If there is a gap in self employment years then they should only use the years since that gap . So if you were PAYE then latterly self employed and before that gap they should not average the 4 years but only use 2018/19 . This is clear in the guidelines and some people on here are totally wrong in my view . Raise the appeal on the basis there was a gap in the self employment and they should only be using the later year .
Well it seems we cannot be trusted yet again to access information on a clients tax record . I do have Objective Tax (Iris) and it purports to have the facility to draw down the SEISS information but my understanding is that the client would have needed to open their tax account ( fine - only way to claim the grants anyway ) but those details would need to be entered into their record in the software . Imagine doing that for hundreds of clients when all HMRC need to do is provide agent access . I think it is a bit naive to expect every client to accurately give you this information and there will be some that might even try to blag it as they now know it will wipe out their normal refund ( CIS ) . I just think it is another example of HMRC lacking common sense . We cannot see VAT payments ; we cannot see PAYE payments ; we cannot see CIS tax stopped against our clients to cross check . If this is a working partnership then HMRC are failing to keep up their side of the bargain .
This upgrade is a joke so far . Non technical staff manning the phones so you just get a ticket . Getting error messages all over the place not just restricted to partnership returns as they suggest . IRIS factor kicking in ... Keytime was competent .. IRIS are money making machine . Not happy .
The trouble with no acknowledgement you have no proof of submission and will have to remember to check . VAT submission just showing "pending". We have PAYE & SA filing not going through . We are supposed to be "customers" -- trouble is we can't go anywhere else . MTD ? My [***] !
Thanks for this post - the penny has just dropped ! The hilarious situation we have now is that HMRC are extremely quick at sending out debt collection / late payment notices to clients but cannot set their system up to send this one month before the payment is due like any other normal business ! This is becoming a farce all round .
That's funny .... I thought collection of taxes and the use thereof is THE most important function of MPs ? Fortunately I have an MP that does respond . In fact I complained about potholes but MTD is a much bigger issue and I will post as many times as I feel appropriate and I will also complain to my MP as many times as I feel appropriate. Who do you think you are ?!
Well said Andrew ... I have long been arguing that any "accountant" offering refunds without even seeing the records and then taking percentages cannot possibly be legitimate as every subcontractor's tax circumstances are different .... particularly when they are higher rate taxpayers or have low expenses . Why should an accountant gripe that HMRC want to see that legitimate expenses have been claimed ? They should have reviewed the expense claims with the client in the first place and asked for at least some sort of supporting evidence . Let's hope the taxpayers wake up and realise something too good to be true is just that .... and the agents involved get to face criminal charges ?
I lodged several protective appeals which have been listed for Tribunal hearings but have now received a letter from the Tribunal asking us to re-consider in light of the ECJ Rank decision C-250/10 and C-269/10 . This appears to confirm that VAT was recoverable upto 2005 but not thereafter as HMRC standard rated the previously exempt machines . I understand there is an argument that they should have exempted similar machines under fiscal neutrality ( instead of bringing all machines into charge ) but there seems to be no guidance on this and , it seem , little mileage in the argument ??
If anyone has any views or comments on the subject and whether or not Linneweber 2 claims should now be withdrawn then they will be greatly received as I need to reply to the tribunal within 3 months !
My answers
If there is a gap in self employment years then they should only use the years since that gap . So if you were PAYE then latterly self employed and before that gap they should not average the 4 years but only use 2018/19 . This is clear in the guidelines and some people on here are totally wrong in my view . Raise the appeal on the basis there was a gap in the self employment and they should only be using the later year .
Well it seems we cannot be trusted yet again to access information on a clients tax record . I do have Objective Tax (Iris) and it purports to have the facility to draw down the SEISS information but my understanding is that the client would have needed to open their tax account ( fine - only way to claim the grants anyway ) but those details would need to be entered into their record in the software . Imagine doing that for hundreds of clients when all HMRC need to do is provide agent access . I think it is a bit naive to expect every client to accurately give you this information and there will be some that might even try to blag it as they now know it will wipe out their normal refund ( CIS ) . I just think it is another example of HMRC lacking common sense . We cannot see VAT payments ; we cannot see PAYE payments ; we cannot see CIS tax stopped against our clients to cross check . If this is a working partnership then HMRC are failing to keep up their side of the bargain .
This upgrade is a joke so far . Non technical staff manning the phones so you just get a ticket . Getting error messages all over the place not just restricted to partnership returns as they suggest . IRIS factor kicking in ... Keytime was competent .. IRIS are money making machine . Not happy .
The trouble with no acknowledgement you have no proof of submission and will have to remember to check . VAT submission just showing "pending". We have PAYE & SA filing not going through . We are supposed to be "customers" -- trouble is we can't go anywhere else . MTD ? My [***] !
Thanks for this post - the penny has just dropped ! The hilarious situation we have now is that HMRC are extremely quick at sending out debt collection / late payment notices to clients but cannot set their system up to send this one month before the payment is due like any other normal business ! This is becoming a farce all round .
Nice contribution Hugh .
That's funny .... I thought collection of taxes and the use thereof is THE most important function of MPs ? Fortunately I have an MP that does respond . In fact I complained about potholes but MTD is a much bigger issue and I will post as many times as I feel appropriate and I will also complain to my MP as many times as I feel appropriate. Who do you think you are ?!
Promising CIS refunds ...
Well said Andrew ... I have long been arguing that any "accountant" offering refunds without even seeing the records and then taking percentages cannot possibly be legitimate as every subcontractor's tax circumstances are different .... particularly when they are higher rate taxpayers or have low expenses . Why should an accountant gripe that HMRC want to see that legitimate expenses have been claimed ? They should have reviewed the expense claims with the client in the first place and asked for at least some sort of supporting evidence . Let's hope the taxpayers wake up and realise something too good to be true is just that .... and the agents involved get to face criminal charges ?
Linneweber 2
I lodged several protective appeals which have been listed for Tribunal hearings but have now received a letter from the Tribunal asking us to re-consider in light of the ECJ Rank decision C-250/10 and C-269/10 . This appears to confirm that VAT was recoverable upto 2005 but not thereafter as HMRC standard rated the previously exempt machines . I understand there is an argument that they should have exempted similar machines under fiscal neutrality ( instead of bringing all machines into charge ) but there seems to be no guidance on this and , it seem , little mileage in the argument ??
If anyone has any views or comments on the subject and whether or not Linneweber 2 claims should now be withdrawn then they will be greatly received as I need to reply to the tribunal within 3 months !
ESC 16
The real point being the rip off fees liquidators charge for straight forward work !