... that is the disgrace, HMRC or the Government won't listen and abuse their powers - we have no other choice.
Why should a late tax return with no tax due incur a £1200 fine, but an on time return with deliberately understated tax would only be fined up to 100% of the tax due.
No, that isn't the only choice.
Old Greying Accountant wrote:
Anyway, what's the problem, if you have genuine grounds the penalty is held pending appeal, if you know it will succeed does it matter if it takes one month or twelve?
Of course it matters. Rather a lot in my opinion because those with genuine grounds- those who have done nothing wrong- should not be made to wait for long periods before having an issue resolved; it hangs over them, worries them, and any sensible planning means you have to make a contingency to pay that bill in the event that appeal is not successful. I don't simply assume because a client has genuine grounds in my opinion that it can be simply assumed the appeal will be upheld. I am not that arrogant. And the more baseless appeals put forward, the more likely HMRC is going to be approach ALL cases with a more sceptical and suspicious attitude, which doesn't help me either. It also means resources are no doubt diverted into areas that could more usefully deployed elsewhere, such as more experienced people on the end of a telephone....
Your response is rather telling though isn't it? Accountants complain about the very system they are undermining themselves. Well played sir, well played.
... and if you go to first tier you have years to wait so well worth doing.
Every one should appeal at every opportunity, the penalty regime is unjust and disproportionate, if every penalty was appealed and taken to first tier the system would fall apart and then may be someone with a brain would look at it and make it fair and proportionate.
Marvelous. Just marvelous. Thanks on behalf of my clients who do have real cause to go to the tribunal. If we willingly f*** up the system then I don't think we should complain about it or HMRC's attitude to us.
Why? Why would you automatically recommend that? Wouldn't you first be establishing whether there was a reasonable excuse to merit an appeal? Just going for an appeal for some spurious reason when the client should just accept it only jams up the system for everyone else.
As FirstTab says, it is very difficult to generalise because the "public sector" is nor generic. Working for the local council might, or might not, be very different to working for a central Government department. And then working for HM Treasury might, or might not, be similar to working for the Ministry of Defence. And then it will depend on the role you are undertaking: a policy official is going to be different, probably, to someone working in HR or the Finance Department (but not necessarily).
In my very limited experience from some time ago, there is A LOT of unpaid overtime and you certainly can't count on arriving at 9am and leaving at 5.30pm. Some days were like that but it wouldn't be unusual to be in by 8.30am and still be there at 7pm. It just depends. Weekend working too received no overtime. Again, in my experience it was not about climbing the career ladder but an expectation and acceptance that you will get the job done even if there are ridiculous deadlines. I don't recognise FirstTab's characterisation and certainly never saw people running their own business from the office. But, as with any jobs in either sector, there are peaks and troughs and the public sector is good at encouraging (and trusting) you to be flexible in the way you use your time as long as you do your hours. 10am-4pm was not unusual when there was a trough. I believe from old friends that many now work 9 days in every 10 by virtue of doing sufficient hours in the 9 days.
If you want to work in the public sector because you think it is going to be "easier" or afford you more consistent working hours then you migh think again; it will just be "different".
I would say your statement that "morals have nothing to do with being professional - legality and what is best for the client are the ONLY consideration a true professional should take into account" is one you should consider and the logical conclusions of that statement. However, I have neither the time nor inclination to repeat past discussions. You don't listen and have no intention to so you'll have to just talk to yourself.
My answers
Agent Online Self-Serve
Has anyone signed up to the private beta of the Agent Online Self-Serve? Any good?
No, that isn't the only choice.
No, that isn't the only choice.
Of course it matters. Rather a lot in my opinion because those with genuine grounds- those who have done nothing wrong- should not be made to wait for long periods before having an issue resolved; it hangs over them, worries them, and any sensible planning means you have to make a contingency to pay that bill in the event that appeal is not successful. I don't simply assume because a client has genuine grounds in my opinion that it can be simply assumed the appeal will be upheld. I am not that arrogant. And the more baseless appeals put forward, the more likely HMRC is going to be approach ALL cases with a more sceptical and suspicious attitude, which doesn't help me either. It also means resources are no doubt diverted into areas that could more usefully deployed elsewhere, such as more experienced people on the end of a telephone....
Your response is rather telling though isn't it? Accountants complain about the very system they are undermining themselves. Well played sir, well played.
Disgrace
Marvelous. Just marvelous. Thanks on behalf of my clients who do have real cause to go to the tribunal. If we willingly f*** up the system then I don't think we should complain about it or HMRC's attitude to us.
Oh dear
Why? Why would you automatically recommend that? Wouldn't you first be establishing whether there was a reasonable excuse to merit an appeal? Just going for an appeal for some spurious reason when the client should just accept it only jams up the system for everyone else.
Perhaps...
I think the implication is that those 140,000 businesses are outside London and the South-East but it is a fair point.
But...
... this was announced in the June 2010 Budget. No new announcement about the Small Profits Rate today.
A bit of balance...
As FirstTab says, it is very difficult to generalise because the "public sector" is nor generic. Working for the local council might, or might not, be very different to working for a central Government department. And then working for HM Treasury might, or might not, be similar to working for the Ministry of Defence. And then it will depend on the role you are undertaking: a policy official is going to be different, probably, to someone working in HR or the Finance Department (but not necessarily).
In my very limited experience from some time ago, there is A LOT of unpaid overtime and you certainly can't count on arriving at 9am and leaving at 5.30pm. Some days were like that but it wouldn't be unusual to be in by 8.30am and still be there at 7pm. It just depends. Weekend working too received no overtime. Again, in my experience it was not about climbing the career ladder but an expectation and acceptance that you will get the job done even if there are ridiculous deadlines. I don't recognise FirstTab's characterisation and certainly never saw people running their own business from the office. But, as with any jobs in either sector, there are peaks and troughs and the public sector is good at encouraging (and trusting) you to be flexible in the way you use your time as long as you do your hours. 10am-4pm was not unusual when there was a trough. I believe from old friends that many now work 9 days in every 10 by virtue of doing sufficient hours in the 9 days.
If you want to work in the public sector because you think it is going to be "easier" or afford you more consistent working hours then you migh think again; it will just be "different".
So what we have learned from this thread is...
... the view of the tax profession is that it is entirely acceptable not to act with any morals. In fact, it is positively encouraged.
What a nasty little bunch we are. But it seems we have been that way at AWEB for some time: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/18/do-tax-practitioners-need-to-exercise-moral-judgement/
Not a threat...
... just pointing out you will make yourself look like an idiot (again) and be banned (again) by Becky. Best to leave it.
Give it a rest cymraeg_draig
Seriously. This can only end badly for you.
I would say your statement that "morals have nothing to do with being professional - legality and what is best for the client are the ONLY consideration a true professional should take into account" is one you should consider and the logical conclusions of that statement. However, I have neither the time nor inclination to repeat past discussions. You don't listen and have no intention to so you'll have to just talk to yourself.