD ITSA in a more staged fashion like they did for MTD VAT (over £85k first in April 2019 and then under £85k 3 years later in April 2022). We had time to embed this, but MTD ITSA is a sweeping blow that does not look at cost/benefit at all and will undoubtedly increase the tax burden and cost for the smallest of clients.

Thanks (10)
Replying to fozia:
avatar
By Jimess
06th Oct 2021 14:28

The software houses have already mopped up the MTD for VAT market so MTD for ITSA for businesses with turnover above the VAT threshold would not be worth them getting out of bed for. It is the lower end of the market that is now the untapped and huge potential for the software houses. That is what they are primarily targeting and using HMRC as the big stick to ensure the pool of potential customers remains at a sustainable level for them to feed off. It makes far more sense to push MTD for ITSA out to the larger businesses first as they will already have MTD for VAT compatible software in place and the move on to MTD for ITSA will be a progression from that. Larger businesses are more likely to have the capability and resources to deal with it and should be able to iron out a fair amount of problems before the next phase is released. However, this would not bring in enough new customers for the software houses hungry for increased market shares.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Jimess:
Morph
By kevinringer
06th Oct 2021 14:53

My sentiments exactly, posted something similar earlier today at https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/community/blogs/kevinringer/mtd-itsa-won....

Thanks (0)
Replying to fozia:
avatar
By Mani Chacko
08th Oct 2021 16:11

Excellent article, just the reality. RTI has not worked after so many years. Who in their right mind thinks MTD ITSA will work. How many accountants have been able to retrieve client's salary and pension information from the HMRC within 6 months. It should be available within 2 days. 5 April 2021 information is not available to date. What is their excuse. A form P60 and P45 not fit for purpose. Inadequate information of NIC, student loan deductions on P45, Auto-enrollment contribution figures not available on both P45 & P60. With multiple jobs and self-employed income, overpayment of NIC not resolved long after self assessment returns filed. Interaction between tax and NIC very poor. One can see that submission will not be possible, without ticking a box stating 'information is true and correct'. Only option will be to find a white space to include a disclaimer for accuracy of information. Has anybody got a refund for tax over-payment following a reduction in liability in a subsequent RTI submission or under quarterly CT instalment payment scheme. It should be paid back automatically. We are in this sad state because professional bodies do not challenge the HMRC.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mani Chacko:
Tornado
By Tornado
08th Oct 2021 16:25

'One can see that submission will not be possible, without ticking a box stating 'information is true and correct'

I remember in the early days of Self Assessment there was a box included which had to be ticked to say that no estimates were included in the Return. As reasonable estimates are often used to compile some data for the Return, those of integrity would tick the box even if it was related to a few pounds estimate of building society interest.

I was never contacted about this but I guess HMRC were inundated with ticked boxes where other people were doing the right thing and they clearly could not deal with so many trivial estimates. That question has not been asked for many years now.

So HMRC need to be careful about what they ask for.

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
06th Oct 2021 10:43

Argos sell a £200 laptop, https://www.argos.co.uk/product/9197048?clickPR=plp:28:269

Looking at those specs, it'll probably take 6 minutes just to boot to a desktop.

Thanks (11)
avatar
By djtax
06th Oct 2021 10:43

Who on earth at HMRC comes up with such garbage!? Clearly no one who has ever had any close experience of completing accounts or tax returns, especially for small businesses that do not have a handy IT dept to pass it all on to! Did HMRC consult sufficiently widely with relevant parties in arriving at their 'risible' conclusions (ie us lot - not just the software suppliers)?

In the private sector heads would roll for such poor quality work. This is just one of so many current issues demonstrating how out of touch HMRC decision makers are from the real world. If they were bothered to do so there are enough volunteers (I for one) who could show them what HMRC dross we come up against regularly, away from their London ivory towers. No doubt HMRC senior execs (retiring at 60 with gold plated taxpayer funded pensions) will still get a 'well deserved' gong in the New Years Honours!

Thanks (9)
Replying to djtax:
avatar
By Red1960
06th Oct 2021 12:45

In the private sector heads would roll for such poor quality work.

Thanks for that... almost as funny as the MTD fantasy that afflicts HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Michael C Feltham:
avatar
By Moo
06th Oct 2021 12:48

'female senior HMRC officers' 'these silly women'
Inference in your post is that all would be OK if the job had been given to men.
I must say I am not convinced about that. Or maybe I am reading too much into misogynist language?

Thanks (5)
Replying to Moo:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Oct 2021 13:38

You are KNOWINGLY looking for a problem that is not there
Is it a fact that they were women?
Is it a fact that they demonstrated sillyness?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
06th Oct 2021 14:17

Many thanks, Paul and of course you are totally correct.

Unfortunately, the Civil Service is riven with women promoted above their level of competence only because they are women. Political Correctness gone mad, I fear.

I have worked with many really able ladies and sing their virtues to the roof: there are many who demand praise, for example, Dr Ros Altman, Baroness Susan Greenfield to name but a couple.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 0620115
06th Oct 2021 10:57

"Six minutes"
I retired last year (after 50 years in accountancy) and can laugh without having to worry about how this is all going work....
Great article btw.

Thanks (4)
Replying to 0620115:
avatar
By Homeworker
06th Oct 2021 12:46

I'm retiring too and have managed to find a colleague willing to take on my clients but how many taxpayers (sorry, customers!) will be forced to go to larger firms or will try to deal with this themselves?
The six minutes guesstimate reminds me of when I took my exams many years ago. We were allocated something like 20 minutes to read and answer complicated questions, which I thought was totally unrealistic in the real world, where I would take the time to undertake research and possible ask more questions. Needless to say I failed the exam because I ran out of time. How often do we pick up a job now, thinking it can be dealt with straight away, only to find that there is information missing or queries to be answered!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By KenKLM
06th Oct 2021 11:03

Excellent and informative . This needs exposing before we all fall in the trough . The single biggest factor that HMRC / government appear to be missing is :
1. The willingness of clients to use software.
2. Their capability to use it.
3. When they ignore it / refuse to use it / are not technically minded and simply do not know how to use it ... who sorts that out ?
4. Will clients pay extra ? Doubt it .

They should stick to once a year as anything else will just be a complete and utter mess

Thanks (7)
avatar
By jsdevtom
06th Oct 2021 11:25

As Peter Schiff's latest episode is titled: "Government Creates Problems. Its Solutions Make Them Worse"

Thanks (2)
Replying to jsdevtom:
avatar
By philaccountant
06th Oct 2021 13:31

I hate MTD, but I'm glad we have a government that does things for its citizens. If Peter Schiff had his way we'd be copying the American model of healthcare and our country would be far worse off for it.

Governments get a lot wrong, but the private sector isn't a panacea for every problem.

Thanks (0)
Replying to philaccountant:
avatar
By jsdevtom
06th Oct 2021 13:49

Philip Swansborough wrote:

I hate MTD, but I'm glad we have a government that does things for its citizens. If Peter Schiff had his way we'd be copying the American model of healthcare and our country would be far worse off for it.

Governments get a lot wrong, but the private sector isn't a panacea for every problem.

I agree that the private sector isn't a panacea for every problem, and respectfully disagree that we'd be "far worse off for it". Just because the costs of the NHS are not explicitly visible in NI contributions and taxes, doesn't mean we don't pay a large amount for our health care. From the gov's website: In 2017, spending on healthcare in the UK totalled £197.4 billion. This equates to approximately £2,989 spent per person, or 9.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). Nurses and doctors are overworked, waiting times through the roof. Definitely not the best system in the world.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Ammie
06th Oct 2021 11:46

When we have a straight faced Mr Johnson, unkempt and all, tell us how great and lifting future prospects are, with obviously little attention to the long term effects of the fragility of the country's finances and services, it is not surprising that the not unconnected HMRC take the same shallow out of touch view of the prospects of MTD.

One step at a time towards its launch and as we get closer HRMC will have to rethink and put better resources in place to make MTD work or they will have to prepare for the serious aftermath that will follow.

Thanks (3)
Tornado
By Tornado
06th Oct 2021 11:51

Very good Wendy and yes, I have to laugh. You have actually only highlighted just a few of the ludicrous faults with the MTD Project

In fact I have been laughing at MTD for some time now as more and more ridiculous aspects of MTD are revealed. It is now so addictive that I cannot wait for the next instalment to be revealed.

To me, MTD is like one of those cars that Clowns use where it looks like a car but everything falls off when they try to use it.

If HMRC are estimating the costs to people of implementing MTD in this way then by applying the same principles to their own costs of developing MTD we should by now have a fully working, world beating system and much, much more for the 2000 million pounds that has been allocated/spent on this project. It would be interesting to see how they have costed their own development of this project. I doubt if anything at all would be costed at 6 minutes.

Thanks (6)
avatar
By whiteways
06th Oct 2021 12:24

So far as I can see, everyone seems to be assuming that you would have to prepare and submit the four quarterly reports with real figures derived from primary records in what would essentially be four additional in-year sets of accounts.

Why?

The previous thread on MTD ITSA pointed out that the quarterly reports would not determine a taxpayer’s liability, and that there was no connection between these and the yearly submission which will mirror the existing tax return schedules. So I see no reason why the quarterly reports could not be populated with estimates. So long as they are received on time, there would be no comeback.

In which case it might very well take no more than 6 minutes per return.

Or have I misunderstood?

Thanks (0)
Replying to whiteways:
avatar
By johnjenkins
06th Oct 2021 12:34

You're totally correct. So let's take that a stage further. There is no point in quarterly updates which is what we have been saying ad infinitum.

Thanks (8)
Replying to whiteways:
avatar
By fozia
06th Oct 2021 12:37

HMRC have been quite clear that the quarterly reports have to be based off actual transactional data (e.g. till records, money in/out of bank account), not estimates. They have also said that they may check into final returns wildly off from the 4 returns added up. So it's a risk you take if you estimate things based on no underlying book-keeping data should the inspector ask to check workings!

Thanks (1)
Replying to fozia:
avatar
By johnjenkins
06th Oct 2021 12:50

HMRC have already said that to start with they are not particularly interested in the figures, just that they get business used to preparing on a quarterly basis. The true content will come later. Can you see HMRC checking thousands of workings? Not on your nelly.

Thanks (3)
Replying to fozia:
avatar
By whiteways
07th Oct 2021 11:54

Frankly, I’m hearing different things from different people, so it’s hard to separate fact from fiction. But if they do insist on four additional interim quarterly reports based on actual data with one month time limits, then that will be next to impossible to deliver.

Thanks (2)
Replying to whiteways:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Oct 2021 13:50

If you can set up the estimates and report in six minutes, well done you
It takes my staff longer to file either dormant accounts at Co house or a no payment Wages submission
Assuming that they have not prepared and opened any software and assuming they record the work as having taken place

Thanks (0)
Replying to whiteways:
avatar
By Michael B Bennett
07th Oct 2021 11:11

Response to whiteways

If you go down the route of assuming no relationship between MTD submissions and year-end accounts and everything will get tidied up with the final submission, why waste time and money with the four quarters in the first place

Thanks (1)
By tonyaustin
06th Oct 2021 12:53

I am still waiting to hear EXACTLY what information has to be provided quarterly and how it is to be calculated (e.g. receipts, payments, debtors, prepayments, creditors, accruals, private use adjustments, stock, wip?). We have been told, I think, that capital allowances and disallowable expenses do not have to be calculated. Some businesses elect for cash basis, others do not. Some businesses just keep cash book records and a bundle of unpaid invoices. Others may have sales, purchases and nominal ledgers. Some may even have automated stock / wip records while others do a stock-take or calculate recoverable wip once a year. If just reporting total receipts and payments analysed under a few headings (per SATR) it cannot be very onerous. If it requires a full set of management accounts produced under FRS / UKGAAP, it will be a major task.

Thanks (0)
Replying to tonyaustin:
Morph
By kevinringer
06th Oct 2021 13:07

Tony, initially the detailed specs said we'd need to transmit the P&L and Balance Sheet in the same level of detail as the SA103, though no stock, accruals and prepayments. I don't know if that's still the case because I've given up being concerned with the detail now that the wider picture is such a joke. I'm increasingly convinced it won't happen.

Thanks (1)
By Charlie Carne
06th Oct 2021 13:04

Great article and I agree with most of what you say. However, there is one area that HMRC may have accurately estimated the timing and that is on "filing" the quarterly summaries, but I make a big assumption in allowing that this may be so.

If HMRC truly just want us to click a button once a quarter from within MTD-compliant software to show that the tax payer has 'gone digital', then this will, indeed, only take 6 minutes (or less). That relies on zero checking of the data, which may be fine for HMRC, as they have already confirmed (as announced by Rebecca Benneyworth) that they do not need any adjustments made to the basic data each quarter (so no accruals, prepayments, stock adjustments, etc.). If the client links their software to their bank or uses a bank account that can itself file MTD data (eg Countingup and probably Starling and the other disruptor banks by 2024), then I am presuming that a simple button-click will suffice, if there is no need for the bank to have been even reconciled in order to be MTD-compliant. As accountants, we will then do our usual year-end work, as before, but with the benefit that at least the basic data is already in a digital environment.

This process would only prove to HMRC that the taxpayer is using digital software (as unreconciled data without accounting provisions does not present anything like an accurate picture of profit) and many accountants out there will complain that this is, therefore, pointless. However, I see value in encouraging taxpayers to go digital (though a threshold much higher than £10k pa would make far more sense). As a first step in a long term goal that will, no doubt, eventually require more than just unadjusted data, this seems a reasonable start for a noble aim. BUT, HMRC need to confirm that the QUALITY of the in-year data is irrelevant as it is PROCESS that they are checking, not accuracy.

Unlike MTD for VAT, no tax calculations or payments are made based upon in-year submissions, so accuracy should be totally unimportant and HMRC have already (in part) confirmed that. However, if HMRC require the data to have any accuracy, then the 6 minute estimate is a total nonsense.

Thanks (0)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By johnjenkins
06th Oct 2021 13:19

I've looked at quarterly updates all ways, even looking at it from HMRC point of view. My conclusion is that it won't work, is pointless and doesn't do what it says on the tin. I'm in agreement with Kevin that HMRC will pull the plug on it (for the time being).

Thanks (2)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Oct 2021 13:58

It should, on that basis, take no time.
If no involvement then client could learn on day 1 the button to press

The nonsense is that any agent can do anything worthwhile in 6 minutes
EVEN WORSE the expectation that a job can be validly sliced up into 5 parts and cost the same
£250 plus VAT start point for a simple job becomes 5 reports at £50 a report and the time stays the same?
No it does not
If we do the bookkeeping for VAT we charge more than if we do not

Thanks (0)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By codling
06th Oct 2021 16:44

What about cash sales not banked and used for cash expenses and also contras?
With many small businesses there is still a good mixture of sales methods not all bank related.

Thanks (1)
Morph
By kevinringer
06th Oct 2021 13:14

There are so many side-splitters in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/customer-costs-and-benefits-f.... An example:

"This table presents the average estimated additional hours of agent help to assist with MTD transition.

Record keeping journey Number of hours of agent help
From paper to software 10
From spreadsheet to bridging or MTD software 5
From software to MTD upgrade 5"

I did convert Joe the Plumber (his name has been changed, but he is a plumber) from paper to software. He never got the hang of it. He's employed someone to do it for him. They do a good job of it but it took about 50 hours over 12 months to get them to the level of competency where I could rely on their accuracy, and I need to spend about 20 hours a year ongoing dealing with less-common transactions (eg buying a van on HP).

Thanks (3)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Homeworker
08th Oct 2021 16:17

Sounds like my builder client who bought QB without talking to me then took on a bookkeeper who had never used it and so needed training (from me of course). I had to check the figures every VAT quarter and correct the mistakes before the returns could be filed (definitely more than 6 minutes work!).
I didn't actually sack him but used my impending retirement to persuade him to find someone else.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Neil Daws
06th Oct 2021 13:23

HMRC love to use 'assumptions' -- if they can get away with it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By North East Accountant
06th Oct 2021 13:50

If we are supposed to do everything quarterly in 6 minutes then surely it's not beyond HMRC to actually answer a simple letter in the same time.

Thanks (2)
Replying to North East Accountant:
Tornado
By Tornado
06th Oct 2021 14:10

North East Accountant wrote:

If we are supposed to do everything quarterly in 6 minutes then surely it's not beyond HMRC to actually answer a simple letter in the same time.

Even 6 months for HMRC to answer letters would be nice.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By KenKLM
06th Oct 2021 15:08

Another thought .. your client is VAT registered but their stagger is not the same as for self assessment MTD . So you might consider changing the VAT stagger . Problem then is all clients have same stagger and workload becomes unmanageable. Or are HMRC allowing for this and will allow non 5th April / 31st March aligned year ends / quarterly returns ? Just a thought

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GHarr497688
06th Oct 2021 18:34

Why oh why don't HMRC put this in the bin the same way that they did with HIPS.

Thanks (0)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By Geoff56
07th Oct 2021 09:11

Too much spent on it already and too much loss of face, I guess. But I agree - can the whole thing.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Rgab1947
07th Oct 2021 09:45

Can I have the name of store that sells £200 computers? Whilst at it can we have the name of the free software provider. Oh and can HMRC please (!!) answer their phones, actually answer the question posed to them (Following law not their wishful thoughts). That should take 6 mins in total.

Not laughing at all but crying. Convinced they are on drugs.

I now see someone posted that Argos sells £200 laptops. OK good luck with that.

Thanks (3)

Pages