Member Since: 26th Oct 2005
29th Mar 2021
The issue as I see it is I have no problem with paying tax soon as the profit is earned. that is what happens with the employed and with VAT and morally it seems right. the problem I have is there is a fundamental difference between when income is received and profit earned. IT works both ways so take a Forensic accounting report I did 3 years ago. I invoiced 3 years ago, but am getting paid next week. I know this when I invoiced, there is no risk as that is the practice in the industry, payment when the case goes to court or settles. I factor in the time delay into the bill. Turnover reported 3 years ago, profit earned then, get the money now but under the probable new system, I paid tax well in advance of getting the money. Likewise, a case where I do a massive bit of work and the client s risky so I insist on payment upfront, but it takes 18 months to complete the work, covering 3 accounting periods. do I pay the tax in the first one because that is where the income is, but much of the costs in period 2 or even period 3? That is the problem. Yes, the current system is not good but it benefits the risk-takers in small business, paying quarterly based on projections means making extra work for the taxpayer to benefit HMRC (just like VAT and NIC and PAYE and CIS) and penalizing those who want to help clients with non-regular cash flow.
The old adage if ain't broke don't fix it springs to mind. In this case what exactly is broke? - the fact that HMRC are useless at collecting money, or that people do not report it?
29th Mar 2021
DO NOT JOIN THE FORUM
They have a track record of then including your email as a cc on an email sent to everyone in the group, publishing everyone's email to everyone. Another GDPR breach. They have done it once t me, and I have a record of a second time as well. Their response, when I complained, was "this is an isolated incident and should not happen". Darn right it should not, but that is not the same as will not happen.
26th Mar 2021
give the fiasco of HMRC sending everyone's personal emails to all members of the HMRC feedback group a couple of months ago I am somewhat unsurprised. This is the same HMRC who have told the Information Commissioner and a treasure Minister that the ty can not change our legal name on their system due to "software settings".
Anyone thinking data accuracy or security matters to HMRC is sadly mistaken. They are more concerned with processes being followed than the reliability of the process
I well recall several years ago looking round an empty office as a potential new location and finding 2 boxes of taxpayers files in the old post room, it was the closed local Tax office and they had failed to clear the postroom. I have several times received through the post copies of old tax returns for my clients and on more than one occasion received copies of return from other taxpayers either instead of or as well as my client.
I have a letter on file from them saying that the fact that they have recorded the totally wrong employer as my employer "does not matter" and so "there is no need to amend it". That error came about because they had confused me with a similar named person
22nd Jul 2019
And the big problem is I have yet to find a builder who knows how to "include the value in Box 6 of your VAT return", or indeed any box.
The software issue of how to do it is actually the complicated one, and worse still your letter, while excellent, is only half of what they have to do, in the sense that they also need to amend their invoices to show the VAT amount without including it in the total. Xero has a function that comes close to doing it, Kashflow has a pair of work-runarounds, but I cant get Quickbooks to do it properly on both invoice and VAT return without double invoicing everyone, and Sage's help lines suggested solution actually breeches MTD rules.
And has anyone else noticed that the Statutory instrument bringing this in does not actually mention CIS, but applies to all construction work. It is a HMRC policy issue to only apply it to CIS work, which I know is nearly all construction work, but not actually all.
12th Jul 2018
And the follower notices can be on tenuous grounds. A client had one claiming they had used on the loan back schemes, but he had never actually taken the money, he used the "umbrella company" but only for payments and took 85% of the profit in salary, the rest in dividend and only used the scheme because his "employer" insisted on an umbrella company. Demand for 30K tax that eventually turned out to be zero. The policy argument is valid but only if they keep to the spirit of the law and chase actual tax evasion rather than suspected.
3rd Jul 2018
So, have I got this right. Using Excel is OK if I attend a course given by someone whose qualification is that they were self taught (or better still that they hold a qualification issued by the people selling the software and with a vested interest in you using it).
The fact that I am self taught and have been using it for longer than the instructor on the course has been alive, have written a software package using Excel that sold many thousand copies across England Ireland and Germany and because of my Maths degree actually understand the principles and formulae used in spreadsheets, is not as a good as attending a course that does not have any validated exam!
The words twaddle and self-interest are very mild but I can not think of anything stronger that the moderator will leave.
20th Apr 2018
First to be prosecuted, not the first to be reported. messy divorce client of our one director filed 38 false amendments at Companies House, their response was "this is not something that Companies House has any power to look at"!
5th Apr 2017
who remembers schedule a b c d(I to VI) and E returns,all done separately, before my time but the textbook refers to them. They were dropped because it was considered more efficient to have 1 return for all income.
Who remembers separate VAT registrations for separate businesses, my text book does, abandoned because of added complexity.
Making tax digital is reinventing a wheel that has been got rid of because it did not work, and will use a system taht is not tested and manifestly cannot work for everyone. Sure some will benefit, more will lose out. What we MUST do as a profession is tell people and get them ready, or as ready as they can be.
17th Mar 2017
The estimates for the cost per client are exactly that estimates, and as accountants we all know how they can change and still be wrong, and yest they do seem high at £2K a client, but consider the new client in today. Turnover £100K, 3 staff currently entirely done on paper records (old style simplex book, great to still see occasionally). No computer no phone line (they sell sandwiches from a caravan) no computer experience. Cost of putting phone line in £450 quote from BT, computer £450ish, software that works, £120 a year, £300 a year in line rental and broadband. They will then need staff time to do it quarterly rather than being able to do it all in the winter when there is spare capacity, so say 2 hours a month for 10 months £200 plus in the first year, some extra cost from us training their staff and answering questions, say £300 comes to £1840,+VAT gives £2200. East to see how such estimate can be made for even a small business
Many will be a lot less I agree, but that just shows the unfairness of the system. Having a tax of £2K because you live in a rural area and run a seasonal business sounds unfair
8th Dec 2016
why don't we, as professionals working at least in part in the public interest put our money where our moths are, and sign up for the trail. and convince some of our more paper based client to as well. That would allow us to put our point across very strongly.
I floated this idea at a networking meeting recently and at least 2 business were so horrified by the proposal taht they were willing to be included in the trial (to be fair they are both people I have been badgering to buy a computer for a couple of year, this would be the tipping point) .
Also professional bodies being very quiet on this front?