Member Since: 8th Feb 2015
3rd Feb 2021
My experience is that developers (generally) are not the end users; as they still have to complete (develop) and then sell their end-product/service to their ultimate customer.
Therefore all suppliers of goods/services to Developers 'in the chain' to the ultimate Developer's customer who is the end-user, will apply the Reverse Charge procedure.
20th Jan 2021
Front line, back line, Top echelons etc. is wholly irrelevant.
In my secondary education days, when pupils had to use appropriate and correct grammar and not 'text speak'; we were also taught to display the name and address of the writer/sender, the name and address of the intended recipient, and provide a reference or appropriate heading which clearly identified the subject matter. Not only was this deemed proficient, it was a simple courtesy too!
HMRC regularly send communications with no evidence of who has sent it, where it comes from, who the intended recipient is, or a precis of what the problem or subject matter is.
They therefore cannot complain when such correspondence cannot be responded to - maybe better still, simply ignored or treated as either junk mail or scams!
This was considered not only
20th Jan 2021
Interesting comparison with CJRS 'projects' etc.
Might it be that routine matters are still left in the hands of the regular staff, and 'projects' which are politically highly sensitive and deemed important, have the expertise 'brought in'.
External expertise has to 'deliver', to retain goodwill and credibility! Maybe too many of the regular staff are simply too content, in the knowledge that HMRC 'customers' can complain about standards of service until the 'cows come home'; but none of the HMRC staff will ever be accountable for their performance, and that performance has nothing to do with their employment retention.
20th Jan 2021
I absolutely support the comments in your closing paragraph.
Technology has totally usurped not only 'personal and professionally acquired' valuable underlying knowledge and training on the principles of the various components of the tax system; but it has led to users of technology accepting the outcomes of their sometimes 'erroneous' data input - and then claiming that the output is absolute correct!
From a training perspective, I sadly miss 'invariably older generation' support staff who totally understand the underlying principles in operating PAYE, can do a manual ETB, and have excellent mental arithmetic ability, and do not rely on 'Google' to provide answers to clients' even basic questions.
6th Jan 2021
Absolutely no sympathy with 'small company directors' or 'contractors' or 'freelance' etc; who have all chosen to go their particular 'route' - simply to enhance their 'net of tax income stream' irrespective of how you might describe that 'income stream'.
If they choose (their choice, not HMRC's), to pay themselves minimum PAYE salary etc., then they should stop carping on about the potential future impact of their choices.
If they want equal support for furlough as bone-fide employees whose only income is PAYE, then they should have 'set themselves up' as such.
As for the Contractors and Freelancers; they get permanent HMRC support, via the more generous expense deductions and flexibility permitted in calculating their taxable income - such flexibility etc being denied to bone fide PAYE employees.
2nd Dec 2020
What does a taxpayer do then if
1. There is a property sale completion (say August) which (after annual allowance) gives rise to a Capital Gain, and then
2. Has a further sale completion (say December) which results in a loss.
Presuming that the taxpayer is compliant and has reported and tax has to be be paid (after the first completion) at what rate of tax is paid ? The taxpayer does not know for certain what his/her rate will be as the tax year has not ended; and how does the taxpayer recover any overpaid tax if the Loss is greater than the gain?
Seems an absolute farce!
22nd Sep 2020
The fact is that from a technical perspective, a significant amount of information (especially for tax) is already in the public domain - and moreover HMRC seem keen to encourage clients to DIY!
Use of software is constantly encouraged - despite it not guaranteeing business success.
Given the current generation's aversion to any advice given which conflicts with google or social media; you can be quite sure that it is the relationship (and not the technical) that will matter to them - especially if they are in the position of being successor(s) to an existing business owned by earlier family generation(s).
Added value (which all clients like to obtain), is based solely on their perception of 'value' - and that should be the starting point for determining how you (as an individual or firm) can meet match that perception.
What anyone else charges or has charged is irrelevant. The value of a committed, ongoing, candid and mutually supportive relationship does not have any 'base figure' to work on; that is the negotiation.
8th Sep 2020
I was not aware that YOU make the decisions, you only implement the CLIENT's decisions.
The Director is responsible EVERY time
23rd Aug 2020
I could never understand the logic of those Directors who were concurrently Shareholders of a Company (usually their own company exclusively!); who complained at not receiving furlough support on their dividend income. They clearly refuse to accept the difference between Directors as Officers (and possibly employees) and Shareholders - just as many also refuse to accept that Company bank balances are not an extension to their own private bank accounts - they are Company funds.
I have shares (albeit in PLC's and not large value); but as a shareholder would never have expected any of those Companies to furlough me for the dividend income; except if I was concurrently employed and only then for the PAYE income.
These complaining Directors chose - of their own free will- to divide their income between PAYE and Dividends; simply because it gave them a NET income advantage! They quite rightly were not permitted to get even more support from the Government.
12th Aug 2020
Why cannot Tax Codes be changed at any time, to collect any PAYE tax liability for any year (subject to appropriate safety 'caps'). Surely the fact that RTI is submitted every payroll run, means that data is live and current - or was the RTI system simply to avoid the delays caused by awaiting the historic P32 postal submission before implementing recovery action?
My wife has a part time job in addition to her full time job - HMRC have known this for almost 3 years; with respective Employers being fully compliant with their RTI's and implementation of Codes issued by HMRC.
HMRC have persisted in using BR w1/m1 instead of using an appropriate K code; resulting in very large demands supported by P800 Forms issued last week for 2019/20. The K codes could have been implemented in 2017/18 or 2018/19 or 2019/20!
Are they all numpties ?- some of my grandchildren (still at school), could easily have seen that the BR w1/m1 code will only deal with the present year liability in that one employment!