amount of sewage, the bigger the pipes, the more cr*p that attempts to flow through. All this stuff is a mini puff, nothing more in my lifetime at any rate. Ever heard of separating wood from trees!
This stuff doesn't, and shouldn't shatter anyone's fortress without proper authority. The headline in MHO is nonsense.
As for John Lyons, perhaps he would consider removing all that superfluous floss and pop-up tosh from a client's NatWest account web page. I'll give him this credit though, at least the numbers are not the dreaded java script.
It is a matter of the generic terms used to describe income from Investments, and, where hitherto, the term dividend is / was used by some OEICs and Unit Trusts who are paying income on a routine basis and were taxing at the 20% rate before paying that income to the recipient.
This, as opposed to a dividend from a Share that carried a dividend tax credit at 10%, and therefore one ninth was deducted before payment.
Under the new rules, Investors will have to examine more carefully, the type of income they are receiving. It is early days, so I have yet to view the new OEIC and Unit Trust income statements.
I urge everyone to sign the online petition against the quarterly filing of digital accounts and also to write to their MP and also to encourage their clients to do the same
All of my clients like to know where they are on a quarterly basis. They are already reporting VAT on that basis, and I work out their ball park tax liabilty as we progress through the year from linked spreadsheets when requested. The problem only arises when some of them may be expected to do this without assistance.
I don't know why you want to shoot yourself in the foot
I have inserted the CIPFRA reference higher up in the article.
That particular designation is not recognised, and we do like response accuracy on accountingWeb.
Sorry, I digress
Sadly the content of Facebook and Twitter is 99% . . . . . I not sure why journalists keep quoting the content, expecting that information to be treated in any other way than good old fashioned gossip and hearsay.
As has been said by cheekychappy, this could be a good appointment for HMRC customers - but only time will tell.
Indeed, I'm inclided to agree with Mike Nicholas. Treasury ministers were asked by the Chancellor to improve cashflow. Consultants were provided by those very expensive guys from the big four. Ministers love spending huge budgets on this sort of system modernisation and processing. Those ministers are like lambs to the slaughter when it comes to huge fees.
For the consultants, it never springs to mind that small enterprises will run in to the sort of problems that are described in the above comments. Senior managers at HMRC will not be properly consulted, and the team of Consultants reponsible for 'Change management and strategy', will also leave a few loose ends, because that is where the next meal ticket lies.
I do believe that small companies should ask their accountant to scan the payroll mid year for any such RTI errors, and then the matter could be corrected well before month 12 is uploaded.
We know that human errors can occur in a small business, and fixing them months after the event, possibly at audit is always more tricky. When you speak to HMRC, without being combative, they are rather appreciative of our work, and so they should be, we are very good value for what we do. The Treasury are damn lucky that so many of the small players are so diligent and compliant. If we were practicing in Greece . . . . . need I say more?
In my opinion, the fraud comment is a red herring!
The extra staff on the phones are for child and working families tax credits, all those sorts of issues.
My answers
We already have to fend off - block a huge
amount of sewage, the bigger the pipes, the more cr*p that attempts to flow through. All this stuff is a mini puff, nothing more in my lifetime at any rate. Ever heard of separating wood from trees!
This stuff doesn't, and shouldn't shatter anyone's fortress without proper authority. The headline in MHO is nonsense.
As for John Lyons, perhaps he would consider removing all that superfluous floss and pop-up tosh from a client's NatWest account web page. I'll give him this credit though, at least the numbers are not the dreaded java script.
We've been here before.
This matter was dealt with quite well, when members sorted it out in February
www.accountingweb.co.uk/node/597098
Regretably, Barabara may not understand the position, reading the link may help her, since interpretation was dealt with.
She said: "A non accountant question" It is however, clearly one for those who design their own tax comps to check their tax software.
Not Meaningless - Actually
It is a matter of the generic terms used to describe income from Investments, and, where hitherto, the term dividend is / was used by some OEICs and Unit Trusts who are paying income on a routine basis and were taxing at the 20% rate before paying that income to the recipient.
This, as opposed to a dividend from a Share that carried a dividend tax credit at 10%, and therefore one ninth was deducted before payment.
Under the new rules, Investors will have to examine more carefully, the type of income they are receiving. It is early days, so I have yet to view the new OEIC and Unit Trust income statements.
Quarterly reporting
All of my clients like to know where they are on a quarterly basis. They are already reporting VAT on that basis, and I work out their ball park tax liabilty as we progress through the year from linked spreadsheets when requested. The problem only arises when some of them may be expected to do this without assistance.
I don't know why you want to shoot yourself in the foot
Thomson's experience and past appointments
That particular designation is not recognised, and we do like response accuracy on accountingWeb.
Sorry, I digress
Sadly the content of Facebook and Twitter is 99% . . . . . I not sure why journalists keep quoting the content, expecting that information to be treated in any other way than good old fashioned gossip and hearsay.
As has been said by cheekychappy, this could be a good appointment for HMRC customers - but only time will tell.
The plan for RTI was imposed on HMRC
Indeed, I'm inclided to agree with Mike Nicholas. Treasury ministers were asked by the Chancellor to improve cashflow. Consultants were provided by those very expensive guys from the big four. Ministers love spending huge budgets on this sort of system modernisation and processing. Those ministers are like lambs to the slaughter when it comes to huge fees.
For the consultants, it never springs to mind that small enterprises will run in to the sort of problems that are described in the above comments. Senior managers at HMRC will not be properly consulted, and the team of Consultants reponsible for 'Change management and strategy', will also leave a few loose ends, because that is where the next meal ticket lies.
I do believe that small companies should ask their accountant to scan the payroll mid year for any such RTI errors, and then the matter could be corrected well before month 12 is uploaded.
We know that human errors can occur in a small business, and fixing them months after the event, possibly at audit is always more tricky. When you speak to HMRC, without being combative, they are rather appreciative of our work, and so they should be, we are very good value for what we do. The Treasury are damn lucky that so many of the small players are so diligent and compliant. If we were practicing in Greece . . . . . need I say more?
In my opinion, the fraud comment is a red herring!
The extra staff on the phones are for child and working families tax credits, all those sorts of issues.