A lot of people seem to have mis-read how this will work. Your software will calculate the tax correctly. When you try and file it online it will be rejected because your correct calculation won't agree with HMRC's incorrect calculation. It is at that stage that you will know that it has to be printed off your software and filed manually.
I don't think that this is correct.
I have just been on the blower to Sage to get some reassurance about practically at what point in the process for an individual return we would get to know that it is one of the "offenders". I don't want to be uploading tax returns to our portal for electronic signature on 20th January only to become aware of its rejection when actually trying to file online.
They did not have an answer to my particular concern just now, because they, and other software houses, are furiously paddling beneath the surface trying to get a solution together and haven't yet got there. Still a case of watch this space.
BUT, on one point they were insistent: In order to get their software "certified" by HMRC it has to calculate the same liability as HMRC software, regardless of whether that calculation is legally compliant. So you will NOT get a situation where the third party vendor is producing correct comps at odds with HMRC. We all sink and swim together in the same sewer.
Another worrying point that was made to me is that the couple of examples so far admitted to by HMRC at the head of this thread are "a drop in the ocean" as reported to me by the rep. But I have not been given other examples to back this up.
I am sure it is going to be fun when our clients start applying for mortgages next year and want a third party SA302 backed by a matching tax year overview.
If I file a paper return it is going to contain exactly the same income split exactly the same way between sources as had I filed electronically.
I am under no obligation to say why I am filing by paper at least when filing before the paper deadline, and all I would expect from hmrc is that some monkey would retype the figures on their system with no reason to depart from their own ahem faultless tax liability calculator.
Hmrc has never paid any attention to the tax liability figure entered by the taxpayer on the return so why change now?
I see no cause to reject an online filing. The whole thing could be resolved through the s.9ZB procedure which has a built in statutory mechanism for subsequent recorrection.
We weren't forced to paper file all the returns caught up in the 2NIC fiasco and irritating though that fiasco was I would not have wanted to paper file them as a solution.
So can we not file a correct return online, have it rejected and then raise an error penalty on hmrc for failing to take reasonable care
When HMRC change a self assessment under s9ZB they are doing so as quasi agent for the taxpayer, who theoretically at least has a duty to check it on pain of potential penalties, yes, but penalties on the taxpayer. Here of course the error would overstate the liability and any tax based penalty would be nil.
A very silly comment by Mr Hammond.I think he should try 1 month of self employment : No holiday pay , no sick pay , no pension contributions
Money guaranteed ( more or less ) every month .Not so with a self employed worker . NO work no pay with self employment but if your workplace is quiet you will still (no doubt) get paid
Silly comparison by a silly person who should know bwtter
No boss telling you what to do or how to do it. Keep your own hours. Pay what you like into pension pot, with only yourself to blame if you pay nothing. Not at the whim of employer going belly up. If you get no work leading to no pay, then you will not have to pay class 4 NIC on the profits that you have not earned. Meanwhile if you get a guaranteed salary as an employee in a quiet period you will still be paying class 1 NI on that.
This is all an inevitable consequence of a flaw in the RIA conducted when FRS was introduced.
They announced that FRS would be globally "revenue neutral" from the treasury viewpoint, but this was based on the flawed assumption that everyone who qualified for FRS would go onto it, conveniently overlooking the obvious fact that as it was voluntary no-one would go on to FRS unless it was economically beneficial for them, the taxpayers exercising that choice.
What amazes me is that it took them so long to wake up.
For as long as 3-line accounts have been available I have been unable to discern their merit for either HMRC or the taxpayer. In order to take adequate care at arriving at a taxable profit, you will generally need an analysis of expenses. If you have that analysis to hand, it is a trivial thing to provide that analysis on the return. Particularly if your records are in any way computerised.
Thanks. This rings a bell now.
So, if you wanted a macro code to string 3 x " together as a string then something like
Dim MyString
Set MyString = """"""""
How do you add double quotes to the format without those double quotes being interpreted as part of the macro code?
Eg, say you wanted the format to be
#,##0_);"("#,##0")"
I am sure this was explained to me once, but I need these things repeated to me every so often due to lack of use.
Is there any legal avenue for Fagomatic to go back to law and have its ruling overturned, given that it failed at the court of appeal, so I understand, purely on the grounds that the insurance allowed for SDP, which is now ruled as insufficient grounds for dismissal?
thanks guys - we love your Tax TV whenever we watch it - strange how many words begin with "re"
revenue
repair
replace
redecorate
renew
renovation
Heh - brings that old ditty to mind, you know the one?
"Oh I stuck my finger in the woodpecker's hole
and the woodpecker said 'God bless my soul,
take it out, take it out, take it out
Reeeeeeeee-move it.'
I removed my finger from the woodpecker's hole
and the woodpecker said 'God bless my soul,
put it back, put it back, put it back.
Reeeeeeeee-place it.'
I replaced my finger in the ..."
and so on and so on for hours
well that's quite enough of that. Back to tax returns.
My answers
I have just been on the blower to Sage to get some reassurance about practically at what point in the process for an individual return we would get to know that it is one of the "offenders". I don't want to be uploading tax returns to our portal for electronic signature on 20th January only to become aware of its rejection when actually trying to file online.
They did not have an answer to my particular concern just now, because they, and other software houses, are furiously paddling beneath the surface trying to get a solution together and haven't yet got there. Still a case of watch this space.
BUT, on one point they were insistent: In order to get their software "certified" by HMRC it has to calculate the same liability as HMRC software, regardless of whether that calculation is legally compliant. So you will NOT get a situation where the third party vendor is producing correct comps at odds with HMRC. We all sink and swim together in the same sewer.
Another worrying point that was made to me is that the couple of examples so far admitted to by HMRC at the head of this thread are "a drop in the ocean" as reported to me by the rep. But I have not been given other examples to back this up.
I am sure it is going to be fun when our clients start applying for mortgages next year and want a third party SA302 backed by a matching tax year overview.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
I don't really get all the brouhaha.
If I file a paper return it is going to contain exactly the same income split exactly the same way between sources as had I filed electronically.
I am under no obligation to say why I am filing by paper at least when filing before the paper deadline, and all I would expect from hmrc is that some monkey would retype the figures on their system with no reason to depart from their own ahem faultless tax liability calculator.
Hmrc has never paid any attention to the tax liability figure entered by the taxpayer on the return so why change now?
I see no cause to reject an online filing. The whole thing could be resolved through the s.9ZB procedure which has a built in statutory mechanism for subsequent recorrection.
We weren't forced to paper file all the returns caught up in the 2NIC fiasco and irritating though that fiasco was I would not have wanted to paper file them as a solution.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
When HMRC change a self assessment under s9ZB they are doing so as quasi agent for the taxpayer, who theoretically at least has a duty to check it on pain of potential penalties, yes, but penalties on the taxpayer. Here of course the error would overstate the liability and any tax based penalty would be nil.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
A bit of balance, perhaps?
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
This is all an inevitable consequence of a flaw in the RIA conducted when FRS was introduced.
They announced that FRS would be globally "revenue neutral" from the treasury viewpoint, but this was based on the flawed assumption that everyone who qualified for FRS would go onto it, conveniently overlooking the obvious fact that as it was voluntary no-one would go on to FRS unless it was economically beneficial for them, the taxpayers exercising that choice.
What amazes me is that it took them so long to wake up.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
For as long as 3-line accounts have been available I have been unable to discern their merit for either HMRC or the taxpayer. In order to take adequate care at arriving at a taxable profit, you will generally need an analysis of expenses. If you have that analysis to hand, it is a trivial thing to provide that analysis on the return. Particularly if your records are in any way computerised.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Thanks. This rings a bell now.
So, if you wanted a macro code to string 3 x " together as a string then something like
Dim MyString
Set MyString = """"""""
How do you add double quotes to the format without those double quotes being interpreted as part of the macro code?
Eg, say you wanted the format to be
#,##0_);"("#,##0")"
I am sure this was explained to me once, but I need these things repeated to me every so often due to lack of use.
Thanks
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Is there any legal avenue for Fagomatic to go back to law and have its ruling overturned, given that it failed at the court of appeal, so I understand, purely on the grounds that the insurance allowed for SDP, which is now ruled as insufficient grounds for dismissal?
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Heh - brings that old ditty to mind, you know the one?
"Oh I stuck my finger in the woodpecker's hole
and the woodpecker said 'God bless my soul,
take it out, take it out, take it out
Reeeeeeeee-move it.'
I removed my finger from the woodpecker's hole
and the woodpecker said 'God bless my soul,
put it back, put it back, put it back.
Reeeeeeeee-place it.'
I replaced my finger in the ..."
and so on and so on for hours
well that's quite enough of that. Back to tax returns.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood