Member Since: 26th Aug 2007
26th Jun 2020
None of this is rationally or systemicly supported by our derisive ICO in any meaningful way.
Any fool can take a misdemeanour arising from a compulsory breach report, and pontificate thereon, but the measurable proaction I see for my annual fee cannot be measured, at least by me.
I could turn this into a rant - but, as with all this stuff, what's the point.
19th Jun 2020
One worries that this is all assumptive of a certain level of wealth/disposable funds.
Margins will be hard pressed over the next years - additionally more so at the initial burst of 'independence from Chinese manufacturers/self sufficiency' (which will soon wear off).
But I suppose that accountants, esp. those with substantive audit business, aren't really interested in their clients margins as long as they're solvent.
You can't do owt with nowt.
10th Jun 2020
Its an outrage, really.
The artifice of 'separate accounts' within HMRC is fundamentally a convenient fiction to enhance the possibility of the tax proxies of fines and penalties.
Its a bit like saying that NI and RoadTax are not part of 'General Taxation'.
If stuff was really ring-fenced then there might be vestigal excuse - otherwise its just another offensive (sic) strategem.
4th May 2020
I suppose one can assume, therefore, that Corporation Tax and employers NI Northern Lights was illegally taken and that interest will be settled before it is credited back, presumably at NPV.
4th May 2020
I have the same sympathy for HMRC being under stress as they give to me - viz. none.
Furthermore, since they have no duty of care to their 'customers' its a completely one-sided situation.
I can see no reason not to 'have a rant' at HMRC, given the manifest steady erosion of everything from skill to responsiveness vis a vis their increasingly loading the impossible on to the profession.
The fact that it is impossible to traduce the correct operational steps from a combination of the statute and some source of reliable guidance, which ought to be HMRC, says it all.
They have a brass neck of giraffe-like proportion.
17th Apr 2020
I'm with you on this analysis.
Trouble is that for 30 years the amount of practical wealth creating experience of both HMG and the civil service mean that their fiscal policies have been led by the even less worldly swivvle-eyes of HMRC.
For years HMG has got away with unknowingly swizzing anybody not conforming to HMRCs preferred [largely due to indolence] 'employee model' because they don't know enough to see through the 'fairness mist'.
And your point that many of the services they make available are effectively sinks for disposable income arising from wealth creation underscores that HMG cannot have its eye on the ball because it dosn't actually know what the ball is.
30th Mar 2020
“Tax avoidance is bending the tax rules to gain a financial advantage never intended by Parliament, ...”
Its opinion, isn't it.
The only guide, until judges define otherwise, that the 'layman' has about the intention of Parliament is what is actually written.
HMRC will ALWAYS interpret stuff to the most utterly miserable detriment of the taxpayer.
How will any of us know how to interpret any statute if the basis is that what is written is not what Parliament intended?
5th Mar 2020
As #johnjenkins notes, the cashflow that evades the banking system has very much held steady.
There are aspects of anonimity in cash that people still like - I don't necessarily want my wife to see in the joint account exactly what I paid for her prezzie etc.
Sweden is cashless - and every transaction incurrs a £1.50 charge from my bank. Though this is extreme it underscores that the cashless society is NOT a free ride - somebody somewhere is coining it.
Neither do I want HMG/HMRC etc. necessarily to know what I spend my money on. I can all ready hear the catamites of Herr Dr. Goebels saying "If you have nothing to hide ...".
Effectively it is tantamount to charging me for having access to my wages - a proxy tax levelled by the finance industry.
And eventually it can put the accounting industry into a position of irrelevance as auto-electronic flows negate the need for either book-keeping or opportunity for fiscal optimization in any significant form.
Be careful what you wish for.
23rd Jan 2020
Sue the agent ... indeed.
You make the point that folk exist on low margins ["... probably because of low income..."].
Legal cost for prep and submission will easily exceed £5k.
The reality is that out of the situations where someone deserves to be sued only a miniscule proportion can actually happen - and even then it is in the natute of the UK legal system that the complainant has an extra hurdle as the system prefers 'an out of court settlement' which, of course, in the eyes of the complainant is settlement and not justice.
20th Jan 2020
Agreed - looks like a 'start-up' over-reaching themselves.
That said, it is doubtless the case that 'guidance' from HMRC was couched in abstruse terms.
Furthermore, in recognition of the opaque nature of the potage of tax regulations, one of HMRC's indicators that taxpayers are taking reasonable steps to conform thereto is that they take 'expert advice' (recognition, imho, that standard rational Joe Public cannot possibly engage advantageously with HMRC) .
This is what [I expect] the taxpayer thought he was doing.
To then turn round and imply that the taxpayer should be gainsaying his hired 'expert' seems to me to be capricious at best.