Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content
emergency stop
iStock_Antagain_emergency stop

Evidence of high costs could halt MTD

by
4th Nov 2016
Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content

HMRC could go back to the drawing board on MTD, if evidence is provided of significant ongoing costs to taxpayers of Making Tax Digital.

Jim Harra, director of customer strategy and tax design at HMRC was speaking to a packed hall at ICAEW headquarters in London, at the annual Hardman lecture. His wide-ranging talk included MTD. A number of questioners from the floor addressed the issue of costs for taxpayers.

No impact assessment

Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at ACCA asked why there has been little account taken of the level of MTD costs to be borne by the taxpayer.

Harra replied that it was unrealistic for HMRC to do a full impact assessment at this stage in the MTD programme. HMRC does not have the data to enable it to do that. He said that as part of the MTD consultations HMRC has asked tax agents to provide all the information they can on client costs.

Harra acknowledged that there will be transitional costs in time, effort and finance involved in moving to MTD, and said; “I am convinced that when we have made the transition to MTD people will look back and say we had to do it that way.”

Ongoing costs

Tony – a partner in a small practice, outlined how the majority of his 500 clients bring in their accounting records once a year, often in the form of an Excel spreadsheet or even handwritten records. The preparation of their annual accounts costs the client £400 to £500 per year.

Under MTD there will be ongoing cost for clients, because every quarter the processing of clients’ accounting records will have to be repeated. Under MTD, clients will either have to learn to submit own figures, or pay a considerable amount in accountancy fees for quarter reporting, which will easily amount to a four-figure sum in extra costs per year.

Harra replied that HMRC will have to gather the evidence of what MTD will cost businesses. He made the comparison with moving from one PAYE return per year to 12 or more RTI submissions, which has not cost businesses 12 times as much. HMRC wants to make the submission of quarterly updates under MTD as light as possible in terms of the amount of data and computations needed.

Harra acknowledged that there will be ongoing costs for those businesses not already using accounting software, for those who are already using software MTD may reduce their costs in future. He said “we need to get the evidence about the ongoing costs to understand it thoroughly”, and reiterated that the consultation process was the way HMRC is seeking to gather this information.

Drawing board

Robin Summers from a two partner firm, said MTD will lumber small businesses with high recurring costs. According to Mike Cherry from the FSB (in evidence to the Treasury Select committee) these costs would be £2,770 per year, for making five declarations each year to HMRC. Summers wanted to know how these costs would help small businesses.

Harra replied: “You have my commitment that if MTD costs small businesses £2,770 per year I will go back to the drawing board.”

Harra added – there are clearly transitional costs for small businesses changing to keeping their accounting records digitally. Part of the consultation process is to help HMRC understand what those costs are and whether the government needs to be assisting with those costs.

A separate issue is that will MTD, in the longer term, help businesses get their tax right at minimum costs?

Harra hopes that responses to the MTD consultations will provide lots of data in this area.

 

You have three days left to tell HMRC about the ongoing costs for your clients of MTD. Please reply to questions 39 to 44 in the MTD: Bringing business tax into the digital age, outlined in Rebecca Cave’s draft MTD response: Costs and savings

Replies (80)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By jamiea4f
04th Nov 2016 15:32

I dont think HMRC think these ideas through before foisting them on the taxpayer. Withdrawing their CT software has lumbered me with more costs to pass on, not forgetting monthly PAYE online reporting (on time-or else), to ask people to report more regularly is going to be a logistical nightmare, the majority of clients find it hard once a year. Leave it alone.

Thanks (8)
Replying to jamiea4f:
avatar
By carnmores
07th Nov 2016 22:58

Surely your life is better and more productive not using HMRC CT software if you were using taxfiler you would be Quid's in. Apart from this analogy I am happy to agree

Thanks (1)
avatar
By mikefleming3028
04th Nov 2016 15:55

Denmark went down this route years ago would it not be sensible to enquire if information on costs is available from the Danish Authorities. Failing that does not PWC and other international firms of accountants have a significant presence in Denmark and other countries who use a "digital system" similar to that currently proposed by HMRC in which case could they not provide some input on this issue? As for Harra more or less admitting that HMRC have done little or no work in this area I find incredible given that they have been in discussions with software houses and banks for some time all of which are mustard keen on the whole idea of MTD happening at the earliest opportunity, I wonder why this is? If there is one party in this potential shambles who is best placed to be in possession of this information its HMRC. On the subject of business being "digitally aware" the figures quoted by HMRC of traders who currently use some sort of software capable as being compatible with the new Mandatory standards for record keeping are a pure fiction and I for one would be interested to review the evidence first hand. So come on Mr Harra in the interest of openness and in the spirit of cooperation release the evidence on which HMRC base this view. I make this suggestion because a recent review conducted of our clients showed that only 18% were using what could be described as a digital record system. I wonder if other practices have done a similar type of review and if so what were the results?

Thanks (11)
Replying to mikefleming3028:
avatar
By Paul Steward
07th Nov 2016 19:10

I listened to the live webinar on the Finance Bill 2016 put on by Mercia Group on 9 June. Mark Morton, who was speaking, said that in his opinion HMRC's timetable for the implementation of MTD was unrealistic. Mark encouraged practising accountants to make representations to this effect to HMRC. So, I suppose that is what we need to do.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Steward:
avatar
By steve 12321
08th Nov 2016 12:48

and did you respond? We did.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Steward:
avatar
By steve 12321
08th Nov 2016 12:48

and did you respond? We did.

Thanks (0)
By jon_griffey
04th Nov 2016 15:57

"He made the comparison with moving from one PAYE return per year to 12 or more RTI submissions, which has not cost businesses 12 times as much."

What a stupid thing to say. RTI does not cost 12x as much simply because the payroll file was already picked up 12 times a year to process the payroll and RTI is essentially just an additional task tacked on the end of the process.

In other words payroll was processed 12 times a year before RTI and is still processed 12 times a year with RTI. MTD requires the accounts to be processed 4 or 5 times a year compared to 1. That is the difference.

This just goes to show how the decision makers in HMRC have not got a clue about the havoc MTD is going to cause. Jim Harra - you do indeed need to go back to the drawing board.

Thanks (48)
avatar
By TheStuartMiller
04th Nov 2016 16:09

I think Rebecca covered this in her MTD blogs but the whole concept of MTD should be voluntary. If businesses want to upload more information on a quarterly basis, good for them and they should have the facility to do it.

Personally, I think the concept of MTD is a good idea but making it mandatory is a recipe for disaster.

Thanks (13)
Tornado
By Tornado
04th Nov 2016 16:33

It is breathtakingly unbelievable that HMRC are still planning to introduce what is probably the most radical changes in the tax administration system ever in 17 months time, and they know s*d all about how they are going to do it and how it will affect all those involved.

The greatest delusion is -

“I am convinced that when we have made the transition to MTD people will look back and say we had to do it that way.”

Thanks (13)
Replying to Tornado:
James Power profile image
By James Power
07th Nov 2016 11:05

The arrogance....spoken like a true politician.

Thanks (6)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
04th Nov 2016 16:54

Within the consultation documents there was a section dealing with costs/benefits.

What they said was along the lines that small business would SAVE time as a result of reporting 5 times a year

The logic was along the lines that business are right now deliberately making life hard for themselves by refusing to use cloud software

By forcing them to use cloud software, they will make considerable time savings

This estimated time saving was then factored against the billion pound cost of the project as a fictional saving.

Now whilst I would agree for many "proper" business with several employees and a reasonable number of transactions (eg 1000 a year) there is a time saving in using proper bookkeeping vs excel. BUT. BUT and BUT again, this is not HMRC's cost to save. This is HMRC taking credit for the general digitization of the economy. Something that the rational business will be doing anyway, as it saves them money. Whilst some business might do it sooner, for most it will happen anyway, with or without this plan.

Moreover at the smaller end where the business might well have taken a reasonable conclusion that there are no time and costs savings for them, and indeed it may well take EXTRA time to use cloud, for example a landlord with 2 let properties, or a consultant with a handful of sales a year, there is the implicit assumption that the same savings would apply, as might to a large business. This is clearly wrong, but embedded in the documents assumptions. Indeed the only way they can get to the savings predicted, is by assuming the millions of micro businesses, sole traders, landlords etc would be using cloud software and getting benefits. Which is clearly wrong.

Thanks (9)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
04th Nov 2016 16:57

To add, if you "kick out" the main plank of this plan - fake savings for bookkeeping for business by taking credit for the digitization of the economy as a whole.

We can also discount business wanting to "see how much tax they need to pay" given the garbage data being requested so the answer will be no better than guessing and no tax adjustments are posted

We are left with a big question, what is the benefit of MTD and to whom?

Thanks (10)
avatar
By RobertD
05th Nov 2016 08:16

I'd like to see David Gauke questioned on this now the brown stuff is starting to hit the fan. Him and Osborne were the main protagonists of this. Osborne got the chop. Gauke got promoted to Hammond's no 2.
Will MTD save businesses money? No.
Will MTD reduce the tax gap? No.
Will MTD help businesses achieve certainty on their tax? No.
Will MTD reduce errors? No.

Thanks (17)
Replying to RobertD:
Tornado
By Tornado
05th Nov 2016 13:16

I would expand this a bit -

Will MTD save businesses money? No, it will probably cost them more.

Will MTD reduce the tax gap? No it will probably increase it.

Will MTD help businesses achieve certainty on their tax? No, the estimated liability will change each quarter.

Will MTD reduce errors? No, it will probably increase the number and rate of errors.

Heaven help us if Hammond decides to stand down as Gauke may well take his place.

Thanks (15)
avatar
By RobertD
04th Nov 2016 22:11

I see the National Union of Journalists have stated their case against MTD too.
https://www.nuj.org.uk/documents/nuj-response-to-the-hmaking-tax-digital...

Thanks (3)
By cfield
05th Nov 2016 13:48

For Jim Harra to compare MTD with RTI in any way whatsoever just goes to show how little he understands the impact MTD is going to have on the SME community.

RTI is "simply" a way for employers to upload information they already have to the HMRC systems in real time. MTD contemplates the upload of data that still needs to be processed. Hence, it is going to incur further costs in processing that data which will not necessarily be saved further down the line.

Mr Harra says he will go back to the drawing board if MTD costs small businesses £2,770 a year. In truth, it probably won't cost that much. We could probably do the quarterly updates for say £100 a time if we can base them on estimates or instantly available figures. It may not sound much, but for a landlord or sole trader currently paying £400 a year for accounts and tax return, it's double the fee.

We could probably charge a lot less for the year end fee if the quarterly updates are sufficiently robust, but to make them robust will cost a lot more than £100 a time.

Alternatively the client could do the updates themselves, but what a pain it will be. I thought they were meant to be reducing the bureaucratic burden on small business, not increasing it 10 fold.

Thanks (9)
avatar
By RobertD
05th Nov 2016 14:53

In terms of a larger more complex business who has used Excel but will now need software and accountants help, the cost may well be nearer the FSB quoted figures. Especially in larger towns and cities.

David Gauke is a buffoon and hopefully will never become Chancellor. If in doubt see here http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7150674

Thanks (2)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
05th Nov 2016 18:08

Look at the consultation documents carefully and it says that HMRC wont be enquiring into the 4 x quarterly 'returns' - there will only be a penalty for late submission. I say look back to last year, submit 4 estimates based on those figures and then do the final one as usual by the 'new' submission date.
MTD is HMRC's 'dream' that cannot possibly come to fruition as it stands.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/making-tax-digital-hmrc-...
However... as many as possible interest parties need to tell HMRC this. I'm spending tomorrow (late I know) submitting my pearls of wisdom to HMRC.
By the way... it says the deadline is 7 Nov but I spoke to the receiver of the documents at HMRC a few weeks ago and he said that they wont turn any away if submitted after that date but obviously they have to have some date to work to.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By RobertD
06th Nov 2016 06:40

JAADAMS wrote:

Look at the consultation documents carefully and it says that HMRC wont be enquiring into the 4 x quarterly 'returns' - there will only be a penalty for late submission. I say look back to last year, submit 4 estimates based on those figures and then do the final one as usual by the 'new' submission date.
MTD is HMRC's 'dream' that cannot possibly come to fruition as it stands.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/making-tax-digital-hmrc-h...
However... as many as possible interest parties need to tell HMRC this. I'm spending tomorrow (late I know) submitting my pearls of wisdom to HMRC.
By the way... it says the deadline is 7 Nov but I spoke to the receiver of the documents at HMRC a few weeks ago and he said that they wont turn any away if submitted after that date but obviously they have to have some date to work to.

...but will we get a late submission penalty?

:-)

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By Snowstorm
07th Nov 2016 11:59

JAADAMS wrote:

I say look back to last year, submit 4 estimates based on those figures and then do the final one as usual by the 'new' submission date.

Why not just put in all zeros?

Maybe somebody could write an app to do that for us. HMRC will surely approve as they are so keen on making everything digital.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Snowstorm:
avatar
By raju m
07th Nov 2016 16:46

Interesting suggestion about putting zero on all returns.

Raju M

Thanks (2)
Replying to Snowstorm:
avatar
By raju m
07th Nov 2016 16:46

Interesting suggestion about putting zero on all returns.

Raju M

Thanks (1)
Replying to Snowstorm:
avatar
By Dib
07th Nov 2016 17:23

Yes, but if it is making tax digital, the app will need to be able to produce ones as well as well as zeros!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Snowstorm:
Jonathan@Aiteo
By [email protected]
07th Nov 2016 21:25

At a consultation session I attended at HMRC offices, it was suggested that this approach would be considered as a failure to keep proper records.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Account Ant:
By jon_griffey
07th Nov 2016 09:38

Account Ant wrote:

I have looked at what it seems will be involved in terms of additional work for a straight forward sole trader.

At present we speak to them once a year, spend a couple of hours going through basic books, prepare accounts and tax return, and charge £250.

Under MTD we will need to speak to them 4x a year, prepare 3x draft accounts and 1x final accounts. Submit what is effectively 4 tax return. We would not be willing to do this for less than £150 a quarter and £200 for the final quarter - total £650.

Who is going to pay the extra £400. The client shouldn't have to, and HMRC won't, and I am certainly not going to do extra work for free.

The cost to small businesses will be a tripling of their compliance costs.

Don't forget the extra cost of software £30 per month, the cost of a new PC/smartphone plus the massive hidden cost of the client's wasted time in fiddling with apps, speaking to the accountant 5 times a year instead of 1 etc. Factor all this in and the £2,770 figure is not unrealistic.

Thanks (11)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
07th Nov 2016 08:54

Amazing! Someone has told Captain Smith about the iceberg and he's thinking of telling the guys in the boiler room to lay off the coal!

I fully expected the RMS Making Tax Digital to go down with all hands.

Thanks (6)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
07th Nov 2016 09:53

"Harra replied that HMRC will have to gather the evidence of what MTD will cost businesses. He made the comparison with moving from one PAYE return per year to 12 or more RTI submissions, which has not cost businesses 12 times as much. HMRC wants to make the submission of quarterly updates under MTD as light as possible in terms of the amount of data and computations needed."

Well, evidently it would not create 12 times the work being merely a button click add on function to a process already being done-payroll processing each month.

MTD is certainly different for non vat registered clients and even with vat registered clients may well result in additional work (and therefore costs) if the amount of analysis required, to create the required figure,s increases beyond that currently needed to complete a vat return

Has this Mr Harra any conception of preparing accounts, has he ever done it, what is his background?

Or is he a merely an administrator attempting to discuss a subject he does not really understand,;if so maybe a career as a politician would suit him better.

Thanks (7)
By Paul D Utherone
07th Nov 2016 10:24

"Harra ... made the comparison with moving from one PAYE return per year to 12 or more RTI submissions, which has not cost businesses 12 times as much. "

In what crazed mind could this comparison ever be made!?

EDIT Sorry I see this point has been made numerous times in comments. So presumably the answer is 'the mind of someone who has only a tentative grasp on reality'

Thanks (5)
7om
By Tom 7000
07th Nov 2016 11:20

Account Ant wrote:

I have looked at what it seems will be involved in terms of additional work for a straight forward sole trader.

At present we speak to them once a year, spend a couple of hours going through basic books, prepare accounts and tax return, and charge £250.

Under MTD we will need to speak to them 4x a year, prepare 3x draft accounts and 1x final accounts. Submit what is effectively 4 tax return. We would not be willing to do this for less than £150 a quarter and £200 for the final quarter - total £650.

Who is going to pay the extra £400. The client shouldn't have to, and HMRC won't, and I am certainly not going to do extra work for free.

The cost to small businesses will be a tripling of their compliance costs.

Don't forget the extra cost of software £30 per month, the cost of a new PC/smartphone plus the massive hidden cost of the client's wasted time in fiddling with apps, speaking to the accountant 5 times a year instead of 1 etc. Factor all this in and the £2,770 figure is not unrealistic.

..........................................................................................
650+360 = 1110 not 2770
so its not going to be withdrawn.
Also I would put my fees up a bit if I were you

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
07th Nov 2016 11:23

Also its not as complicated as Brexit and all the accountancy fees go up....so why are you so against it?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
07th Nov 2016 11:36

I don't think HMRC have any clue what 'micro' businesses do, given they tend to employ consultants from multi national firms who are equally clueless about 'micro' businesses, and then try and impose these additional burdens on all businesses.

Most of my clients don't want to use software and have no interest in learning how to use it, and have zero interest in changing. They won't do it.

It's this simple fact that HMRC seem to completely ignore.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
avatar
By RobertD
07th Nov 2016 11:59

Ian McTernan CTA wrote:

I don't think HMRC have any clue what 'micro' businesses do, given they tend to employ consultants from multi national firms who are equally clueless about 'micro' businesses, and then try and impose these additional burdens on all businesses.

Most of my clients don't want to use software and have no interest in learning how to use it, and have zero interest in changing. They won't do it.

It's this simple fact that HMRC seem to completely ignore.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Thanks (4)
avatar
By leon0001
07th Nov 2016 11:53

I still don't understand how the maximum turnover and rent aggregate limit for annual tax accounting will be £10,000 when the equivalent for annual VAT returns is £1,350.000.

Thanks (0)
Replying to leon0001:
avatar
By raju m
07th Nov 2016 16:56

HMRC basically wants all businesses to be sucked in the new frequent reporting and later frequent tax payments.

Raju m

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
07th Nov 2016 12:00

A few critical aspects missed by the great Gods HMRC and their idiot cheerleader, Harra:

1. The cost of training, to teach SMEs, particularly Class Size Zero (One man bands and max 2 employees) how to use accounting software:

2. To teach them the subtle difference between Revenue and Capital Expenditure:

3. To teach them the total on a credit card statement is not an "Expense" to simply be entered en masse!

4. Since all SMEs in the lower to middle echelons (and many of the top are constantly engaged in Fire Fighting, end SMEs too!), where is the extra time coming from?

Conclusion: they, invariably functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate too, will simply continue to bring along their paper bags or Tesco boxes and expect us to do the rest. Slight problem: it is hard enough to persuade them to bring their records in on a timely basis already just once per year: four times a year and no queries? In your bloody dreams!

Do HMRC expect the majority of SMP accountants to simply absorb some of the costs (time; extra expenditure on dedicated simple accounting systems etc) and the staff training costs and time; plus the extra professional time?

Well, no way I will; I can see a period of client-churning (with all the attendant problems this causes) ahead; as clients trawl accountants seeking cheaper fee deals.

Sure thing a majority of clients will whine constantly over their "new improved" fees...

Plus, can they really afford extra non-productive costs at this time in the economic cycle? No way!

Final comment: with sprawling bureaucratic empires such as HMRC and the top ten practices, if ten members of staff are away, on training courses, general jollies, maternity/paternity/sick/holiday leave etc, then that is a tiny percentage of their total headcount.

If an SME has the proprietor and two staff and ONE, just one member of staff is away, then that is 33.3% of the total workforce!

These bureaucrat clowns, living in their cosy little cloud, clearly haven't a wee clue about reality and what it really takes to earn a buck and what's more, put food on their family's table week in week out. Not surprisingly, really, as their wages automatically pop into their bank accounts month on month and at the end, they enjoy a gold plated pension which is far superior to the public sector offerings.

No wonder this damned country is now in such a bloody mess!

Thanks (12)
Replying to Michael C Feltham:
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
07th Nov 2016 14:07

Apologies: Busy and forget to add:

Another problem with these clowns in their myopic closets is broadband. They, comfortable ensconced in nice warm offices and chauffeur driven cars and massive fibre-optic data "Pipes" assume, everyone - including farmers in remote areas - has access to reliable DSL; as they have.

Well, news for you Great Gods; they damned don't! Living in a town of in excess 200,000 population, I do not. I wish I did; I also wish my ISP's ADSL connection hit their advertised speeds, even some of the time.

As always, the Devil is in the detail...

Thanks (2)
Replying to Michael C Feltham:
avatar
By raju m
07th Nov 2016 17:08

Well put Michael. Most accountants are thinking like you.

Raju M

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ammie
07th Nov 2016 12:06

I am not at all surprised that the matter has already "sprung a leak".
Not untypically an ill thought out matter.
Over the last 20+ odd years HMRC have developed a taste for passing their work load to the tax payer with a threat to comply. It has not made it proportionally more efficient but saved them a considerble amount of money in the process. HMRC are and have been clearly struggling to manage their role even with the vast amount of delegated work. They do not really have a plan to resolve the problem.
MTD is another step with the same result.
The prinicple of MTD is positive, its execution is a long way off practical.
Another indication of how out of touch our governors are with society.
More cracks and "U" turns to come I am sure.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Peter-S
07th Nov 2016 12:07

"HMRC wants to make the submission of quarterly updates under MTD as light as possible in terms of the amount of data and computations needed."

So basically they will be meaningless to the tax payer and meaningless to HMRC. So why bother?

Thanks (6)
Replying to Peter-S:
Tornado
By Tornado
07th Nov 2016 17:29

Light now but extremely heavy later. Start slow, even if meaningless and then once hooked, there is no escape.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By patricia caputo
07th Nov 2016 12:16

Has it occurred to HMRC that when clients submit their paperwork quarterly they will probably be able to produce all their receipts and invoices instead of losing half of them and therefore we will be able to claim more in business expenses giving a lower tax bill?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By SWJWBA
07th Nov 2016 12:22

By the way -
POINT 1 --if clients are required to submit within 9 months of the end of their ACCOUNTING period then with a 30th April 2018 (or 2019) year end then the accounts and tax submissions have to be made by 31 January 2019(or 2020) a whole 2 months before the end of the tax year! Ludicrous.
POINT 2-- if it changes to 9 months from end of tax year then everything has to be in by 5th January 2019 (or 2020). Now guess what most tax agents and clients will be doing for the previous 2-3 weeks! So we will shut down on 20th December and not reopen until 6th January because there is no way you will stop me and my staff having a good stress free Christmas and New year. I know other people have to work these times BUT!!!
Now we have a situation where everything has to be done in 3-4 weeks less time than currently is the case-this is a practical problem to be overcome as is the now reduced workload not from February to end April but now from January! Anyone got a magic wand to find new clients to fit in when we are not as busy?

Thanks (2)
By mydoghasfleas
07th Nov 2016 12:48

I was under the impression MTD was rolling out from next year. Now we hear what we always believed, HMRC has no idea what it is rolling out so cannot work out what it will cost the taxpayer to comply. How can we work out what it will cost a client if HMRC does not know it wants our client to do. Kafka lives and is currently working with Jim Harra.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By PK Busness Services
07th Nov 2016 13:19

MTD has nothing to do with saving clients money (my clients will be charged more from april 2018) its all about UNIVERSAL CREDIT they want the updates for this
untill they tweek their systems then they will want quarterly payments no doubt
Personally I think the profession should BOYCOTT the entire concept after all its guaranteed that the profession will end up holding this baby and HMRC / HM Govt will take the credit for our work

Thanks (1)
Replying to PK Busness Services:
Tornado
By Tornado
07th Nov 2016 17:33

I am not sure that a BOYCOTT is necessary. The proposals are so ridiculous that probably a large proportion of Agents and the HMRC customers will not be able to comply, even if they wanted to.

Might as well try to get a pig to fly, the result would be the same.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By David Gordon FCCA
07th Nov 2016 13:29

The Big Lie is that "Clients' already use digital software"
In my small practice it is almost twelve years since I had a client capable of producing an agreed trial balance.
My clients range in turnover between 30k & £500k. Only one small company does its own payroll. The rest rely on my practice. Based on the cost of maintaining RTI/CIS/PAYE, I have calculated that the cost of implementing this MTD will be equivalent to approximately a 2% increase in the tax rate.
Not least because irrespective of the level of business activity the base cost of the software including annual upkeep is a fixed charge.

The least I could estimate for this was an average of £300 per client, plus VAT. That is just the annual software cost. Excluding any installation, learning, fee charges and excluding my charging any profit add-on in the exercise.

The whole thing is a nightmare.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By ohgoodgodno
07th Nov 2016 14:19

having been on one of HMRC's consultation seminar's its clear they don't understand small business or how MTD will affect them

the reason an electrician doesn't do his own accounts is the same as the reason i don't try and rewire my house - they don't know what the end result should be

HMRC seem to think having an app will suddenly make it all clear, it wont. it will only increase errors, not reduce them

Thanks (7)
avatar
By HLB
07th Nov 2016 14:35

A major aim is that taxpayers will be able to see from their Digital Account what their tax bill is likely to be as they go along. Firstly the figure will be nonsense unless quarterly figures are properly prepared and secondly, will they bother to look?

Thanks (2)
Replying to HLB:
Tornado
By Tornado
07th Nov 2016 17:37

I set up my own Digital Tax Account last week just to see what I could see. I was a bit surprised to find that there was nothing there at all related to my taxes (unless you count Tax Credits and Pension projections). Review my taxes and payments, no chance, so I will not be looking at that again for a long time.

Good job I had not encouraged my clients to set up their own accounts.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
07th Nov 2016 14:50

I suggest Harra dips into petty cash and take the MTD team out to the see '' I Daniel Blake ''.

Thanks (1)

Pages