here's a novel idea - charge penalties like they do for speeding fines - the more you earn (the more tax at stake) the more you pay. Surely that would be fairer/more equitable?
Dash...thats what they did for years....of course they couldn't milk the low earning/tax refund individuals for penalties back then....
tax returns!!!!….I thought MTD assigned Tax Returns to the bin....perhaps they will be renamed 'penalty generating forms'...its the new growth area to clear the tax gap.
on a serious note they cannot properly deal with the one penalty a year....can you imagine the errors they will make under this system...but of course it will benefit the law abiding taxpayer
isn't it funny how life just runs through cycles....the answer to plastic....making the bottles returnable and a small payment in return (anybody born early in the 70s and before will recall a similar thing) - indeed the glass milk bottle which to be fair was on its last legs is now making a come back off the back of the push to reduce plastic.
So whilst the cloud maybe the answer for Gary and his buddies...the ever increasing threat of online viruses, hacking and date protection issues suggests that a stand alone computer with a spreadsheet may still yet make a major comeback (if we are to believe it is disappearing at near extinction rates).
a small number of specifically handpicked clients is not a good pilot for several hundred 'ill fitting' clients....
As has been mentioned, the original basis for MTD has turned into a project the Revenue simply cannot afford not to introduce....even though at this point it probably hits non of the original targets it was apparently going to resolve.
what do you think was going to close the 'tax gap'....it was always about penalties. The Revenue are no longer interested in people paying the correct amount of tax....there is no growth in that area....
knowing the revenue, they are probably spending millions on a system that accepts bitcoin.
I don't pretend to know the details of your case, and it may well be the case that throught the 'laws of unintended consequences' you have been picked upon unfairly. But that is only as a result of others who claim the EBT scheme was in someway a commercial above board transaction. It can clearly be seen in a number of high profile cases that complex networks of companies and trusts in far off places have been used to 'fall within the law'....no matter how uncommerical and artifical.
Just like the abuse scandal....what is wrong now....was wrong 20 years ago....people may have turned a blind eye....some accepted and not challenged things, but just because people were not prosecuted does not make it right. As for retrospective...well you only have to see the fall out to see that things haven't simply been brushed over....people have now had their careers tarnished/sullied and in some cases are under investigation/prosecution.
It is possibly unfortunate that you have got grouped with the greedy businesses and individuals who simply wished to avoid paying any tax, rather paying massive fees to barristers and scheme providers.
Perhaps in the end we are both victims....accountants getting grouped with scheme providers, and you with those tax evaders.
abused, demeaning, rude...not sure I have seen anything that supports that....lack of support, maybe, you may suggest a 'told you so' attitude, but the reality is that many of us would not have had anything to do with these schemes.
In reality there is few if any accountants who would normally support a Revenue approach which goes against the spirit of the legislation. I am sure I am just one of many that are constantly defending clients who are being challenged by the Revenue.
I perhaps would compare the current situation you find yourself in (in my perception) as one where you have been found guilty of reckless driving albeit under the speed limit. For me you have not driven in accordance with the road conditions....with due diligence and care...of course you have been encouraged by the passenger...but you are the driver, one apparently wishing to blame the passenger, and claim that you were driving within the limits....all maybe true to an extent but you signed off.
I hope I don't get 'caught out' but if I do I hope I can look on the situation and take responsibility for my actions...
it is an unfortunate truth that it is not the majority of accountants on here that you need to persuade. Most of us made a decision about schemes many years ago, before any 'retrospective' legislation was even brought in.
Ann...I wouldn't bother arguing, they are in denial looking for support from those who actually have some credibility (as the guys they took the advice from originally haven't got any left).....the basis for these schemes is to confuse and misdirect....as mentioned previously.
Easy solution...repay the loans by 2019....
indeed both sides seem to suffer from hypocrisy...
Contractors (at least some on here) appear to claim that they get no tax benefit and that its totally above board. Then suggest they were duped into signing up for a scheme and that us trashy accoutants should expose the dodgy ones for selling these schemes (which they argue are above board).
whish is it....