I believe that this is to link directly to the BACS system, which provides the ability for two way data traffic. Lots of people do online banking and, mistakenly, call it BACS, whereas this is not the case at all.
My suspicion is that to do #BACS will be an extra cost! However, I would be happy to be proved wrong!
In April, I, as payroll bureau for a client employer, received a DEA from DWP for an employee of the client. As the Notice was addressed to me, not the employer, I returned it to DWP to explain this and invite them to send the Notice to the employer.
Have just had a conversation with DWP today, and have been told that their guidance is ALWAYS to send the Notice to whoever deals with the payroll!
I did not believe this to be correct and asked them to send me a note of the legislative authority for this. The person I spoke to got a little flustered and said that she would send a fresh Notice to the employer!
Am I correct? Should the Notice be addressed to the employer (for them to pass onto whoever processes the payroll)? Or is a Notice considered to be served if sent to an agent/advisor?
In the interests of customer service, why should agents have to locate clients from a National Insurance, or indeed, any other number? Clients have names and HMRC should use them in all correspondence to clients and agents. If the HMRC system cannot identify taxpayers by their name, then it is not fit for purpose.
I see nothing wrong with HMRC using a second opportunity to "encourage" people to disclose interest from offshore accounts and make good whatever UK tax is due.
However, are the terms of this amnesty far more favourable than the usual provisions for people who, for whatever reason, identify a source of income and decide to "come clean"? Reading the HMRC website about interest charges, penalties, discovery and so on can terrify people into NOT making disclosure of, say, a former family holiday home that over the years started to be let and has been profitable.
Although it is possible to argue down the penalties etc, it seems to me that a more general amnesty could be made available. The new penalty regime that is starting to impact on taxpayers may easily suggest to an Inspector that penalties of at least 30% (Deliberate and Concealed - Unprompted) are appropriate in any case of late disclosure.
Compare this with the New Disclosure Opportunity for offshore accounts. Nil, 10% or possibly 20%. Not too shabby, is it?
Who's fault? Did Tony mean to use the favourite HMRC line "you've had ten months to do this" ?
Consider what would happen if ALL clients did as suggested, ie, provide information by, say, the end of May and you were then faced with preparing 100 sets of accounts and Tax Returns in one go. Which would you do first? Why would you leave others until later? Perhaps you would even decide to spread out the work so that it was completed evenly throughout the period.
The point has been made before. Many people do not choose to wait until the deadline (although I concede that some do) but use the time to deal effectively with all clients.
HMRC do not help the process if their systems cannot cope. I agree that call-centre staff may get frustrated but they should have appropriate training to deal with their "customers" without suggesting that it is the agents fault.
Revenue v third party software If, as suggested, users of third party software were not affected by the "crash", perhaps Revenue resources should be spent on enabling more people to access third party software rather than developing its own software?
My answers
Hashing
I believe that this is to link directly to the BACS system, which provides the ability for two way data traffic. Lots of people do online banking and, mistakenly, call it BACS, whereas this is not the case at all.
My suspicion is that to do #BACS will be an extra cost! However, I would be happy to be proved wrong!
Post Office & cheques
I am not sure that this is general rule as I still hand over cheques to the Post Office for my Co-op account. See here for the Co-op guidance http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/business/customerservices/managingyour...
Legality of Notice
In April, I, as payroll bureau for a client employer, received a DEA from DWP for an employee of the client. As the Notice was addressed to me, not the employer, I returned it to DWP to explain this and invite them to send the Notice to the employer.
Have just had a conversation with DWP today, and have been told that their guidance is ALWAYS to send the Notice to whoever deals with the payroll!
I did not believe this to be correct and asked them to send me a note of the legislative authority for this. The person I spoke to got a little flustered and said that she would send a fresh Notice to the employer!
Am I correct? Should the Notice be addressed to the employer (for them to pass onto whoever processes the payroll)? Or is a Notice considered to be served if sent to an agent/advisor?
I'm not a number!
In the interests of customer service, why should agents have to locate clients from a National Insurance, or indeed, any other number? Clients have names and HMRC should use them in all correspondence to clients and agents. If the HMRC system cannot identify taxpayers by their name, then it is not fit for purpose.
New Disclosure Opportunity
I see nothing wrong with HMRC using a second opportunity to "encourage" people to disclose interest from offshore accounts and make good whatever UK tax is due.
However, are the terms of this amnesty far more favourable than the usual provisions for people who, for whatever reason, identify a source of income and decide to "come clean"? Reading the HMRC website about interest charges, penalties, discovery and so on can terrify people into NOT making disclosure of, say, a former family holiday home that over the years started to be let and has been profitable.
Although it is possible to argue down the penalties etc, it seems to me that a more general amnesty could be made available. The new penalty regime that is starting to impact on taxpayers may easily suggest to an Inspector that penalties of at least 30% (Deliberate and Concealed - Unprompted) are appropriate in any case of late disclosure.
Compare this with the New Disclosure Opportunity for offshore accounts. Nil, 10% or possibly 20%. Not too shabby, is it?
Who's fault?
Did Tony mean to use the favourite HMRC line "you've had ten months to do this" ?
Consider what would happen if ALL clients did as suggested, ie, provide information by, say, the end of May and you were then faced with preparing 100 sets of accounts and Tax Returns in one go. Which would you do first? Why would you leave others until later? Perhaps you would even decide to spread out the work so that it was completed evenly throughout the period.
The point has been made before. Many people do not choose to wait until the deadline (although I concede that some do) but use the time to deal effectively with all clients.
HMRC do not help the process if their systems cannot cope. I agree that call-centre staff may get frustrated but they should have appropriate training to deal with their "customers" without suggesting that it is the agents fault.
Revenue v third party software
If, as suggested, users of third party software were not affected by the "crash", perhaps Revenue resources should be spent on enabling more people to access third party software rather than developing its own software?