What would the reaction be if all professional firms initiated a coordinated campaign of targeted non cooperation?
Any activity that provides cash to the Treasury is stopped, so no VAT Returns submitted, PAYE and RTI returns halted, Tax Returns ignored both Corporate and personal , but all refund cases, VAT Repayment cases, CIS Refunds processed as normal.
Maybe, just maybe, they would quite quickly realize the Country can be bankrupted in fairly short order without the cooperation of people who deserve a service fit for purpose.
The basic problem appears to be that conveyancing solicitors do not appear to want to get involved even in suggesting to clients that there may be a reporting requirement. The first three (all late) submissions we were involved with as a firm were, ironically, for members of the legal profession, none of whom had been notified of the reporting obligation by their conveyancing friends or colleagues.
Congratulations Neil,
We have been trying to register a new client for VAT but he did not have his CT UTR reference. We have now applied for this on five occasions, two digitally and three times by telephone. Imagine our joy when the person on the other end of the phone confirms they have received both digital requests, dated three weeks or so apart, and now some three months or so old, but cannot confirm when anything might be done about actually replying so we can start the Registration process. Perhaps I need to change my name by deed poll to Neil Warren!!!
Is this likely to apply to Limited Companies where HMRC apparrently automatically take a company out of SA when it is struck off? In cases where the company is reinstated we have had issues with delays in readmitting companies to SA, leading to delays in submission and increased likelihood of missed deadlines and increased penalties arising as a result.
£37 million cost for 1.2 million customers. Can anyone explain to me how HMRC consider that MTD is only going to cost £30.83 extra for each "customer" each year? That's £7.71 per quarterly Return.
The point I was making earlier is that a golfer pays a green fee. End of story. It is not £20 plus VAT. It is £24. There is no-one losing in this scenario. If the fee is too high, you go to a cheaper venue. Whether golf clubs subsequently reduced their prices or not, the club no longer had a VAT liability and could benefit from an increase in profitability. This is enrichment, by definition. To those who paid a fee which at the time they paid it included an element of VAT, is there unjust depletion of their resources? No. There is depletion, but by consenting parties complying with the law of the moment. In neither case is the benefit or cost "unjust". QED I hope!
I disagree with the VAT Doctor. Surely there is no question of unjust enrichment as practically everyone who plays golf would be unable to claim recovery of VAT charged on a green fee. Anyone paying a green fee knows that is the cost of the round. If you want it cheaper you go to a different golf club!
If its purpose was anything other than providing a clear indication to HMRC of what people were up to at the margins then what was it for?
HMRC have the opportunity together with H M Treasury on at least an annual basis to seek to amend the gaps in legislation that provide the avoidance scheme opportunities.
In that case either K2 is deemed acceptable tax planning, or we are in the time lag period between it being identified as unacceptable planning and something being done about it.
What is to stop HMRC publicising those DOTAS schemes it considers abusive and subject to corrective change in the law? Are they concerned that there will be a flight to such schemes whilst "legal" rather than an avoidance by practitioners and taxpayers of such schemes that are "on the radar"?
As to staffing, what happened to the £900m budget to deal with evasion.
I would be interested in other practitioners experiences in dealing with the PAYE notice issues for 2010/11. Our experience ranges from very helpful to downright obstructive. In the same office we have dealt with a jobsworth whose reaction to being told that our client had only one source of employment for over four years, was to say that nothing could be done to move the personal allowance from the prior employment to the current one, until a P45 had been received, and would not state the previous employer details to us although we are the registered agent, and a colleague who when we phoned later with the previous employer's name was quite happy to amend the record!
What guidance has been issued within HMRC to deal with the "apparent" multiple employment issue? This seems to arise where P45's for whatever reason have not been processed on the employer record, but it is hardly the former employees job to put it right!
Surely the common sense approach (oh dear, I'm hallucinating again) is for any allowances to be given against the "employment of choice" of the taxpayer, with the other employment(s) being coded BR or D0 until the employer issues can be sorted out?
My answers
What would the reaction be if all professional firms initiated a coordinated campaign of targeted non cooperation?
Any activity that provides cash to the Treasury is stopped, so no VAT Returns submitted, PAYE and RTI returns halted, Tax Returns ignored both Corporate and personal , but all refund cases, VAT Repayment cases, CIS Refunds processed as normal.
Maybe, just maybe, they would quite quickly realize the Country can be bankrupted in fairly short order without the cooperation of people who deserve a service fit for purpose.
The basic problem appears to be that conveyancing solicitors do not appear to want to get involved even in suggesting to clients that there may be a reporting requirement. The first three (all late) submissions we were involved with as a firm were, ironically, for members of the legal profession, none of whom had been notified of the reporting obligation by their conveyancing friends or colleagues.
Congratulations Neil,
We have been trying to register a new client for VAT but he did not have his CT UTR reference. We have now applied for this on five occasions, two digitally and three times by telephone. Imagine our joy when the person on the other end of the phone confirms they have received both digital requests, dated three weeks or so apart, and now some three months or so old, but cannot confirm when anything might be done about actually replying so we can start the Registration process. Perhaps I need to change my name by deed poll to Neil Warren!!!
Is this likely to apply to Limited Companies where HMRC apparrently automatically take a company out of SA when it is struck off? In cases where the company is reinstated we have had issues with delays in readmitting companies to SA, leading to delays in submission and increased likelihood of missed deadlines and increased penalties arising as a result.
£37 million cost for 1.2 million customers. Can anyone explain to me how HMRC consider that MTD is only going to cost £30.83 extra for each "customer" each year? That's £7.71 per quarterly Return.
what is the cost to play?
The point I was making earlier is that a golfer pays a green fee. End of story. It is not £20 plus VAT. It is £24. There is no-one losing in this scenario. If the fee is too high, you go to a cheaper venue. Whether golf clubs subsequently reduced their prices or not, the club no longer had a VAT liability and could benefit from an increase in profitability. This is enrichment, by definition. To those who paid a fee which at the time they paid it included an element of VAT, is there unjust depletion of their resources? No. There is depletion, but by consenting parties complying with the law of the moment. In neither case is the benefit or cost "unjust". QED I hope!
Physician heal thyself!
I disagree with the VAT Doctor. Surely there is no question of unjust enrichment as practically everyone who plays golf would be unable to claim recovery of VAT charged on a green fee. Anyone paying a green fee knows that is the cost of the round. If you want it cheaper you go to a different golf club!
So what is the point of DOTAS then?
How long has DOTAS been in existence?
If its purpose was anything other than providing a clear indication to HMRC of what people were up to at the margins then what was it for?
HMRC have the opportunity together with H M Treasury on at least an annual basis to seek to amend the gaps in legislation that provide the avoidance scheme opportunities.
In that case either K2 is deemed acceptable tax planning, or we are in the time lag period between it being identified as unacceptable planning and something being done about it.
What is to stop HMRC publicising those DOTAS schemes it considers abusive and subject to corrective change in the law? Are they concerned that there will be a flight to such schemes whilst "legal" rather than an avoidance by practitioners and taxpayers of such schemes that are "on the radar"?
As to staffing, what happened to the £900m budget to deal with evasion.
Tax Gap
Is there any indication within the report as to what element of the tax gap is represented by the drug trade or is this not addressed?
HMRC approach to PAYE code issue
I would be interested in other practitioners experiences in dealing with the PAYE notice issues for 2010/11. Our experience ranges from very helpful to downright obstructive. In the same office we have dealt with a jobsworth whose reaction to being told that our client had only one source of employment for over four years, was to say that nothing could be done to move the personal allowance from the prior employment to the current one, until a P45 had been received, and would not state the previous employer details to us although we are the registered agent, and a colleague who when we phoned later with the previous employer's name was quite happy to amend the record!
What guidance has been issued within HMRC to deal with the "apparent" multiple employment issue? This seems to arise where P45's for whatever reason have not been processed on the employer record, but it is hardly the former employees job to put it right!
Surely the common sense approach (oh dear, I'm hallucinating again) is for any allowances to be given against the "employment of choice" of the taxpayer, with the other employment(s) being coded BR or D0 until the employer issues can be sorted out?