Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Directional arrows | AccountingWEB | Guidance sheds light on developers' MTD reluctance
istock_direction_fotogestoeber

Guidance sheds light on developers' MTD IT reluctance

by

Amy Chin looks at why some developers are reluctant to take part in the MTD IT private beta.

10th May 2024
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The long-awaited MTD IT private beta was launched last week with a surprisingly short list of software providers agreeing to take part.

However, new guidance for those involved in the pilot sheds some light on the reason some developers are reluctant to take part at this stage.

Stress-test

Taxpayers who sign up to voluntarily stress-test the MTD IT infrastructure in 2024-25 are required to agree to the new penalties regime, will not be able to change their accounting period (which must align to the tax year) or accounting method, and cannot claim carry back of losses.

In exchange, they are invited to migrate to MTD early.

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 (52)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By JustAnotherUser
10th May 2024 12:24

"...The original pilot was to run for 12 months and have 400,000 volunteers..."

Now that is a stress test, what is this new stress test achieving, stressing the participants ?

If you stress test it and its broke, you get a fine?

"...pilot numbers were restricted in January 2022, when they fell to just nine..."

Thanks (9)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
10th May 2024 12:36

HMRC punishing the volunteers that also need to increase their costs of compliance to help HMRC in testing their elephant sized nutcracker really was insane.
It can only test the most simple arrangements. The test is worthless.

Thanks (16)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By FactChecker
10th May 2024 18:44

"The test is worthless" ... no it's not, HMRC have introduced the concept of 'worse than worthless' where it has set out to be deliberately misleading.

"That the quarterly updates are not cumulative is a bigger issue for taxpayers who have signed up for the beta" ... but an even bigger issue for *everyone else*, who will be told that QUs have been 'tested successfully' (or so HMRC hopes) - when the truth will be that they've not been tested at all!
It's like telling everyone that you're going to test a new vaccine .. then giving them injections of distilled water ... and announcing afterwards the success of the trial (no side effects), whilst blaming changes in the virus (aka MTD spec) for any 'unfortunate deaths' downstream.

Thanks (16)
Tornado
By Tornado
10th May 2024 13:23

"The long-awaited MTD IT private beta was launched last week with a surprisingly short list of software providers agreeing to take part."

Where have you been Amy!

To many of us,the list is surprisingly long!

Thanks (19)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
10th May 2024 13:29

+1
Developers have wasted years on this vanity project, getting nothing back from HMRC other than numerous changes.
If it ever gets sorted then bridging software based on spreadsheets is the answer that I will be looking for until the system has been debugged and has a proven track record.

Thanks (19)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
15th May 2024 10:13

Paul Crowley wrote:

If it ever gets sorted then bridging software based on spreadsheets is the answer that I will be looking for until the system has been debugged and has a proven track record.

I'm no longer working on this at all, I'm "out of scope" due to joint property income (only). I might resurrect some of my work if I ever look likely to get caught.

But my basic idea was to scrape the docs (not very reliable, HMRC make lots of "prettifying" changes so this requires constant maintenance even when there are no API changes - IIRC I did ask them to provide a machine readable description of the API in one of my replies to their requests for comments) from that generate a shim that does such validation as is possible based on the docs and submit to hmrc, and then a spreadsheet that talks to the shim. It can both query the shim as to what data needs to be submitted and submit values for that data. The end user is responsible for getting the right values into the right boxes.

Now, when an API changes, in theory, the only changes needed are to the population of the spreadsheet.

It also makes me smile that I did comment (I don't recall if it was here or to HMRC directly) about the problem of legislative change that need changes to the API prior to the start of the tax year. Every single app needs updating at the whim of a politician - for something that might be reversed 3 months into the year.

One thing I said to HMRC what that there had to be a standard interchange format to download all the data from one app and upload it to another app. The first time there's a big legislative change at least some cloud providers will pass on keeping up. All records will then be lost.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tornado:
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 09:51

Amy, the MTD ITSA pilot started 7 years ago in 2017. See https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tech/practice-software/mtd-pilot-offers-....

Thanks (3)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th May 2024 11:29

That pilot crashed because nobody was paying attention when the pilot cried for help.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By DMBAcc
13th May 2024 16:38

I really think we should be allowed to put emojis on here. I think Gilbert and Sullivan would have a field day with this subject.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DMBAcc:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th May 2024 16:55

"He is the very model of the modern HM Revenue
Arrogant, incompetent and looking down his nose at you
When things go wrong he tells us that its all OK and nowt for him to answer to
That very soppy idiot at the modern HM Revenue"

Thanks (6)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
10th May 2024 15:48

Good to see a representative of the professional bodies holding HMRC to task. Oh wait, Caroline Miskin appears to have wholly fallen for the HMRC hype. Testing a system based on outdated rules and ignoring most of the taxpaying public is farcical, not "agile systems development".

Is this actually an HMRC press release instead? Sentences like

Quote:
“The APIs will continue to be updated right up to and after mandation.
show a distinct lack of review and editing. Do any of the words after "updated" provide any additional information?
Thanks (16)
Replying to stepurhan:
Tornado
By Tornado
10th May 2024 16:07

I have not been particularly impressed with the HMRC use of 'Agile Systems Development' so far.

It looks to me very much like FRAGILE Systems Development.

Thanks (14)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By BrianL
13th May 2024 09:54

Agile is known not to be good for large projects, long development times, and in large organisations. MTD in HMRC seems to match each of these.

Thanks (3)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By BryanS1958
13th May 2024 10:13

The first thing the professional bodies should have done is told HMRC that HMRC ITSA is a really bad idea.

The second thing they should have done is to bang home this point at every opportunity. Even a dinosaur like HMRC may eventually cotton on.

Instead, all the professional bodies want to do is collude with HMRC and pretending that MTD ITSA is somehow sensible.

I guess there must be a knighthood floating around somewhere....

Thanks (13)
avatar
By AdamJones82
10th May 2024 17:39

This was announced when George Osborne was Chancellor and Cameron PM and STILL no nearer to starting. And we submit VAT returns via different portal. High 5!!!’

Stop wasting a fortune on this dodo

Thanks (21)
avatar
By johnthegood
11th May 2024 05:48

The very fact that they have only just recently realised that the updates need to be cumulative is staggering. Surely to anyone who has ever had any involvement in accounting systems this is one of the most fundamental things, VAT returns for example have been picking up on previous quarter amendments for years.

I remember a while back a fairly well known practice owner and lecturer saying on here that she dedicated a day a week to HMRC for MTD, and yet in all these years of meetings and consultations no one thought to mention it? More likely it was mentioned but HMRC ignored it.

They are making it up as they go along, why would any software company trust them?

Thanks (14)
Replying to johnthegood:
avatar
By Open all hours
12th May 2024 18:35

Stockholm syndrome. It’s a thing.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Rob Swan
11th May 2024 11:28

You wouldn't drive a truck while the development engineers are still working on the, (currently incomplete and unfinished ), chasis, suspension, brakes, steering, etc.... of the very truck you're driving... Or would you?
'Agile' development.... does not have a good reputation for (software) quality.
'Live' testing on a system which is functionally incomplete and doesn't even do the right thing. WHAT!!? (When it does do the 'right thing' it won't be the same software.)

This has "Disaster!" written all over it and - very obviously - plenty of other people feel the same way. Taxpayer money wastage; tax system chaos looming; disgracefully bad and incompetent management.... Yup, definitely HMRC and Govt. IT doing their best!

Get it right, test it, THEN release it. Not a popular approach these days, but... hey-ho... what do I know? Silly old me :P

Thanks (17)
Replying to Rob Swan:
avatar
By FactChecker
13th May 2024 12:56

I was in a meeting (in 100 Whitehall) when they brought in the consultants to explain all about the wonders of 'agile' ... or at least I was for about 5 minutes before being ejected.
There seemed to be some sensitivity to me pointing out the total unsuitability of 'agile' for anything other than rapid prototyping (after 'user requirements' agreed but before 'technical specification') ... and even then only for basic 'user experience' aspects (or look'n'feel plus navigation as it used to be called).

But the foundational structure (of both the user interface and the HMRC back-ends) needs to be specified and robustly tested before the idea of a pilot is mentioned.
At the moment it's not just how the software we see/use that isn't fully specified, nor is what HMRC will do with the data (in terms of validations, processes, data flows to other systems, error handling, and more much more).

At the moment, whilst we bicker about how difficult it is to drive our lorry down the narrow entrance streets to HMRC's garage (and the stupid way that you are only allowed to do this on certain days, etc) ... no-one has noticed the garage-doors are just painted on a brick-wall, so the first arrival is in for a nasty shock!

Thanks (9)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 14:36

I love it when the consultants are... (doing their thing)!
Grand and impossible goals... Fashionable corporate gobbledygook, seasoned with the latest shiny new things.... And a huge but grossly underestimated price....
Emperors new clothes! Every time!!
As you say FactChecker: If you dare to call out the BS, you don't last long :(

Thanks (3)
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 09:48

"Taxpayers who sign up to voluntarily stress-test the MTD IT infrastructure in 2024-25 are required to agree to the new penalties regime, will not be able to change their accounting period (which must align to the tax year) or accounting method, and cannot claim carry back of losses.
In exchange, they are invited to migrate to MTD early."

What an offer; in exchange for taking on all the hassle of MTD the victim is prevented from carrying back losses. Of course they might not expect losses, but losses can still happen. Who in January 2020 expected to be impacted by losses over the next 12 months?

In 2017 Theresa Middleton made a similar tempting offer for the MTD pilot, but without the added benefit of being unable to carry back losses. See https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tech/practice-software/mtd-pilot-offers-....

MTD is unique in that HMRC has already piloted the pilot, yet HMRC seems to have learned nothing from the first pilot.

Thanks (6)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 10:02

The first pilot ejected over enemy territory and, as yet, has not been found; presumed 'missing in action'. Hence the lack of learning methinks :P

Sorry. Just coundn't help myself :(
I'll see myself out....

Thanks (6)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By FactChecker
13th May 2024 12:42

"MTD is unique in that HMRC has already piloted the pilot, yet HMRC seems to have learned nothing from the first pilot."

It's rumoured that the first pilot is still trying to get in touch with HMRC's helpline ... he did get through once, but they just laughed when he said "Hi I'm the pilot for MTD ITSA .." and cut the connection!

Thanks (6)
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 09:54

I'm curious; does anyone know if anyone who signed up for the MTD ITSA pilot in 2017 is still in the pilot?

Thanks (4)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 10:07

Would be funny :D
That's a 7 year trial! Surely it got 'cancelled' somewhere, somehow? Even though HMRC insist MTD ITSA is still 'on the rails'!
Maybe they got lost in the 'Interwebs' somewhere between a browser and an HMRC portal.
But would you ''fess up' to it?

Thanks (3)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th May 2024 11:46

I was on a course in Bristol when one delegate proudly announced that she had volunteered for the pilot.
Even the lecturer was surprised, not having met a volunteer before on any prior courses.
She got a bit annoyed as she thought that people would be impressed. Nobody was.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 12:56

Who signs up to be a crash test dummy!?

Thanks (5)
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 10:04

“Although this is not clearly spelled out in the new guidance for those in the pilot, the standard update periods are shown as fixed quarters: 6 April to 5 July; 6 July to 5 October, etc. (rather than 6 April to 5 July, 6 April to 5 October, which is what they should be if they were cumulative).”

Later:

“Caroline Miskin, ICAEW senior technical manager, digital taxation, noted that adding new functionality in stages is a “normal feature of agile systems development”.”

When I attended a HMRC MTD meeting in Manchester in 2016, HMRC said agile technology can update software in days and that issues would be addressed very quickly. The change to cumulative updates was announced last year. The fact that the pilot has been launched with out of date spec shows how unagile HMRC’s agility is.

Thanks (6)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 10:11

That's why 'Agile' development is definitely NOT the right approach. Updating software in "two days" (or whatever) means it's been rushed! Agile has a terrible record for - dare I say it? - 'quality', for exactly this reason..

Thanks (4)
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 10:11

HMRC’s pilot seems to be focusing on MTD ITSA from an API point of view, but the APIs only deal with the transfer of data between the software and HMRC. That’s all that HMRC are interested in. The big problems with MTD are not the APIs (because they have to work 100% and it’s HMRC’s job to make that happen) but with the massive amount of work required to digitise transactions CORRECTLY. I’m not talking about software rules because I have seen far too many massive mistakes (eg software claiming VAT on VAT payments to HMRC). HMRC needs to understand that software has no intelligence built into it and that the typical small business owner is not a bookkeeper so is unlikely to be able to record everything accurately and completely without having to spend a massive amount of time, yet the small business owner gets nothing from it (because anyone who would benefit from digitisation would have done it already).

Thanks (11)
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 10:18

Quarterly updates; HMRC still hasn’t got it. The vast majority of my MTD VAT clients use DIY spreadsheets. When they encounter a transaction that has been omitted from a previous VAT return, they simply put it in the spreadsheet they are currently working on. For example, I’m working on a set of accounts for a 30 September 2023 year end and spotted something that should have gone in the 1222 VAT return. I’ve told the client and they’ve put it in the spreadsheet for the current quarter’s VAT being 0624. That is how it should be done for MTD VAT. But can Emma or Amy answer how that same spreadsheet should handle the transaction for MTD ITSA (I’m assuming that the client is permitted to have just one spreadsheet which will be used for both MTD VAT and MTD ITSA).

Another problem. VAT is a transactional tax so all my clients start a new spreadsheet for each VAT quarter. But MTD ITSA will be cumulative. So how does a client have separate spreadsheets for each MTD VAT quarter but cumulative for MTD ITSA quarters?

Thanks (5)
avatar
By JohnB
13th May 2024 10:38

I like the choice of words '...given the energy that HMRC is putting int0 promoting the pilot'. That makes so much more sense than a word like 'intelligence'.
And I can't see anyone accusing them of trying to make any changes quickly so the Oil Tanker analogy is accurate, if possibly a little too swift moving. My goodness, is it 9 years since it was first announced.
Can't see many of the volunteers being too put out by the possibility of having to file twice as many returns if they miss a transaction. I assume that if you're happy with filing 5 tax returns a year instead of 1, you're hardly likely to object to 9 or 10.
Six months ago this botched project had cost £640,000,000 and had somewhat undershot its already modest target to pilot the programme with 15,500 people, instead attracting a modest 137 lemmings. Be reasonable - anyone's figures can be out by just over 99%.
It has also started to appear that instead of reducing costs to business as was alleged to be its original aim, producing and submitting an extra 4 (or more) tax returns a year might actually increase costs to business. To be fair, who could have predicted that?

Thanks (4)
Replying to JohnB:
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 10:57

Picking up on John's point about costs. A client has just been in touch. He's been using Sage (desktop) for 20+ years. He bought the original software for less than £100 and incurred no further cost until MTD VAT started when he felt compelled to upgrade Sage just to file his MTD VAT. At the time Sage were charging £15 a month. Sage's subscription charges have been steadily increasing and has just gone up to £84+VAT a month. So the client is now paying almost as much a month as it cost for the entire 20 years he was using the software before MTD VAT started. Sage has really milked MTD and increased my client's costs by £1,008 a year. It would have been cheaper for the client not to upgraded their Sage and instead kept the old version and got some bridging software instead. The client could switch software but it's a hassle and it's taken them literally decades to get their head around Sage and they haven't got the time to start learning new software. This is just the cost of the software, not the cost of the client's time and my time dealing with MTD which will make the cost to the client of complying with MTD even larger. And HMRC had tried to argue that the cost to businesses of complying with MTD will be lower than non-MTD. That just proves how far removed from the real world HMRC are.

Thanks (8)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
13th May 2024 11:29

You're being a bit generous to HMRC with your criticism there. Why not instead call it what it is i.e. outright lies?

It's no different to how HMRC have dealt with the 2019 LC scandal cover-up. See this for example:

"Jim Harra’s response to specific questions asked by the Committee about the Loan Charge, is – at least in part – a masterpiece in “yes Minister”-style obfuscation and half-truth. Specifically, the answers to questions 2 – 5 give only a partial picture of how disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes were established and operated in the decade or more before 2010."

https://davidpett.tax/

Thanks (3)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
13th May 2024 12:04

Give it a rest, Justin. Of no relevance whatsoever to the article

Thanks (6)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By JohnB
13th May 2024 11:36

Great comment.

Thanks (2)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By sodge2000
15th May 2024 19:19

As a small business I use Sage 50 which I bought outright for £700 pounds. When MTD for VAT came in I was told by Sage I would have to upgrade my package at a charge of £96 per month to cope with MTD. I now have to use bridging software at a cost of £9.50 a quarter.
I still do not understand what extra data HMRC gains from submitting a return through MTD as to what data if got from submitting a return directly to their website as before.

Thanks (1)
Replying to sodge2000:
Morph
By kevinringer
16th May 2024 09:30

HMRC receives no extra data from and MTD VAT return compared to non-MTD VAT returns. The difference is MTD requires digital record keeping and digital links to the VAT return because HMRC is convinced that too many mistakes were being made pre-MTD and that digitisation would eliminate those mistakes and close the tax gap. So HMRC doesn't gain any extra data, they gain what they think is assurance the VAT returns are more accurate.

Returning to Sage, it was possible to submit a VAT return from Sage direct to HMRC pre-MTD, and it wasn't necessary to have a subscription version of Sage (several clients used this feature). So for Sage users who submitted via the software, all MTD has done has introduced a slightly different series of clicks in the software, but a massive increase in the cost of Sage. And HMRC gained nothing at all because those versions of Sage already had digital links between the digital transactions and the digital VAT return. So Sage is much better off, the business is worse off, and HMRC is no different.

Thanks (1)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Rob Swan
18th May 2024 11:01

HMRC does collect addional data throught MTD, but not so that you'd know....

Every time any person or system has an interaction with MTD, HMRC gather a whole 'pile' of data about the software and internet connection you use to make the interaction. They claim this is for fraud/securoty detection but... ? (you know....) Big Brother likes MTD.

Thanks (0)
Replying to JohnB:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th May 2024 12:15

"Six months ago this botched project had cost £640,000,000 and had somewhat undershot its already modest target to pilot the programme with 15,500 people"

Looking back over AWEB of the past 7 years or so, there was an initial Budget for the MTD project of 1,200 Million Pounds with later reports that the project had already gone 1,000 MIllion Pounds over Budget. I think the real cost of this Project will probably be between 2,200 Million Pounds and 3,000 Million Pounds by now. I have no particular desire to spend weeks trying to get to a more accurate figure as HMRC always seem to move the criteria for reporting costs, but it is no wonder that the project keeps limping along when there is a bottomless pit of money to pay many, many, people who are still promoting this dead project but are getting paid well for it. Why would they want to do anything else other than continue to promote this as a successful project.

The Government should do us a favour and kill this project once and for all TODAY!

Thanks (6)
Replying to Tornado:
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 12:27

MTD is the HS2 of the tax world, except I can't see any conceivable benefit to MTD (because everyone who would benefit from digitisation has already done so).

Thanks (6)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 12:36

Not sure there's any benefit - to anyone except the contractors - from HS2 either! Same goes for MTD, only the accounting software vendors ALSO wasting money chasing this huge pink elephant!

Thanks (2)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
13th May 2024 11:07

Surely sane developers are reluctant to spend time and money on a dead project with little if any chance of success.

Its one hell of a punt to put time and money into this.

Whilst its clearly not my field, I dont htink its actually that complex to design the interface between existing accounting software and plopping a few numbers into HMRC's servers once there is a final spec. Stress on the "once". Clearly the current spec is garbage so development time would be largely wasted.

Thanks (3)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Morph
By kevinringer
13th May 2024 11:25

I agree. Regarding sane developers, I spoke to one last year who'd thrown in the towel regarding MTD ITSA because he was fed up with HMRC failing to communicate with developers and taking an age then making sudden changes with no notice.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 14:48

The HMRC interface is not 'trivial'.
If you've already invested in integrating with HMRC (for that the particular interface) , modifications may be 'trivial', but there's no guarantee. They may also require significant modifications to your own software (eg. if it doesn't currently produce the required figure). Every change (by HMRC) can mean tearing down the work done for the 'previous' version and rebuilding for the new one. (That's how bugs happen!) Why bother when the spec. isn't even close to final, changes constantly and any savvy developer can see this thing just isn't going to fly? Ever!!

Thanks (2)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
13th May 2024 11:57

Excellent comments everyone.

May I just pick up on one or two points in Amy's article:
"From 2026/27, when the first users will be mandated to join MTD IT"... should that not be 'may be mandated'? :-)

>. who thinks Making Tax Disaster will be deferred (again?)?

No one here is surprised at the lack of takeup by software houses. This pet project of HMRC has and will cost all software providers a lot of money upfront at a time when everyone is struggling.

What will be interesting is how far any of them have gone already.. perhaps we will be told at Accountex.

Also:
"Taxpayers who sign up to voluntarily stress-test the MTD IT infrastructure in 2024-25 are required to agree to the new penalties regime, will not be able to change their accounting period (which must align to the tax year) or accounting method, and cannot claim carry back of losses".

In other words HMRC's computer bods havent got round to looking at such basic problems yet.

Thanks (6)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By Rob Swan
13th May 2024 12:49

MTD - always good for 'engagement'!

Jennifer says: "who thinks Making Tax Disaster will be deferred (again?)?"

Does anyone (in the profession) actually think it won't be cancelled before it become mandatory?
_or_
If it isn't cancelled it will somehow self-destruct (due to incompetence etc.) before it's abandoned.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jennifer Adams:
avatar
By djtax
14th May 2024 12:23

'From 2026/27, when the first users will be mandated to join MTD IT'

When HMRC announced 'mandation' for the then proposed new VAT MTD system a few years ago, they backed down (one day!) before the deadline for the first VAT quarter affected. Their 'compromise' was to allow businesses to continue using the old VAT system - which many then did do so for several years until that system was eventually switched off only quite recently.
We know the existing SA system will continue to exist (if only for the genuinely digitally excluded and the sub £30K taxpayers). What's the bet that loads of MTD IT 'mandated' taxpayers will get away with simply carrying on using the old SA system - just like what then happened with the so called 'mandation' of VAT MTD.

Thanks (2)
Replying to djtax:
Morph
By kevinringer
15th May 2024 09:40

And that's not to mention the businesses who still use their old system and simply input the VAT return totals direct into bridging software and file with HMRC; HMRC being oblivious that the return is not MTD compliant. I am aware of a number of accountants who are doing this too. I was speaking to one recently who still has manual records. Having said that, given the mess some small business owners make of the VAT records (understandable because they're not trained bookkeepers), at least those manual records are accurate. It seems HMRC prefers digital rubbish to manual accuracy.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By GHarr497688
13th May 2024 12:37

reading the articles it's hard to imagine what HMRC are thinking.

Thanks (3)

Pages