You might also be interested in
Replies (126)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Why
is there a need for regulation???????????
Are most agents cowboys, are most Accountants bent??????????
So we have HMRC workers "nice" we have agents "nice" so where is the NEED for regulation???????
There is an old saying "never use a sledge hammer to crack a small nut" or something like that.
I think, Rebecca, what some of us are saying is that HMRC are only proposing what we should already be having because they are in such a mess (caused by trying to make everyone compliant) they haven't got a clue as to how to get out of it.
Nothing is perfect so if you go down the compliance route you have to have a fair degree of flexibility.
Humour an old man.
Rebecca B wrote: " I don't think anyone would dispute that what is on offer is what we should be getting anyway - but we're not, haven't been and are not likely to with current constraints over budgets. So here's a new idea - one that might get you the service you need, and one which HMRC can look to resource appropriately."
I'm confused. If HMRC have not been able to provide a decent service thus far and lack of funds will prevent improvement, how would the enrolment of agents change anything?
If the money is not there, it's not there, unless funds are redirected from other areas and presumably weakening those areas or by charging "membership fees", which you state categorically will never happen.
But if this proposed system will be actually cheaper for HMRC to maintain and further funds are not required, then it rather begs the question as to why the heck haven't they rolled it out already and just got on with it, without wasting more money on a worsening service and consultations?
.
Despite the glowing testimonials by some posters the fact remains that disatisfaction with HMRC remains at an all time high. Just ask the millions of people who suddenly received unexpected extra tax bills due to HMRC incompetence.
In my view this will never improve until personal responsibility is again part of HMRCs culture, where named Inspectors take sole responsibility for a clients affairs, AND, where agents can telephone and email that named inspector.
At present HMRC hide behind call centres and operate on the theory that if something goes wrong just pass the buck time after time until no one knows who is responsible for what.
Withdrawn Completely????
"The consultation last year on dealing with dishonest tax agents, which was, in the profession's view, very wide of the mark and not at all well thought out. The professional bodies, and many individual agents made their views very clear on that one. Result? Withdrawn completely and back to the drawing board" - Rebecca
Or reintroduced it in this proposal.
I know it is not stated in the proposal but it is in my opinion quite obviously the aim.
Anything HMRC withdraw is for their own purposes, but makes those who are naive enough to believe in things like working together, beleive that they have achieved something. Not noticing that the biggest ongoing complaint for years (authorisations) gets worse by the month.
I have no problem in HMRC introducing new systems if that's what the Government want they will ultimately get their way, but please HMRC drop the pretence of doing it for us. It is pure politics in the same way that a politician would have you beleive at election time that he/she only wants to be elceted to serve you. HMRC serve UK Gov that is they way it should be, no consultation will change it.
I know you have stated that you are going to kick up hell if (read when) HMRC beark their word and I believe you, but what will be the result? Another lip service apology from HMRC and no change whatsoever to the offending item. In a earlier post you mentioned your trust of HMRC staff, was not a senior offical in Scotland jailed in recent years, for amongst other things, buying a castle out of taxpayer money?, trust him? No organisation or profession including accountants and tax advisors can possibly reach a state where everyone within it is trustworthy. Your earlier post appears to suggest thatwe should trust all HMRC staff and anyone they may employ or subcontract to in the future, dangerous.
I hope this won't be taken as a personal attack, clearly we are poles apart in our opinion of the usefulness or otehrwise of consultations.
those are my views, over and out.
Draft Response
Am surprised to see no comment to my Draft Response of 2 June, which seemed to me to be a positive contribution to the discussion. At any rate, below is a paragraph I have added to the draft. Comments invited.
3)Page 16 of the document states, “HMRC acknowledges that it must continue to improve its performance”. Our experience indicates that a significant proportion of errors are perpetrated by HMRC staff. We believe that if HMRC is serious about managing risk, then the same high standards should apply to HMRC staff as apply to the agent sector. By this definition, if HMRC requires agents to obtain a “relevant qualification”, then logically, it should require its staff to obtain an equivalent qualification.
Normal
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
But we are forgetting that HMRC
will have the final say so if we dont come up with positive and resonable ideas we cant complain if the final result is not as good as it might be.
We all have gripes and many have aired them much more elequently that I ever could but we need to push on and show we are worthy of consultation offered us.
The overall idea appears to work elsewhere so why not a UK version. As to costs if HMRC can put a good case to the treasury extra funds will be found to implement the changes (look at Ian Duncan Siths changes to benefits) and we will benefit if it works properly and any improvement on the current situation has got to be good.
IN my view we can be involved in the changes or not and I wish to be involved because it will affect my business
Rebecca
We all know it could be a NEW start. OK lets give HMRC the benefit of the doubt that they really want to make it easy for us.
Why, why, oh why then do they include it in a package that causes more problems than it solves.
Why can't they just say. OK lads we are going to put our trust in you and give you the info you need and should have.
As you said Rebecca, they will never do that and whatever they give us is the best we are going to get.
I, for one, do not accept that and I am sure, eventually, HMRC will have to allow us info without strings. They really don't have an alternative cos they are in such a mess.
@john jenkins
YOu may be right but the one difference between yourself and HMRC is that if you dont do the job properly you will loose business (and eventually starve!). HMRC is guaranteed an income (taxes) and does not need to change.
I hope that those that will make the decisions are following the debates on AWeb and when this new scheme is implemented go at it with trottle fully open (that bits for C_D and his motor bike) so that we all HMRC, taxpayers and agents see a big change. If that happens we will quickly forget how bad it had been
Implementation & Mandate
Better to do this than pass bits of paper around the whole of HMRC (badly). So I'm not sure why you don't welcome that? - Rebecca
I agree that Agent Self-Authorisation (ASA) would be a major step forward, my fear is how it will be implemented. I foresee that on ASA day someone in HMRC will have data protection issues and decide that clients must sign a form allowing the agent to self-authorise, the form ( a new 64-8 in reality) will not have been designed let alone printed or uploaded to the HMRC website and this will not happen for many months. When the form is finally available another HMRC officer will decide that for a belt and braces approach a copy of the form will need to be submitted to HMRC, thus we will be back to the 64-8 position that we have now, with one important difference. The system is now ASA thus any complainants will be told "it's the agent's responsibility. I say this in light of the following that has occurred recently:
Taxpayers chasing a repayment are told, almost as a matter of course that we have given incorrect bank account details on the tax return, untrue on every occasion. As one client said recently "you are both blaming each other, how can I know who to believe". We have had to work very hard to retain this client. A 64-8 is rejected as it is a photocopy (it was a form download from the HMRC website) the form was returned directly to the taxpayer with a covering letter effectively accusing us of incompetence.
HMRC cannot expect us to forget everything that has happened and afford them trust from day one, they must regain the trust that they once enjoyed and this will require providing an efficient and honest service over many years. Staff must be trained to understand that giving an easy answer to get the taxpayer off the phone is dishonest and unacceptable.
In my opinion the proposals introduce de-facto agent regulation, if HMRC can grant an agent ASA then presumably they can also withdraw the facility, whilst this would not disbar the agent from acting it would have an adverse affect. We must bear in mind that the Government regularly states evasion and avoidance as if they are the same thing. I fear that they will have the same approach in assessing agents those who undertake tax planning will be grouped with the dishonest agents.
If consultation is to have any value (and my views on that are already clear) the first stage must be a written response stating what will not happen. (i.e. there will be no agent regulation or new 64-8 form as a result of these proposals). Personally I am in favour of regulation that puts dishonest agents out of businesses but as others have said this role cannot be undertaken by HMRC playing judge, jury and executioner, this would represent a serious conflict of interest. I would, though not keen, prefer to pay for an independent regulator. Those of us who are members of PBs already pay for regulation, an independent system is required for those who are not regulated by professional bodies (note this is not a Q/NQ issue as some unregulated agents have chosen not to continue their subscriptions to PBs).
I hope that I have explained that I am not anti-HMRC, but nor am I prepared to forgive and forget on the promise of jam tomorrow. I predict that these consultations will be an unmitigated disaster for tax agents. I mention this as when it happens and I complain others will say that I am being wise after the event. The only practical response to the invitation is to decline to be involved and state that the level of trust required for constructive consultations no longer exists between the proposed parties; and publicise the same. Maybe, just maybe, someone in HMRC might start to appreciate that there is a problem.
Better still should those prosing to "represent us" in the consultation, given the views air on AW, not establish a mandate to do so? After all HMRC will view you as representing the whole industry when a significant number, myself included do not wish to be represented.
Perhaps a vote on AW would at least give some indication as to whether agents wish to be represented. I may not want to be represented in Parliament by my MP, but was given the opportunity to express my preference via an election, thus he can claim to have a mandate to represent me.
So what do you think Rebecca, put it to a vote? If the majority are in favour I will accept this and if they are against will you do the same?
Wouldn't
it be great if HMRC asked AW to submit proposals for a working relationship between agents and HMRC instead of asking us to comment on theirs. I'm not saying we know better than HMRC. The reason for saying AW is that it seems to have a broad mix of views and is not tied to the indoctrination of any Institute or body. Perhaps, Rebecca if you do a poll the wording of the questions could be such that a consultative document might be extracted at the end?
Statement of fact
Everything done by HMRC is done for HMRCs benefit. This is a simple statement of fact like Tesco exists to serve it shareholders not its customers. Tescos only has to serve it customers well because it exists in a competative market which explian why HMRC is rubbish. We live in a stasi state run by civil stasi for their own benefit and corporate interests. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Soviet Control
I believe that HMRC have moved away from integrity and democratic principles over recent years, but to say we live in a Stassi state is nonsense and disrespectful to the many lives lost to that and other communist regiemes. I have yet to hear of a critic of HMRC being dragged from their bed in the middle of the night to disappear for ever, because of their views. You have clearly never lived under Soviet control.
@BobHurn
"Taxpayers chasing a repayment are told, almost as a matter of course that we have given incorrect bank account details on the tax return, untrue on every occasion. As one client said recently "you are both blaming each other, how can I know who to believe"."
Since the taxpayers must have a copy of the tax return before they can authorise filing, clearly all they need to do is turn to page TR5 where this information is provided. QED.
Dismayed
I am truly dismayed by the lack of constructive comments on this thread on what should be a serious issue.
In a final appeal to reason and common sense, I am posting a re-drafted conclusion on my response posted earlier.
In the absence of any sensible comments, I will go it alone. It may be that HMRC won't listen to me any more than anyone here does, but at least I am trying. Which is more than I can say for some.
Normal
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Conclusion: The issues raised in this consultation document are serious and far reaching, and will have a significant impact on this firm and its dealings both with clients and HMRC for years to come. In recent years, the regulatory burden on accountants has increased considerably, and the effect has been disproportionately heavy on small firms such as ours.
We feel strongly that there are significant flaws in what is being proposed which, if implemented, would have a severe effect on this firm and its clients and compromise our ability to provide the best level of service, as well as increasing compliance costs, with little or no benefit in return.
The proposals in this document regarding increased regulation would increase this burden still further, to the point where it may be difficult for many small firms, who supply a simple, cost-effective service, to remain in business. Ultimately this would restrict choice, damage competition and increase costs significantly, particularly for small businesses.
We welcome the opportunity to engage in this consultation process and would hope that although we are a small firm, our voice will be listened to and our concerns addressed.
Thank you
I appreciate your sentiments, Rebecca. I will be sending in my own response to HMRC, as one of the "little guys". You are of course welcome to include any of the points I have raised in your own response, as you think appropriate.
I for one will be watching avidly to see whether HMRC listens. As far as relations between them and the agent community are concerned, this consultation has the potential to be "make or break".
Let's hope they don't blow it!
Definition of "Fact"
Comparisons between HMRC and any State sponsored Secret Police are simply outrageous.
The remarks display a total lack of any understanding of the function of HMRC and the people who work under its control.
The fact is that there are still a good number of very competent people within HMRC who struggle to implement and administer poorly thought out and badly judged policies. The trouble is that numbers are dwindling and such replacements that are put in post have no appreciation of how things were before the descent into chaos.
Focus on the real issues
I have read through all the above and at times I despaired. It is quite obvious why, as agents (and taxpayers), we have the appalling 'service' currently foisted on us. We are weak, sometimes frightened, frequently deceived, misled and lied to by HMRC and most unfortunately we are disunited.
Why argue here about qualifications? It is not the issue. For the record I qualified over 25 years ago but I have no problem competing in the marketplace. If you are good enough you will succeed. No group is perfect and it is a fool who tries to set him/herself on a pedestal above others by insulting their ability. Prove your worth by the service and advice you give. We should all be free to operate as we see fit. We members and our various institutes should sell the virtues of our qualifications but not by denigrating others who are different or 'less' qualified. It is certainly not a role we should be handing over to HMRC and anyone who advocates this should beware.
Surely every single one of us agrees that the current situation is unacceptable (I cannot print my actual feelings)? Yes, in reality, from what I can see, what is on offer will be a vast improvement. I accept that we are only being offered what should always have been provided. Is there another way of achieving such changes? Well, after 6/7/8/9 years of watching the rapid decline I think not.
Sorry Rebecca I do not trust HMRC, neither the organisation nor the arrogant and unaccountable management which has failed us all for many years. That said this seems to be our best opportunity to engage in change for better. However, I firmly believe we need to ensure that HMRC does not and cannot control who can register as an agent. What we need to debate and agree on is how should this be administered. There is no comfort to be had from being told HMRC do not propose use this scheme for this or any other purpose. If we leave it within their potential remit to regulate who is an agent or which agents can use which bit of the service we will only have ourselves to blame in the future.
Let us at least put the dreadful experience of the last few years to good use and try and take control of our own destiny in some small way.
Agree with mpurcell
Except I think I probably have a bit more trust in HMRC than mpurcell does ... my dealings with them have been fine, but I lament the horrendous delays in getting 64-8s actioned, and even trying to find out the UTR for a new client when I have been accepted as agent, but can't get online access due to zero UTR (you can't even use online services to get online access without the UTR!).
I think all agents MUST be taken on board by HMRC, regardless of qualification or lack of such. Qualifications don't seem to be the problem, whereas ability does, and I've yet to see any qualification guarantee ability in anything apart from passing that particular exam.
I think the system, whatever it is, should be rolled out over several years, starting with the big boys first ... after all, they are the guys who really make or break the government's coffer, and when one of those guys screw up, well all suffer (viz banking crisis over dodgy US mortgages not being spotted or reported when in its infancy). Also, the big boys have the resources to put inline whatever is expected of them by HMRC, whereas the smaller practices might find themselves seriously pinched if there are more fees, costly upgrades, masses of technical catch-up issues, etc.
I would love to see targeted CPD, in that once HMRC knows your client base, and the level of work you undertake, then they can suggest (and even send out) appropriate info and guides to keep the agent up to speed in his/her sphere of activities.
HMRC's online systems currently have sufficient firewalls, security, authorisation codes, etc to the extent we can alread log on to loads of sensitive info ... so is there a need to have any more security than at present? And, if so, surely it is up to HMRC to instal it on their own systems? … The rest of us are already tied into MLR and Data Protection Act, so what more is needed or expected of agents in this regard?
I am very wary of HMRC administering some type of overseer responsibility, but then I'm also not entirely clear why I am concerned ... so far my time with MLR has been fine, so if that is indicative of the type of overseer role that HMRC is inclined to, it's fine by me (so far!).
I wonder whether the power of the top six accountancy professions is going to use this as an excuse to exclude all non-qualified agents ... now that is something that worries me, as I've seen this type of political manoeuvring in other areas (chiropractic being the example which most readily springs to mind).
I am convinced that this consultation document will lead to what is being put on the table .... to me it looks like it has been decided on, and all that needs doing is finishing touches.
I'm not sure that what is being offered by HMRC will in fact be of any help to my practice ... it's small, c.70 clients, and I find the current systems, 64-8s aside, working well for me. -- KH
Shouldn't Need to check
Since the taxpayers must have a copy of the tax return before they can authorise filing, clearly all they need to do is turn to page TR5 where this information is provided. QED.
I take your point QED, but in my view clients should not be mislead by HMRC
RE: HMRC's false demand for 600K?
I have received a demand for 600K from HMRC in Nottingham. I live and work in Oxford. The fact of the matter is this debt does not exist. This woman from HMRC in Nottingham who has a very close relation with A.J. Sargeant an IP, done this deliberately in order to cause deliberate financial damages to me. Whenever I complained the woman stopped working on my case. The senior complain officer is saying that HMRC are not asking for this demand now, but, this woman in Nottingham HMRC insist that this is a debt and needs to be paid. I am going to Tribunal. The person in charge of this department is not clarifying the situation. I have asked several time for the address of Jenny Granger, they refuse to provide her contacting details. Does anyone has the contacting details of Jenny Granger who is in charge of Small Firm compliance department. I need clarification of the position of this claim. It sounds no one wants to help. I even got ADR involved in this case. The woman from Nottingham didn't show up for the meeting!!! Has anyone else been harassed by HMRC in Nottingham? I need some good advice regarding this injustice.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3