Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content
A close-up of an hourglass
istock_hourglass_StockSeller_ukr

Delay basis period reform and MTD ITSA

by

Accountancy and tax bodies have slammed the proposed switch to the tax year basis as rushed and poorly planned, and said the change will add complexity for some businesses and undermine trust in the tax system.  

2nd Sep 2021
Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content

In responding to the consultation on basis period reform the leading tax bodies (CIOT and ATT) say the switch from the current year basis to the tax year basis should be delayed for at least a year to 2023/24, while the ICAEW has called for the proposal to be abandoned completely.

The government wants to implement the change to the tax year basis ahead of mandating MTD for income tax (MTD ITSA). But this switch would mean a big bang mandation of nearly all unincorporated businesses into MTD ITSA from 6 April 2023, rather than a staged introduction, based on the business’ existing accounting year end. For example, under the original MTD proposals a business with a year end of 31 March would be mandated into MTD ITSA from 1 April 2024.   

The CIOT, ATT and LITRG have argued for MTD ITSA mandation to be delayed for at least a year. The ICAEW would prefer the original timetable for MTD ITSA and the current year basis to be retained, giving businesses with a 31 March accounting period end (and their advisers) an extra year in order to prepare for MTD.  

Curtailed consultation 

This combined stage 2 and 3 consultation on basis period reform ran for six weeks, almost exactly aligning with the summer holiday season (stage 1 was either informal or missed completely). This is half the time recommended for meaningful consultation on one of the “fundamental building blocks of the tax system” (as the consultation mentions). 

Many AccountingWEB readers recalled that the last change in basis periods in the mid-1990s was conducted over a longer period. The change from the prior year to the current year basis was announced in March 1994, legislated for in FA 1994, and came into effect with a transition year in 1996/97. Tax advisers and businesses thus had around two years to prepare for the change, which was made in order to implement self-assessment. 

The CIOT argues that the change to the tax year basis needs to be introduced over a similar timescale, which would mean an implementation in 2023/24 as the transition year, at the earliest.

Increased complexity not simplification

The switch to the tax year basis does not require businesses to change their accounting year end to align with the tax year (31 March to 4 April will be treated as 5 April), but any other year end will mean taking figures from two set of accounts in order to complete the tax return.

Where the accounting period ends later in the year (say September onwards), it is unlikely that the second set of accounts will be finalised in time for the tax return deadline of 31 January. In such cases the tax return will have to include estimated figures, which will need to be corrected once the accounts are finalised. This will increase costs as each affected tax return will have to be processed and submitted twice.   

Although the change to the tax year basis will get rid of the confusing rules for taxing a new business, which can generate overlap profits, it will create the need to estimate profits every year for some businesses. This will increase complexity and costs for those businesses and will certainly not lead to simplification. 

Changing the accounting period    

Many businesses chose an accounting period end other than 31 March/ 5 April for commercial reasons, such as:

  • Farmers chose 30 September as its easier to value harvested crops at that date
  • GP medical practices need to take into account the interaction with superannuation certificates which determine pensionable profits based on taxable profits.
  • Large partnerships may be required to draw up accounts to the period end of their wider international partnership business, which will normally be 31 December.
  • Hospitality businesses chose a quiet trading period away from the busy Easter and summer holidays.

It appears that the requirement for stock taking at the year-end has not been considered in the consultation. If all unincorporated businesses use an accounting period ending in the six days to 5 April, the stock for all of those businesses will have to be valued in the same week. This will put a considerable strain on specialist valuers which are needed in sectors such has hospitality.

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:


Content lock down, tick icon


View all AccountingWEB content

Content lock down, tick icon


Comment on articles

Content lock down, tick icon


Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (46)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
02nd Sep 2021 18:50

As always much appreciated
The Big Bang Approach is outrageous and an attempt at bunching that will overwhelm all available resouces
HMRC not well known for putting in systems that work correctly first time when live
The Residential CGT was, is and will continue to be an embarrassment to all concerned yet probably the least used system system on the HMRC chart of services

Thanks (10)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
02nd Sep 2021 21:34

Indeed, well presented as usual.
The only thing that appears to be missing is any comment by HMRC as to a) why they think it's a good idea, and b) how they see it impacting on MTD ITSA (including the systems and people at their end dealing with submissions and queries).
There appears to be a complete vacuum of communications surrounding HMRC.

Thanks (10)
avatar
By Geoff56
03rd Sep 2021 09:30

Another excellent article, Rebecca. Clear and concise, as always.

Now, if we could just hear something sensible from HMRC........

Thanks (9)
Replying to Geoff56:
avatar
By johnjenkins
03rd Sep 2021 11:02

Now, if we could just hear something sensible from HMRC........
PML

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
03rd Sep 2021 10:01

Quote:
Although the change to the tax year basis will get rid of the confusing rules for taxing a new business, which can generate overlap profits, it will create the need to estimate profits every year for some businesses. This will increase complexity and costs for those businesses and will certainly not lead to simplification.

Maybe going forward, though it will bring all of those past overlap profits into account in the year of implementation. Now, where a business started 20 years ago, and especially if there has been a change of accountant (or several) in that time, just establishing the overlap profits will be a nightmare.

Not to mention that HMRC are approaching all of this [***] end upwards. They should, first, fix their own systems to be replaced with a single, consolidated system rather than several (some antiquated) systems that do not talk to each other before embarking on any major overhaul to the tax systems.

We are all too aware of the problems in HMRC systems, and those problems are more likely to be responsible for many errors than anything that the taxpayer does.

Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Thanks (11)
avatar
By Anthony G Thorne
03rd Sep 2021 10:11

It clearly appears HMRC have not thought this out properly and will be an act in haste and repent at leisure action with the taxpayers having to sort out the mess.

If they want a system that will work they need to rewrite the legislation in conjunction with taxpayer input to ensure it is fit for purpose and works in reality.

Thanks (6)
David Ross
By davidross
03rd Sep 2021 10:27

Those accountants who have been sitting on the time bomb of Transitional Overlap Relief will now have to explain to their clients why they did not fix this before. Big tax bills can be expected.

Those of us who took the trouble to convert to 31 March when Self Assessment came in all those years ago know the extra work involved, but will have no sympathy

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidross:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 13:33

davidross wrote:

Those accountants who have been sitting on the time bomb of Transitional Overlap Relief will now have to explain to their clients why they did not fix this before. Big tax bills can be expected.

Those of us who took the trouble to convert to 31 March when Self Assessment came in all those years ago know the extra work involved, but will have no sympathy

I dunno. Changing to 31 March might have been a massive own goal, bearing in mind there's a proposed option to spread over five years (maybe six, if you manage 2021/22 right). Depends on the numbers, of course, but it could make life considerably easier and cheaper.

Still, those of us who kept running with Transitional Relief need have little sympathy.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wyoming
03rd Sep 2021 10:36

Another impact that seems inevitable is that older tax professionals may just head for the exit door marked "retirement". I will be 61 by April 2023 and had imagined retiring maybe at 64/65, but this might well just be the "old dog, new tricks" scenario that encourages an earlier departure. I'm sure I'm not the only one!

Thanks (5)
Replying to wyoming:
avatar
By Geoff56
03rd Sep 2021 10:47

You certainly aren't alone!

Thanks (6)
Replying to wyoming:
avatar
By Jimess
03rd Sep 2021 12:39

I wish I could! - My earliest possible retirement year is 2027 - sigh!

Thanks (2)
Replying to wyoming:
David Ross
By davidross
05th Sep 2021 09:55

At your age (I am older) please consider whether this is an opportunity for a 'last act'. I don't know how technological your practice is, but by adding a CRM (Accountancy Manager) and beefing up processes, I know that I have turned what was a 'seat of the pants' self-employment into a business that has some sale value.

When we get to 2023 I will have created three choices for myself - get some retirement cash by selling, expand fast to create more value, or take a back seat for a semi-passive income.

Even if I fell under a bus, I have the comfort of knowing that, with standardised systems, someone else can come in and efficiently serve my clients.

Thanks (2)
Replying to davidross:
avatar
By wyoming
06th Sep 2021 10:27

Thank you. I'm a personal tax manager in a "top-20" practice, so the opportunity to put my own stamp on this will be limited. Therefore, my equation is really in terms of weighing the extra financial security of "dealing with" all of this by working a few years longer against the option of a longer but slightly more frugal retirement. Good luck!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ourpetsheadsarefallingoff
03rd Sep 2021 10:40

"The CIOT has suggested that ... the tax return deadline and MTD end of period statement deadline should move from 31 January to 31 March"

This would make it all worth it for me. Let me enjoy Christmas again!

Thanks (3)
avatar
By fozia
03rd Sep 2021 10:44

Great article Rebecca covering all the reasons why this basis period reform if implemented will fall on it's face.
A long terms solution covering tax year change, basis period change and MTD ITSA implementation needs to be mapped out carefully with full consultation and buy-in from the accountancy profession to be feasible.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
03rd Sep 2021 10:55

The core problem with Government and their agencies, HMRC being a prime example, is that none of them have any real idea about the challenges and problems of setting up and operating a business.

The people driving MTD, for example, despite the consultative process and more critically, the House of Lord's Select Committee's comments and conclusions, simply ignored such input and objective critique and continued on their pre-determined road to Hell!

The burden placed upon both business proprietors and SMPs (Small and Medium Sized Practices) will be enormous.

Once again, the idiots, who themselves would be hard put to run a whelk stall at a profit, ignore the critical economic contribution of SMEs to Great Britain plc: circa 48% of Private Sector GDP; and a vast majority are class size zero; i.e. one man bands and zero employees.

Add in the singular fact of the country trying to recover from the dire effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic, which include supply chain disruption and etc and this move by HMRC can only be viewed as moronic in the extreme.

Thanks (10)
avatar
By CJaneH
03rd Sep 2021 11:54

Why is MTD bypassing the ordinary media (TV, Radio & Newspapers) & MPs.
A few years back I attended a presentation by HMRC about MTD which was attended by say 20 accountants and 2 of the 3 Wolverhampton MPs. The one MP arrived late, left early and I do not think understood any thing about accounts or tax. The other MP stayed for the duration, when I spoke to him afterwards I think he did understand the problems but not enough to be concerned. He stood down at the next general election.
I deal with very small clients who do not know MTD is coming until I tell them and mostly not either accounts or IT savvy.
As I will be 70 next January I will be opting out by retiring. I would have continued was it not for MTD.

Thanks (5)
Replying to CJaneH:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 13:43

CJaneH wrote:

As I will be 70 next January I will be opting out by retiring. I would have continued was it not for MTD.

Retiring was my best career move - MTD or no MTD.

Why not get out of the car before the inevitable car crash ?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By tedbuck
03rd Sep 2021 12:05

Interesting that I had a discussion with a client today about MTD ITSA. A simple one-man band whose records have always been very good although manual.
His reaction - I'll retire! He is coming up to pension age so might have done so anyway but faced with extra effort, cost and putting his records onto a computer why would he bother?
Well not much loss to HMRC, I suppose, tax bill this year about £3,000 including NIC ( but that does include SEISS) . But multiply it by all the others who might have gone on working after retirement age but now won't and where is the filling of the so-called tax gap? And of course there is the tax lost on accountant's fees no longer earned and the tax lost on the reduced spending from said gentleman due to his reduced income and then because he isn't working his health will probably become more problematical so the NHS costs will mount (Well they would if he could get to see a GP which he probably couldn't)
Do you think HMRC have given a thought to all this? I am sure I saw a flying Pig the other day so maybe they will.
And they still believe that having a computer will stop people pocketing the cash jobs - well they must if they think this will stop that happening. Simple-minded in the extreme.
The other side of this is that all this digitalisation should reduce the need for humans at HMRC so have they a planned redundancy scheme which they aren't talking about? I mean we wouldn't notice as it is so difficult to talk to one there anyway but do the staff realise that the current furlough proves they aren't necessary? I mean surely GDPR must make working from home next to impossible for HMRC.

Thanks (6)
Replying to tedbuck:
By Nick Graves
03rd Sep 2021 12:13

tedbuck wrote:

Interesting that I had a discussion with a client today about MTD ITSA. A simple one-man band whose records have always been very good although manual.
His reaction - I'll retire! He is coming up to pension age so might have done so anyway but faced with extra effort, cost and putting his records onto a computer why would he bother?
Well not much loss to HMRC, I suppose, tax bill this year about £3,000 including NIC ( but that does include SEISS) . But multiply it by all the others who might have gone on working after retirement age but now won't and where is the filling of the so-called tax gap? And of course there is the tax lost on accountant's fees no longer earned and the tax lost on the reduced spending from said gentleman due to his reduced income and then because he isn't working his health will probably become more problematical so the NHS costs will mount (Well they would if he could get to see a GP which he probably couldn't)
Do you think HMRC have given a thought to all this? I am sure I saw a flying Pig the other day so maybe they will.
And they still believe that having a computer will stop people pocketing the cash jobs - well they must if they think this will stop that happening. Simple-minded in the extreme.
The other side of this is that all this digitalisation should reduce the need for humans at HMRC so have they a planned redundancy scheme which they aren't talking about? I mean we wouldn't notice as it is so difficult to talk to one there anyway but do the staff realise that the current furlough proves they aren't necessary? I mean surely GDPR must make working from home next to impossible for HMRC.

Cash-in-hand will probably be replaced by Monero-in-cryptowallet following WEF's The Great Upset, but otherwise your points stand.

Thanks (1)
Replying to tedbuck:
avatar
By michael1958
03rd Sep 2021 13:39

so true

Thanks (0)
avatar
By eppingaccountant
03rd Sep 2021 12:56

As has been mentioned several times previously, the proposed MTD regime will bring forward the retirement dates of many excellent qualified accountants who are approaching retirement, myself included. HMRC do not think or give a jot about this. It is an ill-conceived and ill-thought out change to our tax system. I would certainly rather be tending the roses in my back garden than dealing with this superfluous nonsense. Any others care to join me?

Thanks (4)
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:04

Easter is the start of the holiday season. The date of Easter varies between March and April. If HMRC force 31 March/5 April basis periods, some years there will be two Easters, some years none. That means massive fluctuations in profit with no facility to average. Businesses can get around the Easter problem by choosing any financial year end that is not 31 March/5 April, but if HMRC force this change using the actual income (one of their proposals) HMRC will have forced tourism businesses to use the very date that causes the problem.

Thanks (2)
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:08

Some sectors are seeing a post-lockdown boom. Those with 30 April year ends will be reporting that y/e 30/04/2022. That's the same tax year HMRC want to change the basis periods so those businesses will not only have additional tax on extra profits from the post-lockdown boom, but also an extra 11 months from the basis period change. It would be necessary to postpone the change by at least a year to avoid the effect of the post-lockdown.

HMRC may argue that businesses will have overlap relief, but many businesses make losses in their first periods of trading so don't have any overlap relief.

Thanks (1)
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:10

When SA was introduced we had to transition from PYB to CYB. That meant 24 months all taxed in one tax year. HMRC knew this was unfair so the PYB and CYB were averaged. If HMRC did introduce the basis period change, HMRC should allow any non-31 March/5 April businesses to average. HMRC did it last time because it was fair and it worked, so HMRC should do it again.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 13:38

kevinringer wrote:

When SA was introduced we had to transition from PYB to CYB. That meant 24 months all taxed in one tax year. HMRC knew this was unfair so the PYB and CYB were averaged. If HMRC did introduce the basis period change, HMRC should allow any non-31 March/5 April businesses to average. HMRC did it last time because it was fair and it worked, so HMRC should do it again.

It won't happen. And I agree that it shouldn't. These circumstances are totally different to the 1995 change. Folk have been paying just a little bit less tax every year and they knew the reckoning would come one day. Sure, it's a bit sooner than they planned but it's not unfair.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:48

We will have to disagree Lion about the fairness. I do change year ends when profits are low in proportion to overlap relief and that's because I have a choice: to change or not. It's the same when a business ceases: many have a choice when to do it. But HMRC plans give no choice other than do it this year or have it forced next year.

Thanks (1)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 13:56

kevinringer wrote:

We will have to disagree Lion about the fairness. I do change year ends when profits are low in proportion to overlap relief and that's because I have a choice: to change or not. It's the same when a business ceases: many have a choice when to do it. But HMRC plans give no choice other than do it this year or have it forced next year.

Fair enough, Kevin. But I expect you had few complaints from clients about paying too little tax in each of the last 25 years or so. Now the settlement day has come they have an opportunity - not afforded to me, amongst thousands of others - to spread any excess over five years.

Some would regard them as fortunate.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 14:11

It would be alright if they were paying their normal marginal rates of tax on extra profits, but some basic rate taxpayers will find themselves pushed into the higher rates on the extra months brought into account, so they will be paying more than their typical marginal rate. And it isn't as if they've been underpaying tax in the past. Far from it. They have always paid the correct amount of tax on their profits, in fact they paid tax on the same profits twice in the early years. Most of my clients who chose non-31 March/5 April year ends did so for commercial and not tax reasons. I appreciate they can still retain those year ends under the proposals, but for the year of transition they are being forced to pay tax on more than 12 months profits. It isn't just those forced into the higher rate that are going to lose out. Low earners on tax credits will lose out because so much extra income is brought into account in one lump in one year.

Thanks (1)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 14:32

kevinringer wrote:

It would be alright if they were paying their normal marginal rates of tax on extra profits, but some basic rate taxpayers will find themselves pushed into the higher rates on the extra months brought into account, so they will be paying more than their typical marginal rate.

It would've happened one day. Now spreading can be your friend.

Quote:
And it isn't as if they've been underpaying tax in the past. Far from it. They have always paid the correct amount of tax on their profits, in fact they paid tax on the same profits twice in the early years. Most of my clients who chose non-31 March/5 April year ends did so for commercial and not tax reasons. I appreciate they can still retain those year ends under the proposals, but for the year of transition they are being forced to pay tax on more than 12 months profits. It isn't just those forced into the higher rate that are going to lose out. Low earners on tax credits will lose out because so much extra income is brought into account in one lump in one year.

I can't see your point, Kevin. If they have a potential high charge, it's because they've been taxed on less profit than they earned in the tax year.

If that's not so, they don't have a problem. In fact, they'll benefit from a lower tax charge in the year of change.

I'm not saying I'm in favour of a mandatory basis period. But equally, I don't see any justification for profits to be averaged.

Thanks (0)
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:12

HMRC won't accept accounting periods of more than 18 months. That means businesses with 30 April to 31 August year ends that decided they wanted to change their year end to avoid the bother of basis period estimates etc, will have to prepare two accounts. If this change goes ahead, HMRC should permit businesses to prepare a single period of account of up to 23 months as along as there was an accounting period that ended in the year prior to transition.

Thanks (1)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 13:39

kevinringer wrote:

HMRC won't accept accounting periods of more than 18 months. That means businesses with 30 April to 31 August year ends that decided they wanted to change their year end to avoid the bother of basis period estimates etc, will have to prepare two accounts. If this change goes ahead, HMRC should permit businesses to prepare a single period of account of up to 23 months as along as there was an accounting period that ended in the year prior to transition.

I'm not sure how that would be a significant help. The cost savings would be nugatory.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 13:50

I act for a lot of livestock farmers. Calculating stock quantities and values can be time consuming. Preparing one set of account for a long period will save time compared to preparing two separate periods of account.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 14:22

kevinringer wrote:

I act for a lot of livestock farmers. Calculating stock quantities and values can be time consuming. Preparing one set of account for a long period will save time compared to preparing two separate periods of account.

A good point.

On the other hand, the tax won't be affected if you get the intermediate stock wrong.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 14:33

I agree the tax won't be affected (same goes for debtors, credits, accruals and prepayments), but as those accounts are used by third parties (eg the banks), we don't want to produce accounts that are not right.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 14:54

Actually, that raises a point.

Once MTD kicks in, could you continue to do proper accounts for, say, farmers with a 30 September year end for purely management purposes, alongside MTD tax accounts for HMRC ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 15:17

We could, but that results in two issues:

1. The year of transition will still have a whopping profit. Ironically that might not be a problem for farmers because they have 2-year and 5-year averaging. But it would be a problem for other sectors.

2. On an ongoing basis, the period between the end of the financial year end and 31 March will be an apportionment of the following financial year as a whole. The following financial year end profits won't be known at 31 March so an estimate will be required. That estimate will be revised to actual apportionment after the following financial year end is finalised. Tax will be re-calculated and interest charged. If the business had 31 December year end and we're talking about 2025-26, we'd use 3 quarters of y/e 31/12/2025 and 1 quarters of y/e 31/12/2026. We would not know the y/e 31/12/2026 profit at 31/03/2026 so would have to use estimates. The y/e 31/12/2026 accounts would be finalised in 2027 so we'd then go back and revise 2025-26. It isn't just the interest that's a problem. If we discover we've significantly under-estimated profits then there'll be the tax itself backdated and payments on account: a big cashflow knock. But if we've estimated there'll be refunds that clients will be asking why we hadn't revised the estimates months earlier. It means that we may have to review and revise estimates several times and that tax won't be finalised until 12 months later than it currently is (in the above example the current years would result in 2025-26 being finalised spring 2026 whereas under the new rules it would not be finalised until spring 2027. That's why I'm struggling to see why HMRC reckons this is better than the existing system. Changing to 31 March would fix this problem, but that's not the solution for businesses in sectors where there are good commercial reasons to use other dates.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Sep 2021 15:26

Do you have to apportion the December accounts ?

Could you use accounts for the quarter ended March ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 15:39

Apportionment forms sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the consultation document. Estimation forms sections 3.10 to 3.13. The consultation document admits in section 2.8 that the current rule is "...more straightforward, as it does not require apportionment." In other words, even though MTD will be reporting actual profit for the period to 31 March, this is ignored for a non-31 March business and instead an apportionment of the following year end is used. That then raises the question: what's the point of the quarterly MTD submission for a non-31 March business? To which I respond, what's the point of MTD full stop.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
03rd Sep 2021 14:15

Like so many HMRC ''initiatives'' , the dumb logic is to propose something new - before the Revenue staff - and the rest of us - can get their heads around the previous debacle.
For Christ's sake Sunak , Norman , Harra put your bloody house in order.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By bluebaron
03rd Sep 2021 16:47

The speed of the MTDfIT rollout -at a faster pace than MTD VAT- is crazy. I've got some clients with turnover of around £18,000, and it's ridiculous that they have to commence MTDfIT in April 2023, the same time as clients with turnover of closer to £100,000. Why can the implementation not be staggered more, to see how it works (I believe MTDfIT will be a car crash) -say turnover £85K in 2023, turnover £50K in 2024, and so on..? HMRC aren't even giving themselves any leeway in this respect. A phased implementation would surely help us all, even the lovely software developers, who may end up being overwhelmed with client queries in spring 2023!

Thanks (1)
Replying to bluebaron:
Morph
By kevinringer
03rd Sep 2021 16:58

All businesses with turnover of less than £85k can submit 3-line P&Ls for SA. The 3-line P&L was a simplification HMRC introduced when SA started 25 years ago. It is crazy that a business that is eligible for 3-line simplification is at the same time required to maintain digital records. I believe the existing £85k threshold should remain in place for MTD VAT and MTD ITSA permanently.

Thanks (5)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By GHarr497688
03rd Sep 2021 17:52

The three line accounts were introduced so that someone with a note book who did a window cleaning round and ran a van could records "in and out" at the bottom of the page they could then total up Income and Expenses and put three lines in.
In the future they pay money to a software company or get free software ( oh yes I bet) then key in all the records everyday and then do the same summary. What the difference is I don't know. Why someone should be forced to use a computer to the same as pen and paper defies any normal logic. With the new system they have to do this every quarter - this adds to time - could prove more costly and (if they can't work the programme ) lead to massive errors - NOT ONE AIM OF MTD IS MET. The more I see Accountants and now even software developers having second thoughts and all the professional bodies condemning the rollout the more worried I am getting that HMRC are not listening. MTD has resulted in my planning for retirement much sooner than I wish and all plans for growing my business where put on hold in 2015 - this is good for no one and will damage the reputation of HMRC.

Thanks (3)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By Geoff56
04th Sep 2021 09:34

"MTD has resulted in my planning for retirement much sooner than I wish"

You're not the only one.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Geoff56:
David Ross
By davidross
05th Sep 2021 09:47

I thought that there would be a sales opportunity to those who freshly need an accountant, now I see that we will be picking up from all the retirees as well!

David Ross
Aged Sixty Four and Three Quarters

Thanks (0)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By djtax
21st Sep 2021 09:27

Sadly HMRC stopped listening to us some years ago - and not just us: they ignored every single recommendation of the House of Lords Economic Select Committee's report in the run up to the introduction of MTD for VAT.

Thanks (0)