A finance specialist conditioned to: * think out of the box; * work to systems and improve upon them; and * observe, collate, analyse, and deduce clearly.
An IT enthusiast known as the go-to-guy for software, hardware and tech advise within my circle. I aim to hone corporate direction, control and growth while harnessing the efficiencies of modern technological solutions in the businesses I work with.
HRMC Consultation This seems like a classic case of a fix causing more problems than there were before. Any self-assessment system will always be exposed to incompetence and down right dishonesty. Despite all the regulations that HMRC may be able to churn out, it is beyond its powers to address dishonesty and incompetence.
Having dealth with HMRC on various enquiries (knowing their negotiation tactics and how much score to put by their competency and integrity) I would be weary of giving HRMC the power to rate agents. For example, where an agent often disagrees with HMRC interpretation of legislation/ case law then HMRC may use the proposed compliance checks to apply pressure on such agents or have them blacklisted. There is clearly a conflict of interest with HMRC carrying out compliance checks on agents who are often at loggerheads with HMRC.
The quality of work produced by regulated accountants has always been usually good. It is perhaps the unregulated and unqualified accountants who are not members of any professional whose work may not have been to an acceptable standard. By dealing with unqualified and unregulated accountants for decades HMRC have sent out the wrong message on standard of work. By continuing to deal with such accountants HMRC are encouraging lowering of standards and should first consider not dealing with such accountants before considering introducing compliance checks.
This system would erode the influence of professional bodies and eventually they will not be needed as HMRC would appear to take over the role of professional body.
Clarification I am not too sure whether I should be impressed or freaked. But less than 10 minutes ago I got a rather courteous call from IRIS PayeMaster support team at Wigan asking if I had received an email from IRIS support regarding compatibility issues with Windows Vista SP1. I clarified to them that the email I received was regarding IRIS Practice Manager (hence PM) rather than PayeMaster (which incidentally is also PM). So Yes, IRIS has warned me about issues with Practice Management, which is why I happily blamed Microsoft rather than IRIS in my first comment.
But I am impressed by the extent to which IRIS follows up feedback. And I am mildly freaked by how they traced me using my name.
My answers
HRMC Consultation
This seems like a classic case of a fix causing more problems than there were before. Any self-assessment system will always be exposed to incompetence and down right dishonesty. Despite all the regulations that HMRC may be able to churn out, it is beyond its powers to address dishonesty and incompetence.
Having dealth with HMRC on various enquiries (knowing their negotiation tactics and how much score to put by their competency and integrity) I would be weary of giving HRMC the power to rate agents. For example, where an agent often disagrees with HMRC interpretation of legislation/ case law then HMRC may use the proposed compliance checks to apply pressure on such agents or have them blacklisted. There is clearly a conflict of interest with HMRC carrying out compliance checks on agents who are often at loggerheads with HMRC.
The quality of work produced by regulated accountants has always been usually good. It is perhaps the unregulated and unqualified accountants who are not members of any professional whose work may not have been to an acceptable standard. By dealing with unqualified and unregulated accountants for decades HMRC have sent out the wrong message on standard of work. By continuing to deal with such accountants HMRC are encouraging lowering of standards and should first consider not dealing with such accountants before considering introducing compliance checks.
This system would erode the influence of professional bodies and eventually they will not be needed as HMRC would appear to take over the role of professional body.
Clarification
I am not too sure whether I should be impressed or freaked. But less than 10 minutes ago I got a rather courteous call from IRIS PayeMaster support team at Wigan asking if I had received an email from IRIS support regarding compatibility issues with Windows Vista SP1. I clarified to them that the email I received was regarding IRIS Practice Manager (hence PM) rather than PayeMaster (which incidentally is also PM). So Yes, IRIS has warned me about issues with Practice Management, which is why I happily blamed Microsoft rather than IRIS in my first comment.
But I am impressed by the extent to which IRIS follows up feedback. And I am mildly freaked by how they traced me using my name.
IRIS
Just had an email from IRIS advising me not to install SP1 as there are compatibility issues between SP1 and IRIS PM. Good going MS.