The instruction book I was given with my very first office computer -1979 Apple 48K-
Listed as the 2nd rule of computing, was
"Garbage in = Garbage out"
HMRC have not yet taken that rule to heart.
2)
Has anyone else noticed that the IT company which messed up over the Post Office scandal, is the same IT Company that was involved with HMRC.
3)
What was the first rule of computing in them there days?
"If your computer does not appear to be working, is it plugged in?"
4)
If you are putting a new system, make sure it works before turning off the old
After 44 years I still sincerely believe these rules help avoid 90% of IT screw-ups
Unfortunately, I do not believe the persons in charge of HMRC recognise them.
Reality is that the likes of the "Big Four" have fallen into the trap of promising more than they could ever deliver. This to satisfy Audit theory perfectionists and or client directors only too happy pass responsibility for their failings on to the "Auditor".
With best intentions it is physically impossible for any firm of Auditors to certify "True and fair" for any international company of any size. To do so would require audit staff on site for 27 hours a day 367 days a year. The catch-22 is then, at which point is audit independence lost?
Truth in audit, remains testing and sampling, and relying on the law of probabilities.
It is an inexact science, and still relies on common-sense of the auditor, however Ginormous the client.
But
Our leaders may not admit this, because it would destroy their market power.
Sloppy directors of companies would have to accept blame, and cost.
Lazy investors might actually have to investigate the companies they put money into, instead of taking a recommendation from a machine taking a recommendation from a machine
and of course, consequently;
A countable percentage of my fellow professionals think working on audit in the 21st century. stinks. The only attraction being the money.
As an aside
The idea that audit might be better if run by National Audit Office is probably on the same intellectual level as, MTD is a jolly good idea.
Further, maybe I am too old for this game:
The "Primary purpose of an audit is to comply with legal regulations.." Is dangerous nonsense.
The primary purpose of audit in the first place is to independently verify that the company's administration and or accounting systems are working properly to the benefit of the company, and only then to consider any regulatory requirements.
If you want to be a detective, join the police force.
It is very clever to be clever after the facts.
But
I find the sarky comments of some of my colleagues to be out of order.
Villains do not come with a sign on the forehead saying "Pirate"
they come as I have found over my long career (62 years)
1) With a country house, a white Rolls Royce, Blue eyes, and a charm that made a bank manager and a solicitor roll over
2) An "Upright" VAT inspector at Heathrow -Gold smuggling on the side.
3) A Respectable "financial adviser" who was actually a complete (use your own word) who caused at least one suicide, and whom the Kray brothers threatened to spike on the cemetery railings if he turned up at the victim's funeral.
-and a couple more.
If you are fortunate through your career never to have crossed paths with a real professional financial services/ accounting villain, then thank Heaven and keep quiet. You do not know how lucky you are.
People never learn:
In one of the most important company law cases I learned about:
Husband had appointed wife and son as directors.
Judge said:
If wife or son had raised any point about the company, at the breakfast table,husband would have dropped his coffee in astonishment.
But,
They had accepted the appointment so, notwithstanding, they took no part at all in the company or its affairs, they had accepted appointment and were liable to penalty.
In this case £10,000 each. (When £10,000 was a year's salary)
2)
Colleague in similar circumstances innocently signed a Hire Purchase agreement.
Only to be pursued by the HP company under the contract's small print relating to directors of defaulting private companies.
It is really basic stuff through professional life.
and
How many of you file VAT returns without them having been approved by the client?
Similar principle, you are liable for errors therein.
My sincere faith belief is that eventually the Messiah will arrive.
I believe this will happen before HMRC sorts itself out.
HMRC should be about the collection and administration of tax.
Societies have been successfully doing this for at least 7000 years.
So, naturally, having ignored real practical advice for years, and having got themselves into a corner
HMRC chose to believe the educated nerds who think that computers/digital are the second coming.
The new Japanese wonder toilets do everything for you, mainly because the designers understood from what direction the horse-feathers come.
I( dread to think what kind of machine the Klingon nerds designing for HMRC would have turned out
But it is on a par with current Civil Service mental deficiency.
Taking ten years not to design a tank, which when the first version comes on the field made the crew so sick, some of them had to be invalided out of the service.
Owning seven newish destroyers of which six are in dry dock at the same time.
The NHS do-everything program, except work.
Something is basically wrong with Civil Service group mentality and training, until it is fixed expect more and increasing attempts to extract sunlight from cucumbers. (see Gulliver's Travels)
John, please ponder this:
A while ago there was an in depth survey in the USA
The survey concluded that maximum possible penetration for digital technology for business use was around 80%
I have no love for software houses, but having gone at it like piglets to the trough, they are now left high and dry.
Goodness knows how much they have spent on this hare-brained nerd inspired MTD scheme.
The £cost to the Accounting profession must be humongous. Even I as a thoroughly sceptical wizened scrivener had to spend some time on the matter. Conservatively, say, 30 hours.
Worse I was on the brink of £major changes in the way I worked.
Not now, Not another penny, or minute, until "I see the whites of their eyes"
The nub of this is a significant number of taxpayers will pay six years' tax within a five year period.
In cash flow terms this is a 20% increase in annual tax payments.
this is just as sneaky as Suppliers changing their credit period from, say, 60 days to 30 days.
It is a way of garnering an increase of cash flow to help balance the books.
Horse-feathers again
any ordinary taxpayer "Invited" to a tax call would have palpitations.
It is my experience over nearly sixty years that the honest taxpayers will be more likely to run to the toilet.
This is basically a fishing expedition.
Further even the smallest instruction to tick box X instead of box Y, is Tax Advice
I recall, many years ago, a most respectable Chartered Accountant hauled over the coals by the ICAEW because he had advised his elderly auntie to invest some saving in Building Society A not B/soc B. The comment was for free, and nobody thought that this was a professional matter.
ICAEW said he was not authorised to give such advice.
Any comment to do A instead of B, is Advice. In this context HMRC is either advising or fishing.
Or
An admission that in fact the system is as clear as cold porridge on a wet February morning.
HMRC regularly hold out that they are arbiters and definers of the regulations. They are not so. They are administrators. It is true that mostly we accept that HMRC officers give interpretations of regulation, which are good in law.
But
Surely, we all have sufficient experience in practice to know that just as often HMRC get it wrong.
This is why we, "Tax experts", and Tribunals, earn sufficient to pay our grocery bills.
HMRC should really concentrate on their core job, and stop spending money on anything but the proper administration of the tax system.
The ACCA with the ICAEW should have nothing to do with this nonsense.
I have worked in the profession since 1961.
there are fundamental problems which have increased over time
1)
HMRC have always deliberately not accounted for the time involved factor for clients and advisers
2)
The Professional associations have not been prepared to act as "Trade Unions" for practitioners
They have been more concerned with maintaining "Relationships" with HMRC. When in reality HMRC regards them as pet poodles. I can point to exact places within their manuals which confirm this point
3)
90% of Members of Parliament really do not read or understand what they have signed up for
My answers
The instruction book I was given with my very first office computer -1979 Apple 48K-
Listed as the 2nd rule of computing, was
"Garbage in = Garbage out"
HMRC have not yet taken that rule to heart.
2)
Has anyone else noticed that the IT company which messed up over the Post Office scandal, is the same IT Company that was involved with HMRC.
3)
What was the first rule of computing in them there days?
"If your computer does not appear to be working, is it plugged in?"
4)
If you are putting a new system, make sure it works before turning off the old
After 44 years I still sincerely believe these rules help avoid 90% of IT screw-ups
Unfortunately, I do not believe the persons in charge of HMRC recognise them.
learned that rule
Reality is that the likes of the "Big Four" have fallen into the trap of promising more than they could ever deliver. This to satisfy Audit theory perfectionists and or client directors only too happy pass responsibility for their failings on to the "Auditor".
With best intentions it is physically impossible for any firm of Auditors to certify "True and fair" for any international company of any size. To do so would require audit staff on site for 27 hours a day 367 days a year. The catch-22 is then, at which point is audit independence lost?
Truth in audit, remains testing and sampling, and relying on the law of probabilities.
It is an inexact science, and still relies on common-sense of the auditor, however Ginormous the client.
But
Our leaders may not admit this, because it would destroy their market power.
Sloppy directors of companies would have to accept blame, and cost.
Lazy investors might actually have to investigate the companies they put money into, instead of taking a recommendation from a machine taking a recommendation from a machine
and of course, consequently;
A countable percentage of my fellow professionals think working on audit in the 21st century. stinks. The only attraction being the money.
As an aside
The idea that audit might be better if run by National Audit Office is probably on the same intellectual level as, MTD is a jolly good idea.
Further, maybe I am too old for this game:
The "Primary purpose of an audit is to comply with legal regulations.." Is dangerous nonsense.
The primary purpose of audit in the first place is to independently verify that the company's administration and or accounting systems are working properly to the benefit of the company, and only then to consider any regulatory requirements.
If you want to be a detective, join the police force.
Well there is a surprise!
I never knew that chickens laid eggs.
It is very clever to be clever after the facts.
But
I find the sarky comments of some of my colleagues to be out of order.
Villains do not come with a sign on the forehead saying "Pirate"
they come as I have found over my long career (62 years)
1) With a country house, a white Rolls Royce, Blue eyes, and a charm that made a bank manager and a solicitor roll over
2) An "Upright" VAT inspector at Heathrow -Gold smuggling on the side.
3) A Respectable "financial adviser" who was actually a complete (use your own word) who caused at least one suicide, and whom the Kray brothers threatened to spike on the cemetery railings if he turned up at the victim's funeral.
-and a couple more.
If you are fortunate through your career never to have crossed paths with a real professional financial services/ accounting villain, then thank Heaven and keep quiet. You do not know how lucky you are.
People never learn:
In one of the most important company law cases I learned about:
Husband had appointed wife and son as directors.
Judge said:
If wife or son had raised any point about the company, at the breakfast table,husband would have dropped his coffee in astonishment.
But,
They had accepted the appointment so, notwithstanding, they took no part at all in the company or its affairs, they had accepted appointment and were liable to penalty.
In this case £10,000 each. (When £10,000 was a year's salary)
2)
Colleague in similar circumstances innocently signed a Hire Purchase agreement.
Only to be pursued by the HP company under the contract's small print relating to directors of defaulting private companies.
It is really basic stuff through professional life.
and
How many of you file VAT returns without them having been approved by the client?
Similar principle, you are liable for errors therein.
My sincere faith belief is that eventually the Messiah will arrive.
I believe this will happen before HMRC sorts itself out.
HMRC should be about the collection and administration of tax.
Societies have been successfully doing this for at least 7000 years.
So, naturally, having ignored real practical advice for years, and having got themselves into a corner
HMRC chose to believe the educated nerds who think that computers/digital are the second coming.
The new Japanese wonder toilets do everything for you, mainly because the designers understood from what direction the horse-feathers come.
I( dread to think what kind of machine the Klingon nerds designing for HMRC would have turned out
But it is on a par with current Civil Service mental deficiency.
Taking ten years not to design a tank, which when the first version comes on the field made the crew so sick, some of them had to be invalided out of the service.
Owning seven newish destroyers of which six are in dry dock at the same time.
The NHS do-everything program, except work.
Something is basically wrong with Civil Service group mentality and training, until it is fixed expect more and increasing attempts to extract sunlight from cucumbers. (see Gulliver's Travels)
John, please ponder this:
A while ago there was an in depth survey in the USA
The survey concluded that maximum possible penetration for digital technology for business use was around 80%
I have no love for software houses, but having gone at it like piglets to the trough, they are now left high and dry.
Goodness knows how much they have spent on this hare-brained nerd inspired MTD scheme.
The £cost to the Accounting profession must be humongous. Even I as a thoroughly sceptical wizened scrivener had to spend some time on the matter. Conservatively, say, 30 hours.
Worse I was on the brink of £major changes in the way I worked.
Not now, Not another penny, or minute, until "I see the whites of their eyes"
The nub of this is a significant number of taxpayers will pay six years' tax within a five year period.
In cash flow terms this is a 20% increase in annual tax payments.
this is just as sneaky as Suppliers changing their credit period from, say, 60 days to 30 days.
It is a way of garnering an increase of cash flow to help balance the books.
It is po-faced hypocrisy
Horse-feathers again
any ordinary taxpayer "Invited" to a tax call would have palpitations.
It is my experience over nearly sixty years that the honest taxpayers will be more likely to run to the toilet.
This is basically a fishing expedition.
Further even the smallest instruction to tick box X instead of box Y, is Tax Advice
I recall, many years ago, a most respectable Chartered Accountant hauled over the coals by the ICAEW because he had advised his elderly auntie to invest some saving in Building Society A not B/soc B. The comment was for free, and nobody thought that this was a professional matter.
ICAEW said he was not authorised to give such advice.
Any comment to do A instead of B, is Advice. In this context HMRC is either advising or fishing.
Or
An admission that in fact the system is as clear as cold porridge on a wet February morning.
HMRC regularly hold out that they are arbiters and definers of the regulations. They are not so. They are administrators. It is true that mostly we accept that HMRC officers give interpretations of regulation, which are good in law.
But
Surely, we all have sufficient experience in practice to know that just as often HMRC get it wrong.
This is why we, "Tax experts", and Tribunals, earn sufficient to pay our grocery bills.
HMRC should really concentrate on their core job, and stop spending money on anything but the proper administration of the tax system.
The ACCA with the ICAEW should have nothing to do with this nonsense.
I have worked in the profession since 1961.
there are fundamental problems which have increased over time
1)
HMRC have always deliberately not accounted for the time involved factor for clients and advisers
2)
The Professional associations have not been prepared to act as "Trade Unions" for practitioners
They have been more concerned with maintaining "Relationships" with HMRC. When in reality HMRC regards them as pet poodles. I can point to exact places within their manuals which confirm this point
3)
90% of Members of Parliament really do not read or understand what they have signed up for